What is the future of mankind?

Psychology-related discussions or questions that don't fit neatly into any other forum.
User avatar
Candid
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:34 am

What is the future of mankind?

Post by Candid »

Since there's some doubt as to whether we'll be able to access old UF threads on https://uncommonforumarchive.com/ once the original vanishes, I've made it my business to preserve some old favourites.

http://www.uncommonforum.com/viewtopic. ... 4&start=15

by dav1307 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 8:53 pm
Originally posted by thefool
Markets and governments will be centralised. The European union or the United states of America will be just another state under a global government (which wont likely agree on anything until the next 100 years, but that aside). This means global open trade, so no vat, no exploiting the struggling foreign currencies by buying their products for cheaper than you normally could (so all you import/export business owners also better get back to school!).


I'm more of a anti-global government person.
I think there is also a freedom movement going on, in the U.S. and probably the world. It is about sound money, limited government, humble foreign policy, and other good stuff. This is pro-soveriegnty. It's probably better for human kind to decentralize power as much as possible. I see the global government movement as pro-collective and the freedom movement as pro-individual.

by dav1307 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:00 pm
I'm more of an optimist if we can learn more about what our economic, political, and social beliefs are, and what the alternative are too.
Because I'm biased, I fundamentally believe the government has no place in economics or markets. Albeit with a few exceptions. I think humans would be much better off if they got the government out of the markets. How about free markets for a change?
I think the freedom movement, as I talked about above, is a philosophical revolution. I don't really think that centralized, government sponsored corporatism can go on for too long. Can this corporatism last for another 100 years? I doubt it. At some point, politicians might make their final terrible decision that breaks the camel's back. Corporatism is not overall productive, imo, so I think it is a self-destructing machine.
When people do finally wake up, and understand what freedom and free market economics is all about, we will then have truly genuine changes that support the true essence of life. IMO

by dav1307 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:03 pm
As per the so-called population problem, I would never support forcing people to have a certain amount of children. I rather think that people as a total population, are smart enough to not have too many kids if they can't afford them. On a mass level, this means if their are not enough resources, then humans will have less kids, naturally. We don't need some dictatorial government telling us how to behave in the bedroom.
I personally think most people think there is a population problem b/c of social conditioning, and maybe even some good old fashioned propaganda.
User avatar
Candid
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:34 am

Re: What is the future of mankind?

Post by Candid »

by thefool » Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:30 pm
dav1307 wrote:I'm more of a anti-global government person.

I think there is also a freedom movement going on, in the U.S. and probably the world. It is about sound money, limited government, humble foreign policy, and other good stuff. This is pro-soveriegnty. It's probably better for human kind to decentralize power as much as possible. I see the global government movement as pro-collective and the freedom movement as pro-individual.
There is nothing good that can come from a more centralised, and more powerful government... but that doesn't mean it wont happen. Governments control legislation, and frankly whatever governments decide to do at this point, is out of the voters hands.
Governments have never truly been in any danger of being "overthrown". At
best some governments have had to make room for others in often violent coops, but at the end of the day, the idea that governments would control legislation was never in question, and so they have for millennia, and continue to do so till today...
A global government is just the next step towards securing that in the future two, governments will control and enforce legislation entirely autonomously.
When was the last time you got cast a vote on a new law? I don't think that's ever happened to you, nor me... which is funny because I remember getting a letter not to long ago that said something about paying taxes...
Essentially I don't think governments should do anything other than tend to "the masterplan", the masterplan of society and our general direction. Governments should serve "human" interests. Those interests which serve and please all... such as urban development, health care, education, and active pursuit of the goal of global peace.. not by sprouting "policy" but by cooperating, nurturing free trade and encouraging cultural exchange.
Currently governments seem more interested in encouraging exchange of cruise missiles and exploiting international trade to fuel there ever needy block hole of bureaucracy.

by thefool » Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:55 pm
dav1307 wrote:I personally think most people think there is a population problem b/c of social conditioning, and maybe even some good old fashioned propaganda.

There is a population problem... but there's also a fine print to it...
There is a population problem, because we don't have the "funds" to build more efficient cities, to build better homes, to live more ecologically responsible, and finally with that ecological responsibility, populate the remaining land planet earth has to offer, but which isn't already perfect for human colonisation.
Basically... if we had enough money, we wouldn't have a population problem at all.
Funny how that works isn't it?
You can built a utopian metropolis in the middle of the desert, BUT only if you have enough money for it! Living space? Food? Drinking water? Climate control? Who needs it? We need money!!!
User avatar
Candid
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:34 am

Re: What is the future of mankind?

Post by Candid »

by dav1307 » Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:25 pm
I basically agree with you, except some minor details.
As far as the potential inevitability of governments becoming more centralized, keep your eye on the U.S. in the near future. I think you'll see some big changes (I hope!), with my man RP and other P's. RP people like me will be out in force in the '12 election, should be great.

by WTNP » Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:59 pm
I think Star Trek is our future.
But even the Federation is founded on principles recovered from the ashes of human civilizations who had to learn the hard way. It is also apparently implied in the show that we almost didn't make it.
Our future will be extermination or an advanced society we can't keep going like this, such advancing technology in the hands of the ignorant means we must find better ways. That much seems clear.
My gut tells me we will make it. Some day we will be a mature people.
Yep, money is just an abstract representation of resources. But no amount is ever enough if there is no wisdom to go along with it, it will all be spent in the same manner building fundamentally the same civilization.
It is how we go about things that matters.

by __Tigger__ » Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:23 am
Huh!? It's not at all hard to print more money... turn the machine on and let it rip.
Distribution of wealth... now THAT'S important.
Think about it... if every single person was given a million dollars then it adds NO buying power. In fact it actually devalues the rest of the money in the system.
Incidentally if you're saying "I wanna be a billionaire, so frickin bad" (the song) then really you're saying "I wanna have a lot more relative to everyone else... I support inequality and want to be on top of the pile"
No, we're stuffed... most people on this planet use and worry about money many times on a daily basis... yet they have no idea about the fundamentals of where money comes from and what wealth means.
And voluntary population control? LOL.

by Candid » Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:26 am
dav1307 wrote: As per the so-called population problem, I would never support forcing people to have a certain amount of children.

That's the trouble. We can't.

I rather think that people as a total population, are smart enough to not have too many kids if they can't afford them.

That is clearly not true. The weird thing is that the wealthier people are, the fewer children they have. These are the people who know a good standard of living and want to retain it. The couples popping out one a year are invariably low on the socio-economic scale.

On a mass level, this means if their are not enough resources, then humans will have less kids, naturally.

Seen any film footage of starving people in African countries lately? We already have inadequate resources. In fact there's a compelling argument that we reached the carrying capacity of Planet Earth in the 1920s.

We don't need some dictatorial government telling us how to behave in the bedroom.

No indeed, but it's not about your sex life, Dave! It's about making more people, and that's a separate issue.

I'm curious as to why you say so-called population problem. If you consider any issue in your community, you'll see it is caused by population pressure and it's going to be worsened as there are more and yet more of us. Even the craziness and neurosis on this forum is largely about too many people living competitively in high-density accommodation. From the nutritional point of view, the need to grow ever-bigger crops on ever-diminishing arable land now means your vegetables aren't a patch on the ones your grandparents ate.

thefool wrote:There is a population problem, because we don't have the "funds" to build more efficient cities, to build better homes, to live more ecologically responsible, and finally with that ecological responsibility, populate the remaining land planet earth has to offer, but which isn't already perfect for human colonisation.

Again, it's not about living with "ecological responsibility" if we're not addressing the population issue. If everyone cuts down their carbon footprint by 10 per cent but the population goes up a billion every ten years, what have we achieved?

When you talk about populating "the remaining land planet earth has to offer" you're ignoring the need for much more land to produce anything remotely resembling food in order to feed everyone in these "more efficient [and more densely populated] cities". You're talking about wiping out virtually every other species, including the trees and plants that convert carbon monoxide into oxygen. You're talking about somehow creating more water, because plenty of places already have dire shortages and even some citizens of the lucky first world have to stay within a per-head allocation.

De-salination will be the next issue. In other words, reduce the sea levels and start killing off the biodiversity of the oceans the same way you propose we do on land. There still won't be a drop more water circulating the planet.
User avatar
Candid
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:34 am

Re: What is the future of mankind?

Post by Candid »

by systemsanalysis » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:20 am
__Tigger__ wrote:Huh!? It's not at all hard to print more money... turn the machine on and let it rip.

Like they did in pre war Germany? & like what they are doing now - what a good idea. Just watch what happens when this bail out bubble bursts.

by __Tigger__ » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:31 am
Exactly. It's madness... but unfortunately the majority of people truly believe that there are "finance boffins" who have some sort of fantastically intelligent insight into the way money works that can only be gained from many years of study.

I keep trying to remind myself that the average IQ is 100 (that's the way the IQ scale works) and that because I'm well above that I'll always be doomed to watching the train wreck before it happens. It doesn't really change anything except helps me feel compassion instead of rage... but yeah, doesn't really help a lot of the time... especially since I gave up drinking and smoking. Lol.

by Motivated » Sun Nov 28, 2010 4:45 am
Candid wrote:Governments could, of course, actively discourage breeding simply by stopping child endowment payments that make motherhood a career choice. They won't, because high population growth is a money-spinner.

Candid,
I know you're often kidding, & I hope you were here.
If not...
1st - There's more money to be made, in the short run, if kids are raised by "hired" caregivers.
2nd - Overall, the increased benefit of being raised by a consistent parent who loves them, over someone hired to, is overwhelmingly apparent, yet it won't be the focus as long as motherhood is devalued.
Who do you think has the most influence on any given individual? Mothers! IMO, most societal problems are because children/teens are too often abandoned in day-orphanages (daycare) or worse, & have no consistent care-giver who loves & cares for them as they need it.
The family is the basic unit of society. To understand the future, consider the problems & needs of families. I'm amazed how parent education is rarely a topic... It should be! I believe that most healthy couples, if they were more educated & aware of the various needs of children - wouldn't choose to have too many & would be more likely to invest the needed time, resources, energy & love into each child, improving the future. In some schools, teens learn some about what parenting involves... that's probably the right time to learn, before they become teen parents.

by Candid » Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:48 am
I know you're often kidding, & I hope you were here.
Fraid not. I see parenthood done well and, far more often, I see it done appallingly. I'm not advocating the child care centre option, I'm advocating fewer babies being born per year. A lot fewer.
It has nothing to do with propaganda and everything to do with logic. I believe water is going to be the great leveller within the next thirty years. I live in a country where, during the dry season, we routinely have to truck drinking water to inland communities. Those of us on the coast live with water restrictions. Truth is, we're already populated beyond the earth's capacity to provide water for crops to feed us all.
[Are any of you naysayers aware millions of people die of hunger?]
The gung-ho idea that it's okay for us to go on clearing virgin land and wiping out hundreds of species a year is truly sickening.
Eventually Mother Earth will begin to fight back. In fact I believe she's already issued a few polite warnings.

by thefool » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:46 am
__Tigger__ wrote:No, we're stuffed... most people on this planet use and worry about money many times on a daily basis... yet they have no idea about the fundamentals of where money comes from and what wealth means.

But that's the point.. it doesn't mean ANYTHING. What money represents is labour incentive, nothing more and nothing less.
The value of something on the open market, even raw resources have absolutely NOTHING to do with how much we have of it available to us in total, and it actually CAN'T have any correlation to this number as we do not KNOW how much of most resources there is available to us. The value of something on the open market is determined by supply and demand, and supply in this case means production, production means labour is needed, and hence labour incentive.

Candid wrote:When you talk about populating "the remaining land planet earth has to offer" you're ignoring the need for much more land to produce anything remotely resembling food in order to feed everyone in these "more efficient [and more densely populated] cities". You're talking about wiping out virtually every other species, including the trees and plants that convert carbon monoxide into oxygen. You're talking about somehow creating more water, because plenty of places already have dire shortages and even some citizens of the lucky first world have to stay within a per-head allocation.
De-salination will be the next issue. In other words, reduce the sea levels and start killing off the biodiversity of the oceans the same way you propose we do on land. There still won't be a drop more water circulating the planet.


Stop thinking "Manhatter V2.0", and start thinking about going to a new patch of land, and building a city there from the ground up, with everything modern technology has to offer.
You would not need large expansive outskirts full of farms pumping out carbon dioxide gasses. You would not have endless roads and busy highways full of fuming cars. You would not have billions of tons of fresh water being pumped into the city, and filthy sewage being pumped back out of it on a daily basis. You would not have hundreds of thousands of people turning up the heating because their crappy old apartments have the energy efficiency of a hummer.
What you would have is a city that is entirely self sufficient, produces it's own food, recycles it's own water, produces it's own energy, takes up less space than most large cities we have now, houses more people, more luxuriously AND employs the bulk of them locally... That is what you would have.
You would essentially have on one problem... money.
Desalination is a moot point, unless you're going to suggest that the human race embodies (literally) so much of the earth's water that there isn't enough left for the bio-diversity in the ocean... and that's after you subtract all the water we've ADDED to the oceans in the form of melt ice...
I think that even if there were SO many human beings on earth that you could blanket the entire earth in human heads, we would still not be able to store enough water in our bodies to pose any kind of threat to the earth's oceans in terms of reducing living space for oceanic life... The Earth is 70% water, that means there's a lot more living space in the ocean than there is anywhere on land. The total "surface" that human beings take up is really quite tiny compared to the total volume in the earth's oceans.
I am personally very much aware that there are starving people on earth, but this has nothing to do with the availability of arable land, or even with the availability of food. I has everything to do with the fact that these starving people have no money!
Imagine if western formers would go to Africa and start building farms there with all their western farming know-how and western farming gizmo's. They would turn Africa into a farming nation in no time at all... Africa would have to start selling the food to other nations just to get rid of it! But who would pay for all this? The Africans won't, because they have no money, no money means the farms don't get paid, and so they go out of business, and we're back to square one... Africa has no food!
Again the problem is money... Africa has no money, and so Africa has no food! Ditto on the water issue.
Let's take a little stroll down to the very basic of economics here...
Let's say you arrive on the continent of Africa today with no knowledge of modern civilisation. What will you do? You'll check for a good place to grow food, you'll then build a hut near it and start growing your own food, and start building a well for water. Essentially you'll provide for your basic needs as best you can...
All well and good so far... this is what Africa "might" do for itself were it not for...
Suddenly someone comes knocking on your straw door and goes like "wtf are you doing here? Don't you know I own this land? Are you gonna pay rent or what?". So you go, err rent? I have no money! So this guy trashes your hut, kicks you off of his property... and now you have no place to live and no place to farm. So you try to "get with the system", find some kind of way to make money, try to find employment, but they don't need you. Now you start starving, along with the rest of Africa.
It's not that there's no food, or no place to grow it, it's just that there's no economy and you're stuck in a global economic system that tells you to "work or die", but there's no work to be done, because no-one has the money to pay for it...
As for the population problem...
Mankind will one day outgrow planet earth, this is a simple mathematical fact, but as of right now, our population problem is not ecological, it is economical. It only appears ot be ecological because we have not done all we can't to address the root issue, and the reason why we haven't is because we feel it's "too expensive" to address the root issue. In simple phrase and verse, we are just too damn LAZY to address the real issue. And that is a problem that each and every one of us has. We could change things if we wanted to, but we don't, because we're all too busy making useless junk and then later shopping for it in one of our coast to coast mall nations.
User avatar
Candid
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:34 am

Re: What is the future of mankind?

Post by Candid »

by hypoxora » Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:34 pm
Economists believe the economy can grow forever. Not only do they believe it can grow forever, which it cannot, they believe it must grow forever. Since World War II they have equated economic growth with progress. Nobody wants to stop progress but, if economic growth is what we define as progress, who is ever going to ask what an economy is for? With all this growth are we happier? How much is enough? We do not ask those questions. We have fallen into the trap of believing that economic growth forever is possible and necessary.
I am going to show you why this is absolutely suicidal. Anything growing steadily over time is called exponential growth and whatever is growing exponentially has a predictable doubling time, whether it is the amount of garbage you make, the number of taxis on the road, the amount of water you use, or the human population. So, if the population is growing at 1% a year it will double in 70 years; 2% a year it will double in 35 years; 3% - 23 years; 4% in 17.5 years. Anything growing exponentially will double predictably.
I am going to show you why it is suicidal to think we can keep growing forever. Let me give you a test tube full of food for bacteria, that represents our world. I am going to put one bacterial cell into that test tube (representing us), and it is going to divide every minute; that is exponential growth. So at time zero you have one cell; one minute you have two; two minutes you have four; three minutes you have eight; four minutes you have 16. That is exponential growth and at 60 minutes the test tube is completely full of bacteria and there is no food left, a sixty minute cycle.
I agree with everything what candid described. Just because technically, physically economy is growing does not mean iit is really growing in reality as the final consequences are often a hidden disaster.

by systemsanalysis » Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:53 pm
I agree that the global monetary system is basically the root cause of all the problems - & to have a truly civilised world then we need to largely do away with it all; in favour of the 'resource based economy' - how, when & 'if' that happens is another matter, Personally I think that humanity is headed for the brink - That things will carry on largely as they are; with the same worsening problems for around another 200 years - then bang - most of us get wiped out & society collapses. & that eventually (after a long transition phase) we end up with something similar to how we started - small groups in a hunter gatherer type scenario; but very much in balance with each other, the planet & with a highly evolved spirituality. I'd give that 500 years to take place.
That is just my feeling about things - But no one knows the future or what will happen - but it's just what I see.
Things could also collapse a lot sooner than that. It would appear that there are 3 main potential issues immediately facing us -
1. Peak Oil & the Energy Crisis.
2. Systemic Eco-System Collapse.
3. Collapse of the international monetary system.
But there are ways of working around all 3 scenarios - even if we get all 3 of them. There are of course other issues & potential 'black swan' scenarios too.
I do take some issue with the Zeitgeist Movement over their stance on spirituality & some of the deeper elements to human consciousness & experience.
Using the events of 9/11 was just a shocker and a way to use recent and painful events to enforce their claims that "the men behind the curtain are pulling our strings".
I've spent decades looking in as much depth into what would be classed as the 'conspiracy' stuff - the alien question, the SSG (sinister secret government) all sorts - anything & everything concerning such subjects.
It's an important question as to whether there is some orchestrated global conspiracy(s) of some kind or another. I don't know what to make of 9/11?; & I've looked at every theory going on it. I know on the day it happened that my gut reaction was that it was orchestrated in some way. We simply don't know the full facts of what went on & probably never will do.

by Candid » Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:48 pm
Hypo, I'm glad someone else is awake!
World population doubling rate:
In 1650 - 500 million
+ 154 years In 1804 - 1 billion
+ 123 years In 1927 - 2 billion
+ 48 years In 1975 - 4 billion
Present: 6.8+ billion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wji2uQUEVu0
User avatar
Candid
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:34 am

Re: What is the future of mankind?

Post by Candid »

by dav1307 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:51 pm
Very interesting posts...
I'm more of a GW skeptic
but I'm glad your interested in this stuff Candid

by Annie7788 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 6:47 pm
thefool wrote:
Basically... if we had enough money, we wouldn't have a population problem at all.
Funny how that works isn't it?
You can built a utopian metropolis in the middle of the desert, BUT only if you have enough money for it! Living space? Food? Drinking water? Climate control? Who needs it? We need money!!!


If we had enough physical resources then there wouldn't be a population problem. It's not about money but about resources. The Earth can only produce so much food at any one time.

by Annie7788 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:00 pm
Candid wrote:Fraid not. I see parenthood done well and, far more often, I see it done appallingly. I'm not advocating the child care centre option, I'm advocating fewer babies being born per year. A lot fewer.

unfortunately your proposed solution is unethical and downright sinister. I too was hoping you were joking.
I am surprised you don't see starvation as nature's solution to the problem.

by Annie7788 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:23 pm
systemsanalysis wrote:So have I. I agree that the global monetary system is basically the root cause of all the problems - & to have a truly civilised world then we need to largely do away with it all; in favour of the 'resource based economy' - how, when & 'if' that happens is another matter, Personally I think that humanity is headed for the brink - That things will carry on largely as they are; with the same worsening problems for around another 200 years - then bang - most of us get wiped out & society collapses. & that eventually (after a long transition phase) we end up with something similar to how we started - small groups in a hunter gatherer type scenario; but very much in balance with each other, the planet & with a highly evolved spirituality. I'd give that 500 years to take place.
That is just my feeling about things - But no one knows the future or what will happen - but it's just what I see.


Things could also collapse a lot sooner than that. It would appear that there are 3 main potential issues immediately facing us -
1. Peak Oil & the Energy Crisis.
2. Systemic Eco-System Collapse.
3. Collapse of the international monetary system.
But there are ways of working around all 3 scenarios - even if we get all 3 of them. There are of course other issues & potential 'black swan' scenarios too.
I do take some issue with the Zeitgeist Movement over their stance on spirituality & some of the deeper elements to human consciousness & experience.
the monetary system already appears to be collapsing and the effects just illustrate how slavishly reliant we are on the global economy. That is not an easy situation to change without more people losing much of their wealth as well as many pensioners losing pensions etc & governments losing financial security. The energy crisis may never materialise, we will just be forced to rely more on nuclear and other sources. Perhaps the answer is to consume less?
My pessimistic view is that unless current indicators change, there will be a global conflict sometime in the not too distant future. After that everything will be different.

by Motivated » Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:11 pm
Candid wrote:I'm not advocating the child care centre option, I'm advocating fewer babies being born per year. A lot fewer.
It has nothing to do with propaganda and everything to do with logic. I believe water is going to be the great leveller within the next thirty years.


I wasn't talking about limiting population, but in dealing with the population we create!!
It has been implied over & over that it's not the space or the resources that is the problem, nor is the ability to distribute a problem.
The problem is in the thinking & behavior of people. And I'll ask AGAIN, who is it that influences each person the most... from the produce picker, to the President of the US?? Mothers! You mentioned the idea of taking away the priviledge of being a full time mother. You're missing the root cause & solution of the problem. People who undervalue motherhood are part of the problem!

by Annie7788 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:16 pm
Motivated wrote:
And I'll ask AGAIN, who is it that influences each person the most... from the produce picker, to the President of the US?? Mothers! You mentioned the idea of taking away the priviledge of being a full time mother. You're missing the root cause & solution of the problem. People who undervalue motherhood are part of the problem!


fathers have just as much if not more influence on the formation of childrens' opinions.

by Motivated » Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:19 pm
Annie,
I completely agree - children need both a mother & a father. Yet, from the moment the sperm & egg join, it's mothers, mostly, wouldn't you say? Mothers are equipped to nurse, & generally, are more nurturing by nature.
And Candid only mentioned taking away "motherhood as a career."

by Annie7788 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:29 pm
Motivated wrote:Annie,
I completely agree - children need both a mother & a father. Yet, from the moment the sperm & egg join, it's mothers, mostly, wouldn't you say? Mothers are equiped to nurse, & generally, are more nurturing by nature.
And Candid only mentioned taking away "motherhood as a career."


whilst I don't dispute the importance on formation of the self of the nurturing of a mother, I think the more complex influence of the father, particularly on formation of attitudes and beliefs, should not be underestimated. Fathers have a profound effect (either good or bad) on the way the self develops. The extended family too.
I share Candid's anger at what is happening to our planet, but strongly reject her solutions. Corporate aggressiveness is not down to birthrates, but down to economic policy & politics.

by Candid » Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:53 am
Annie7788 wrote:If we had enough physical resources then there wouldn't be a population problem. It's not about money but about resources. The Earth can only produce so much food at any one time.
Exactly. And in allowing the population to grow unchecked, we're expecting to produce much more food on a dwindling amount of available land.
To clarify, I am not attacking motherhood per se. 'Motherhood as a career' was a poor choice of words. My objection is to the government handouts that lead schoolgirls to decide getting a job is way too hard, better to have two or three children and then they'll be supported quite well on taxpayers' money. I've heard them discussing it on the bus: "I want two mixed-race children, a boy and a girl." Yes, that's an actual quote.
I am chuckling over the response to my 'kill the grandparents' plan. I don't believe in killing anybody, I promise! I just get frustrated at people saying the world's major problems are due to anything other than overpopulation; and at the inalienable right of every human being to make as many children as they like. I can see where Harrison Brown was coming from when he wrote (in 1954!) that humans would go on exerting their right to procreate "until the earth were covered completely and to a considerable depth with a writhing mass of human beings, much as a dead cow is covered with a pulsating mass of maggots".
It sounds outrageous and of course it is; we'll have run out of oxygen way before that; and we'll run out of water much sooner.

Yet when people propose building more and more super-efficient cities to house more and more people, I quake. Harrison Brown was right in that even where population pressure is most obvious (areas of high-density housing where people are going crazy simply at the noise levels), we are still breeding. I like the obscene image he describes, because it's clear to me that the majority will never abandon their right to reproduce no matter how horrendous global conditions become.

Annie7788 wrote:I am surprised you don't see starvation as nature's solution to the problem.
Is certainly is. And the fact that there's not enough water circulating Planet Earth to support the population we already have, much less more and yet more. No super-efficient super-city is going to create a single drop more water.

Personally I would prefer we wised up to the population question rather than die of thirst, hunger or lack of oxygen.

Perhaps the answer is to consume less?
If 10 people consume less, but become 60 people within 30 years... where are we going with this?

My pessimistic view is that unless current indicators change, there will be a global conflict sometime in the not too distant future.
And there's another 'solution'. It doesn't differ in intent all that much from my kill-the-grandparents plan, except that warfare tends to be indiscriminate and do a fair bit of damage to the environment.

Motivated wrote:You mentioned the idea of taking away the priviledge of being a full time mother.
No, I didn't. I think it might be time we stopped glorifying it, though. To be clear, children who are already here usually (but far from always) do best with full-time devotion from a parent. I would like to see government policies that discourage breeding rather than encourage it, that's all. People bursting with the desire to make babies need no external motivation.

Annie7788 wrote:There is no reason why increased numbers of people cannot live on this planet as long as they respect it and have realistic expectations of the resources it can generate for them
And as long as we see no problem with the starvation and desertification that are already well in place...
User avatar
Candid
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:34 am

Re: What is the future of mankind?

Post by Candid »

by Candid » Mon Nov 29, 2010 7:13 am
dav1307 wrote:The arguments that you make can sometimes have at their core, a type of anti-human sentiment. And if you are continually worried about the future, when will you enjoy the present?
Dave, I have a great love of humanity and have always spent a lot of my time helping people I meet to get what they want. Eighty-odd years in physical form can be a great adventure or a nightmare, and I find if I focus on happiness it's a whole lot more fun.
I've also spent many years in Australia where there have been a number of environmental mistakes. The thoughtless introduction of cane toads and indian mynas comes to mind.
The argument for killing as many of these introduced species as we possibly can is that they kill off many native species, either directly (as food) or indirectly, by being more competitive for the same resources.
The people who advance this argument go blank when asked which species kills other species most efficiently; which species is the unrivalled master at taking over and rubbishing more and more territory?
Speaking as a human being, I adore my two-year-old niece. Speaking as a biologist, I consider biodiversity (number of species present in an ecosystem) not just desirable but essential, for all sorts of reasons.
The cane toad is hated everywhere across the top end of Australia because we know eventually it will be the only amphibian we have and will have wiped out most of the smaller reptiles as well. Yet we have no problem with the fact that human incontinence will ultimately wipe out every species but ourselves.
There is breathtaking ignorance in the notion that we have enough water for another billion people. Much of the planet is already arid (useless for agricultural purposes) and human growth is ruining more land at an alarming rate. Thousands of people die every day because they don't have access to water. But they're in third world countries so that doesn't matter, hmm? Closer to home, a whole year's crops can be lost because there isn't enough water to keep them alive.
I've never said I'm continually worried about the future; I just observe trends. I'm child-free myself, so unlike Dr Suzuki I don't have to worry about the world my grandchildren will inherit. Another 30 or so years at the most I'll be out of here, and since I'm an urban dweller I don't expect to die of thirst. You know: I'm all right, Jack, so pull the ladder up? I'd like to be more responsible than that, but when the planet is a blasted wasteland a couple of hundred years from now, what will I care?
It is a love of humanity that compels me to point out that our numbers are increasing way too fast and that our standard of living is being steadily eroded.

by systemsanalysis » Mon Nov 29, 2010 8:27 am
Candid wrote:It is a love of humanity that compels me to point out that our numbers are increasing way too fast and that our standard of living is being steadily eroded.

It's the crux of the matter, & a very pertinent point.
There are of course much much better ways of doing things - but humans being the hairless talking apes that they are; the better ways aren't being followed; & so increasing population numbers combined with human stupidity is doing what we can see it is doing; destroying the planet that will ultimately lead to the destruction of ourselves.
I agree with you too candid - I don't have children to worry about either; nor the worry of what their grandchildren will be doing. Given another 30 years or so (who knows when?) - then I'm out of here too. Humanity is collectively insane as far as I'm concerned - I'll be glad to leave.

by thefool » Mon Nov 29, 2010 3:02 pm
systemsanalysis wrote:Personally I think that humanity is headed for the brink - That things will carry on largely as they are; with the same worsening problems for around another 200 years - then bang - most of us get wiped out & society collapses.

I truly hope it wont have to come to this. One thing is for certain however, we CANNOT teach people how to better cooperate, support and tolerate each other for mutual benefit, as long as we have an economic system based on egotism and greed.

systemsanalysis wrote:It's an important question as to whether there is some orchestrated global conspiracy(s) of some kind or another. I don't know what to make of 9/11?; & I've looked at every theory going on it. I know on the day it happened that my gut reaction was that it was orchestrated in some way. We simply don't know the full facts of what went on & probably never will do.

That is the most sensible thing I've ever heard about the 9/11 events.

Annie7788 wrote:If we had enough physical resources then there wouldn't be a population problem. It's not about money but about resources. The Earth can only produce so much food at any one time.

I wont be baited into this again, instead I'll simply say this. When countries with starving citizens are SELLING food to other countries to try and level their economy, then what is the real cause of hunger? Bad governing? Bad economics? Or a lack of physical resources?

Annie7788 wrote:the monetary system already appears to be collapsing and the effects just illustrate how slavishly reliant we are on the global economy. That is not an easy situation to change without more people losing much of their wealth as well as many pensioners losing pensions etc & governments losing financial security. The energy crisis may never materialise, we will just be forced to rely more on nuclear and other sources.

The economic system is designed to make people utterly dependant on it, if they weren't, it wouldn't work. Would you work 40 hours a week on a landfill if you didn't need the money? I think this point makes itself.
Distribution of wealth will do nothing. Wealth is meaningless because money does not represent resources, it only represents potential labour. Think of Bill Gates' fortune, it's vast, huge, but it's all just money. Does this mean that somewhere on the ocean there is an entire fleet of container ships full of Bill Gates' stuff representing his wealth in natural resources? Of course not... it just means that Bill Gates could pay people to produce all this stuff for him, if he wanted...
The energy crisis, if it does materialise, will simply materialise as an economic crisis. Prices will soar, the lower working class will stop being able to heat their homes, fuel their cars, governments will respond by injecting a large chunk of their budget into energy relief funds for lower income families, it wont be nearly enough and economic crisis will ensue.
Now we'll be looking at a private energy market which will use the high energy prices to build extremely expensive renewable energy plants. I have no idea what happens after that, likely a saturation of the energy market will occur as energy becomes literally infinite and the market will collapse again.
Nuclear power is not a solution, and governments know this, which why they haven't already switched to nuclear power completely, and are instead building things like geoplants and windmills, which produce much less energy, and are more expensive... but provide a long term solution, as opposed to nuclear power which just proposes to cover everyone in nuclear waste!!

Annie7788 wrote:Perhaps the answer is to consume less?
This is the ultimate answer... and it's ENTIRELY counter-productive to the economy. I think this fact alone makes an irrefutably case against the economic system, and how it just plain and simply "has to go", or has to change so drastically it's hardly recognisable.


Annie7788 wrote:
Motivated wrote:Yes, & who is influencing the future economic & political leaders? Mothers & fathers! Family is where it all starts, so it's in our future best interest to pay attention & to attend to the families' needs & strengths & properly value the importance of parents.

not just mothers and fathers but society as a whole. Culture, peer group, the media these days.


Exactly... Willingly or not, society in it's entirety is raising the next generation, and this is how it should be, but I feel we are sending the wrong message. Look at what is happening out there! We try to teach our children responsibility, but we refuse to take it for ourself and the world around us. We try to teach our children to be fair and generous, and yet we all condone and encourage greed and exploiting those less fortunate than ourselves. We try to teach out children family values, but we spend most of our time in the pursuit of materiel possession.
What we are teaching our children is hypocrisy...
And while some parents, and families, on an individual level do manage to teach their children meaningful lessons, and do manage to implement those lessons into their personal lives, they will always be ice skating uphill against the overwhelming message that is coming from the world around them, which tells a very different story.

by thefool » Mon Nov 29, 2010 4:24 pm
I think the real question is what will happen if things start going bad at the home front? We can't just keep spending borrowed money unchecked forever... sooner or later we're going to have to start paying back, and there's going to be a lot of cold and hungry people when that happens.

by dav1307 » Mon Nov 29, 2010 5:34 pm
If there is another global economic crisis, I think it will wipe out the middle class even more. And at the same time perhaps, most countries will experience very high inflation, and you thus might see currency crises and collapses. And then some people, like some world leaders, will probably try to say that the world needs to become even more integrated than before, whereas I see global integration as a main problem in the first place.

We'll see how good my predictive powers are, lol.

by __Tigger__ » Mon Nov 29, 2010 11:19 pm
The following 45 minute video is a real eye opener. Especially in the current financial climate... my American and Irish friends have been brought to tears after finally understanding what the hell is going on after watching this video and understanding some of the basics of money which amazingly few people question beyond a 2 year olds perspective (money = stuff)... not trying to be demeaning but that's what's happening.
If you only watch one video this year, watch this one.
"Money as debt"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3770802849

by Candid » Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:13 pm
Here's a glimpse of the future based on simple mathematics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkp ... re=related
From this thread alone you can see why popularity-dependent politicians shy away from the key question of exponential growth.
"It is the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant, and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting." - H. L. Mencken, 1926

by thefool » Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:14 am
Candid wrote:Here's a glimpse of the future based on simple mathematics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkp ... re=related


And as is typical for any simple equation that attempts to predict human behaviour, it's far too simplified to have an actual meaning in the real world.
In a pure mathematical world the human race would far exceed 7 billion by now, but it doesn't, because there are factors which no useful mathematical formula can ever incorporate.
Just looking at the past century, we can account for almost 70 million deaths counting only world wars. Those events alone would have introduced a significant, and unpredictable element to the equation. Such a baby-boom after ww2 where the population actually soars in reaction to a sudden decrease.
Now we're not even considering nations that have constant ongoing civil wars since the beginning of the 20th century.
There's also the FACT that human population growth has been steadily declining for the past 5 years, and this on a global scale. If the current trend keeps up, it will take us another 40 years to reach the 10 billion mark, which is a lot longer than the simple mathematics suggest.
And the fact that certain areas have always had higher population growth than others such as the middle east, Africa, south america and asia, and that obviously there are factors causing this (poverty for one, religious motivation could be another prominent factor, culture is for certain the biggest motivator). Factors which can change, or adjust based on awareness.
Also, there is the increasing sterility issue, and the inherent fertility problems that come with monogamy. Ie, certain couples are simply incapable of conceiving children, even though both parters are perfectly capable of conceiving with other mates.
Long story short; It's not that simple, and it's not that inevitable... and we don't need to start killing people to stave off catastrophe either. Now sooner or later, we will outgrow planet earth, but then that was never in question now was it? And by that time (if wise up) there will be plenty of other places for us to populate. The research that will allow human beings to one day conceive and give birth in space is already being done. It's just a matter of time before the first person born in space become a reality.
Were not quite there yet though, and in the interim, the first thing to do, which is going to solve A LOT of problems, not just alleged overpopulation, is to stop wasting resources, and start using them efficiently.
Because the real problem is scarcity, and people being short sighted enough to believe that if there were less people, there would be "more to go around". Thereby of course entirely neglecting the fact that it's the abundance of human productivity (through the abundance of human beings) which has created EVERYTHING YOU SEE, EAT, AND CONSUME EVERY DAY.
And we can follow that line of reasoning into almost every single argument one could make about overpopulation. Such as the scarcity of living space. There IS NO SCARCITY OF LIVING SPACE!!! Oh but there is... in certain areas! Have you ever been to Chili? Muchos fraking living space extravaganza over there! And the view, jeez! But you don't want to live there, because it's dirt poor nation, and there's little or no facilities for you to use.
There's only one argument to support overpopulation that I will consistently concede to, and that is the fact that sooner or later, overpopulation (or at least uncomfortably large population) is going to be a FACT. Whether it's 50 years from now, or 500, I dare not say because I recognise that I am simply incapable of doing the math involved, and while i'm not delusional enough to think that if i can't do the math, no one can, the fact remains that I have not seen one mathematician alive today come even close to formulation an equation that would show an accurate prediction of human population growth over the next century.
And until they do... I call "doomsday sensationalism" on the whole issue!
User avatar
Candid
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:34 am

Re: What is the future of mankind?

Post by Candid »

by thefool » Thu Dec 02, 2010 7:16 pm
Annie7788 wrote:
dav1307 wrote:I think that the earth is such an organism that it heals itself is something is out of balance or unhealthy, and I think the same is the human race. If there is something wrong or going wrong, I think humans as a species will naturally act to fix it. Again, I am biased toward freedom.

Yes that's the way i see it working. That's why I think at the end of the day it will be something out of our control that destroys earth. The earth will fix itself long term. Whether it will sustain our lives ad infinitum is another discussion. We don't have to be here to save the planet.


The Earth wont support human life (or any life) throughout it's natural life cycle. In fact this "phase" the Earth is in right now represents only teensy tiny small period of the earth's complete life-cycle, and in most of that cycle the Earth is planet Hell for human beings.
So when we're talking about "saving the environment", we're really just talking about maintaining the current eco-system, of which we are a part, and hence 'maintaining' ourselves.

by Candid » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:15 pm
thefool wrote:So when we're talking about "saving the environment", we're really just talking about maintaining the current eco-system, of which we are a part, and hence 'maintaining' ourselves.
Yes. Pity we've messed it up so efficiently!

Annie7788 wrote:We don't have to be here to save the planet.
Quite the reverse, in fact.

by dav1307 » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:20 pm
Candid wrote:
thefool wrote:So when we're talking about "saving the environment", we're really just talking about maintaining the current eco-system, of which we are a part, and hence 'maintaining' ourselves.
Yes. Pity we've messed it up so efficiently!
Annie7788 wrote:We don't have to be here to save the planet.
Quite the reverse, in fact.


Remember that it's hard to state things as certain facts, so I think you'd be more persuasive if you say something like, "it appears to me that humans probably need to take action to save the planet, b/c without this I think the planet might do xyz."

by Candid » Thu Dec 02, 2010 9:51 pm
Not aiming to persuade anyone of anything, Dave. The question was about the future of mankind, not the future of the planet. The planet will be fine.

by thefool » Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:59 am
anonazad wrote:This generation is having best of education available, best of technology available and even best of facilities available and yes there is immense freedom too. Then what is there that is wrong, why is there so much chaos. Why are people killing people for weird reasons? Why have we lost our patience? Where is the tolerance?

The best education? Compared to what? And what "generation" are you referring to? You mean the generation who was born into upper middle class families? Because those are the only people who are freely choosing their education, heck they're only people GETTING anything but basic (read worthless) education. The best technology available doesn't even exist, because it's not cost effective. Why are you breathing in toxic fumes every day? Because clean coal is the best available technology for energy generation? No! Because internal combustion is the best propulsion technology available to us? No. Because recycling industrial waste is a top priority for any industry? No not really... at all.
Where is this immense freedom you are referring to? Most of the time I can't even take a dump without someone charing me for it. If I want to go somewhere, it better be "between office hours", it better not be on anyone's private property (which is almost everywhere), and i better make sure I don't go too far, so i make it back to the office in time. Let's say that working a job was even a choice, which it really isn't, it's work or die; did I get my free choice of job? Of course I didn't, but I got my free choice of what was on the table, which for me, when i started out wasn't much. I mean i could choose between things like working an assembly line or selling retail junk, or pushing insignificant paperwork all day long. I had a wide variety of completely inglorious, unsatisfying, underpaid and flat out mind numbing, soul crushing occupations to choose from! Oh happy day!!
I've been sleep deprived for 15 years just so I could have some opportunities that any sane world would be available to anyone, any time. Our immense freedom stretches on so far that we don't even get to choose when and for how long we sleep any-more. I have to say that personally I see rather more similarities than differences when I compare modern production cycles to Ancient Egyptian construction efforts.
Do you really think I have time to be "tolerant" of anyone, when their 15 minutes are cutting right into the only fraking 15 minutes i get to spend with my family all day?
You want people to be tolerant and patient? Then stop putting them through the pressure cooker every second of every damned day, stop pushing them. Do you really think that I give a sh*t if I have to spend 3 hours in traffic if I knew that I had all the time in the world to get to my office? I would not care at all, hell I'd take a walk, explore the surrounding, maybe write a little, no problem. Why? Because I'm relaxed, there's devil chasing me, schedule booked from here till eternity... I'm just a guy stuck in traffic.
Now take that same situation, but add 4 appointments, add job pressure, add the fact that i simply don't have time for being stuck in traffic, and that any time I lose here is almost certainly going to come right out of that little time I have left to relax and cool my jets.
Now why on Earth would anyone be "impatient" or "intolerant"... why are all these cars honking their horns and making aggressive postures? Why is people's blood pressure shooting up like a rocket? Why do i get the feeling like the guy in the car next to me is liable to get into a fist-fight with me if I cut him off? Maybe it's because we're feeding into this behaviour? Maybe we're fuelling it!

More tomorrow... or sometime, anyway.
User avatar
Candid
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:34 am

Re: What is the future of mankind?

Post by Candid »

And here's the whole plan laid out by the World Economic Forum:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/08/ ... eat-reset/
User avatar
Candid
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2022 9:34 am

Re: What is the future of mankind?

Post by Candid »

You don't have to be a god-botherer to feel uneasy about this.
The World Economic Forum has called for religious scripture to be “rewritten” by artificial intelligence to create a globalised new Bible.
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/wef-orders-g ... thout-god/
Post Reply