IMHO the biggest problem we face is... by SignyM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I would have said global warming. But I can go with over-population, or over-use of resources. The reason why I say that is b/c the 'West' - but especially the US - uses far more resources per person that anyone else. You could have a large environmental impact by getting rid a small number of the right people.

I was thinking about 'life' the other day - how precarious it is. Every species lives on the brink, since numbers expand to some limiting factor (not always food). For example, orcas live on the edge of food resources. Penguins live on the edge of cold-adaptation. Cheetahs live on the edge of genetic homogeneity. And so on. (Someone pointed that out to me, I can't remember who.)

What humanity has done is harness energy above and beyond muscle power. That includes fire, levers and other tools, animals, and fossil fuel. So humans have expanded beyond their original limiting factors of physical frailty and low reproductive rate, and are bumping up against other limiting factors - global carrying capacity.

Are humans like other animals and biologically programmed to expand to the limiting factors in their environment?

My sense is no - look at the 'demographic transition' - which is the natural reduction of reproduction after a transition to a higher quality of life. (I haven't read anywhere why it happens. It seems to be a mystery.)

Due to technology, individual survival should never be in question. That so many are dying from lack of resources is because of the current paradigm - grab as much as you can, even if you will never use it. Humanity needs another paradigm, one which takes into account individual physical survival can be guaranteed - as long as everyone limits themselves to what they need, what they will use.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 8:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Humanity needs another paradigm, one which takes into account individual physical survival can be guaranteed - as long as everyone limits themselves to what they need, what they will use.

Which relates to the "Its Disgusting, It Really Is" thread.

THAT thread points out a couple of fundamentally screwy with our current paradigms.

The first is that anyone could somehow "earn" enough to be super-wealthy. I don't care if you're next-to-god on earth... you can be the most brilliant politician, entertainer, or engineer and your individual contribution will *NEVER* be worth 50 billion. The only way to "make" that money is to steal it. Which our system legalizes and promotes as some sort of viable basis.

The other is that the folks who have so much feel compelled to consume their wealth in such frivolous ways. The best thing they can think of is to buy YACHTS??? Man, if I had $100 million I could think of a lot more fun and creative ways to play with my money!!! These people, as rich as they are, are as entranced/ stupefied in our system of wealth and consumption as the lowliest peon. But that's what our society pushes- happiness through massive consumption.

It makes my head hurt just to think about it!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 9:02 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Instead of a mule and 40 acres.

How bout a firefly and a small moon ?

I want off this damn rock anyway, gimme the means and opportunity to leave it in my dust and I'll be first in line.

Btw - that speech by Agent Smith? - one of the top ten ALL TIME monologues, I gave it a standing-O when I first heard it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 9:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I understand the sentiment !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 9:10 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
if I had $100 million I could think of a lot more fun and creative ways to play with my money!!! These people, as rich as they are, are as entranced/ stupefied in our system of wealth and consumption as the lowliest peon.

.... interesting observation. I'll need to cogitate on that, but it seems true to me at this point.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 9:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Which just goes to show that wealth can't buy brains.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 10:21 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Hey, this isn't fun if we all agree!

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 10:27 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

OK, I'm game. I got a bunch of meetings to go to today and tomorrow, but here's my contra -

If it wasn't for technology and capitalism concentrating resources, we wouldn't be living as well as we do. We'd still be carrying fire from place to place, grubbing whatever food we could find and always at the day-to-day mercy of the environment. Technology and capitalism are good things.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 10:31 AM

AGENTROUKA

Of course they are!

We're just too naturally selfish and undisciplined to use these things in ways that don't end up harming us, as well. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 10:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
If it wasn't for technology and capitalism concentrating resources, we wouldn't be living as well as we do. We'd still be carrying fire from place to place, grubbing whatever food we could find and always at the day-to-day mercy of the environment. Technology and capitalism are good things.

It's a shame they weren't around earlier and then we could have wiped out the species in nuclear war centuries ago!

No wait, is that a good thing?

I suppose it depends whether you are Human or not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Humanity needs another paradigm, one which takes into account individual physical survival can be guaranteed - as long as everyone limits themselves to what they need, what they will use.
Which relates to the "Its Disgusting, It Really Is" thread.

Socialism works along these lines. You put in whatever you can, and take out only what you need.

Except it doesn't work.

It doesn't work because what we need is not a paradigm shift, it's an evolution. Ironically the very traits that allowed us to ascend the evolutionary ladder to the top of the food chain are quite possibly the ones that will compel us to self destruction.

Corporations may think they're big and clever for inventing built in obsolescence making us upgrade in perpetuity, little do they realise that mother nature was doing this long before we even existed with a far more elegant solution. Sowing the seeds of our destruction with our success, Our self destruction syndrome.

Quote:
Which just goes to show that wealth can't buy brains.

Power and money promotes in it's own image

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 11:00 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

(Now I really have to go outside of my comfort zone ... )

But if you didn't have the 'cheese' of being able to claim the profits, nothing would get built. It doesn't matter how good your ideas are - it's what gets accomplished that counts. And that is what I'm arguing (channeling really, since the usual suspects aren't around) - that without capitalism, the technology wouldn't have been harnessed.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
(Now I really have to go outside of my comfort zone ... )

But if you didn't have the 'cheese' of being able to claim the profits, nothing would get built. It doesn't matter how good your ideas are - it's what gets accomplished that counts. And that is what I'm arguing (channeling really, since the usual suspects aren't around) - that without capitalism, the technology wouldn't have been harnessed.

Which is why there was no technological development until the advent of capitalism.

No, wait...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 11:50 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You're really going to make me do this ..... argue every single point ....

Just b/c back then it wasn't called capitalism doesn't mean it wasn't ! It was all like Adam Smith said - invisible hand and all.

Talk to the hand.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 11:53 AM

I just like watching you squirm

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 11:56 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

My colleagues are wondering what's so funny ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 1:20 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, since the usual suspects aren't around: Capitalism isn't particularly good at thinking up new things. Heck, most of the major advances were made before the invention of ownership. For example, how do you "own" a language and especially a written language? 'Cause languages work best when shared most...

But to get back to my point... What capitalism is especially good at is IMPLEMENTING new technologies. By forcing "savings" (otherwise known as "profits"), establishing a motivation (more profits) for investing in something new, and then swinging the whole political system in the direction of whichever sector has the biggest surge ("the technology boom") capitalism has created a bi-stable... or perhaps unstable... system geared towards widspread distribution and use of new technology.

Which doesn't get to my essential argument. So now I'm going to have to play devil's advocate and explain why six billion folks aren't the problem, they're the "solution".

PS I didn't see Rue squirming... exactly...

---------------------------------
I can be a devil's advocate too!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 8:24 PM

STAKETHELURK

Quote:
Originally posted by Rue:
My sense is no - look at the 'demographic transition' - which is the natural reduction of reproduction after a transition to a higher quality of life. (I haven't read anywhere why it happens. It seems to be a mystery.)

It’s not a mystery, at least not according to the college course I took on “Human Geography.” One of the reasons for this demographic transition is purely economic. In a pre-industrial, agricultural society having many children was valuable--they supplied you with extra (and free labor) and they looked after you when you aged. The more kids, the more hands to do the work. In short, having kids in this type of society is profitable.

In a modern industrial or post-industrial society, children don’t provide you with any economic benefit and rather require substantial investments of time and money. With child labor laws and the different type of labor required in a post-industrial society, there really isn’t much of a way for children to help with their parents’ jobs--and they’re not expected to. Instead, parents are expected to provide for the children, to save for their education, to escort them to and from extracurricular activities, etc, etc. And with Social Security, the need for children to care for you in your old age is somewhat lessened (though obviously not eliminated by a long shot). In short, having kids in a post-industrial economy is expensive. And it’s much more difficult to provide for many children than it is to care for just a few.

So essentially, economic pressure tends to guide people in industrial and post-industrial societies towards having fewer children. What should really be noted, though, is the clash between culture and economics for people moving from agricultural to industrial societies. Since the agricultural model has been in place for centuries, it tends to be ingrained in the traditional culture of that society. Parents are expected raise many children, it is seen as healthy and beneficial--because, in the old economy, in was. And this cultural imperative tends to hang on for a generation or two after the shift. There’s a time lag between when countries (or individual families) make the economic transition and when they make the demographic transition (I’ve seen the charts). Inevitably they make the transition, but there’s always at least one embattled generation struggling to uphold the traditional cultural norms (“many children is good”) within the economic reality (“many children is expensive”).

There are probably other factors behind the demographic transition, but economics is the one that was emphasized the most to me and the argument seems sound.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 6:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So the answer to the population problem is to industrialize all world economies?

I'm not sure if that is entirely the issue or the solution, altho the demographic transition is an important indicator of SOMETHING going on. Let's use Sub-Saharan Africa as an example. The issue with Rwanda (and many naitns) is that the family land is inherited by male children. Since more than one male child has been surviving for several generations, the land is broken up into plots that are too small to support even one family. I've heard that many women would be happy to limit their family size, even in rural/ agricultural circumstances, with two provisos:

They can be assured that at least two children live to maturity and...
They have the means for family planning.

Unfortunately, given the instability, wars, droughts, famine, lack of clean water and medical care, it is impossible to assure that even TWO children will survive. And male-dominant culture will not allow women to choose family size.

But what if a measure of stability and female empowerment can come to places like India, Pakistan, etc? Would that reduce population growth?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 7:09 AM

STILLFLYIN

IMO, the problem facing humanity in general and the first-world specifically is the that we have stagnated evolution toward a more intelligent gene pool. For millenia the prime killers of concentrated human populations have been disease and to a lesser extent war. Thus those who survived to pass on their genes were those with some genetic resistance to crowd diseases and those lucky enough to not have been killed in battle. Neither of these qualifications have anything to do with encouraging intelligence in the gene pool. I agree that the best way to rectify this problem is to colonize space. Colonizing a new planet means that the colonists must display ingenuity and intelligence to survive and prosper. Therefore I belive that the industrial nations should look to expanding their space programs with emphasis on long-range deep space human transport capabilities. Call me when the first ship leaves

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 7:38 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Yes, I see that now. The purity of the gene pool is our most important problem.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 4:42 PM

you cant curb population growth..that is satanic, either way you go about it. you can encourage people to be more responsible..but that is not the wisdom of the world of this age

but for those of you who feel that way, rest assured that the Elitists running the world have plans to eradicate most of us through engineered wars, famines, poverty and disease..so your time is coming.

hopefully youll be the lucky few on the top though right?

"when the Lamb opened the fourth seal, i heard the voice of the fourth living creature say, "come!" i looked, and there before me was a pale horse! its rider was named Death, and Hades was following close behind him. they were given power over a fourth of the earth to kill by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts of the earth" REV. 6:7-8

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 5:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Now my eyes are truly open. The Elitists are doing God's work ending God's earth. They will be the lucky ones left behind.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 5:14 PM

thats funny..

...the Elitists are doing Satans work, bringing upon us the totalitarian global government which he will proside over during his 7 yr reign. i was illustrating the point that during the epitomy of Satans rule on earth, those seeking a purge of the population will recieve their wishes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 6:52 PM

STILLFLYIN

Purging the population or imposing draconian population control measures are not the way to solve the planet's problems. Getting some of the population to leave is.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 4:30 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Dayve:
Agent Smith: I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not.

Yeah, he was an idiot. In the Matrix, all the humans were real, everthing else is computer generated, including all the mamals. They are approximations and clearly the Matrix never had to deal with deer overpopulation, or foriegn species (like African-ized honeybees) upsetting an ecosystem.

I've always thought humans are as natural as any other species. If a lion can hunt a gazelle, Man can build a minimall and both be natural and harmonic acts. Hunt too many gazelles and the lions suffer resulting in less lionlike behaivor (less lions too). Build too many minimalls and the economy suffers resulting less economic behaivor and if its really, really too much then fewer humans (just look at the big cities for a good example of economic overpopulation).

Anyway, IMHO the biggest problem we face is all about our identity...as humanity its terror. As Americans its liberals. As men its feminization of the American culture. As scifi fans its reality television. As Firefly fans its Fox. As Browns fans its heat-related preseason injury. And so on...and Pirates (and people with 'Pirate' names), they threaten us all...aargh.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:56 AM

does anyone realize that this world is the kingdom of Satan, that the ways of this world are not of God, that to love the world is to deny the father, or that you cannot serve both God and Money; that it was trade which corrupted Satan?

"how you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! you have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! you said in your heart:
"i will ascend to heaven; above the stars of God; i will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. i will ascend above the tops of the clouds; i will make myself like the Most High."
But you are brought down to the grave, to the depths of the pit. those who see you stare at you, they ponder your fate; is this the man who shook the earth, and made kingdoms tremble..?" Isaiah 14:12-17

"You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you...your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. you were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so i ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you. THrough your widespread trade you were filled with violence, and you sinned. so i drove you in disgrace from the mount of God, and i expelled you, O guardian cherub, from the the fiery stones. you heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor. so i threw you to the earth; i made a spectacle of you before kings. by your many sins and dishonost trade you have desecrated your sanctuaries. so i made a fire come out from you, and it consumed you, and i reduced you to ashes on the ground in the sight of all who were watching. all the nations who knew you are appalled at you; you have come to a horrible end and will be no more." Ezekiel 28:12

i bring this up because i am not so sure that Man is achieving his purpose, or that we are nsync with nature, or that economics was our destiny.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Well, not being a christian I feel free to criticize without also being a hypocrite. I keep pointing out to self-identified christians that Jesus says you must give up love of earthly things in favor of love of the father and neighbor. And I keep pointing out how Jesus is all about forgiveness and turning the other cheek, and not about vengeance and smiting. But it's not necessarily my belief.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 9:52 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by antimason:
i bring this up because i am not so sure that Man is achieving his purpose, or that we are nsync with nature, or that economics was our destiny.

Jesus ackowledged commerce and government. "Render unto Caesar" and such.

I think your to hard on the world. There's good and bad. Sometimes more of one and less of the other, but generally trending towards the good.

God gave us free will. That acknowledges everything that came after in the hearts and works of Man. So while I may have impure thoughts about Jessica Alba (which is understandable...but not so good), I acknowledge that it aint right and I ought to stop(which is good or at least an honost effort). Most people are in the same boat more or less (although I think some folk need to focus more on Miss Alba and less about killing Jews or whatever...I'm just sayin).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 11:26 AM

FELLOWTRAVELER

Won't global warming be an extremely effective method of population control?

I'm reasonably sure we are well on our way to wiping out at least 1/2 the population.

Have a little faith, we'll get it done!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 11:31 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Hey Rue or SignyM,

Have you guys come across any literature or study that compared the amount of greenhouse gases (CO2 and water vapor) produced by 6 billion people breathing in a year, to the amount of greenhouse gases produced by fossil fuel emissions in a year?

Not trying to prove any point. I'm merely curious how much of a difference there is.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 12:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

It should be fairly easy to estimate.

1 kg per person per day - however, since it is carbon from plants (or from animals from plants) it's a closed system with no net increase in CO2.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 2:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

FellowTraveler:

"Won't global warming be an extremely effective method of population control?"

I have no issue with that, it's just that the rest of the planet will go down with us.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 3:02 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It should be fairly easy to estimate.

1 kg per person per day - however, since it is carbon from plants (or from animals from plants) it's a closed system with no net increase in CO2.

How so? more people and less plants to neutralize.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 5:12 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You could say CO2 or carbon. Assuming that there are too many people and not enough plants, the number of people goes down, and then the number of plants goes up. Either way there is the same amount of carbon in the system either as CO2 or in reduced form (cellulose, lignin, starch and sugar ... ) but it shuttles back and forth in negative feedback cycles.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 3, 2006 8:38 PM