The Long-Term Future of Humanity: Your Viewpoint

[Changleen]

So here on RM we all have different ideas about politics, some more different than others. In the end these ideas (I hope) are informed by an individual's ideas about what the world should become in the future.

I'd like to ask all the political :monkey:s what they want for humanity in 10, 1000 and 100,000 years and more importantly, why they think their politics are more likely than others to begin humanity on the road to achieving these goals.

Some of your goals will be based on religion, some on science, some on something completely different. What do you want for the future of humanity? What should we be aiming for and how do your ideas about politics help make that happen?

[BSEVEER]

I like peanut butter and jelly. :monkey:

[Changleen]

I like peanut butter and jelly. :monkey:You get the special prize - "Dumber than N8".

[Westy]

I think "mankind" will be around for quite awhile but not as we know it. At some point, as human population grows I think we will hit a critical mass where we will be very susceptable to disease, drought, famine etc... Man will survive but things will be very very different from our "modern" world.

Of course I have a theory that something in the human psychie(sp?) causes many people to think this way, just look at all the apocoliptic predictions throughout history and all the fiction written with a story around a decline in society.

[Tenchiro]

I can't wait until I am tearing around a desert wasteland in my hotrod, doing battle with mohawk wearing freaks.

A daily life or death struggle over the last few remaining resources, is just what I need.

[Westy]

I can't wait until I am tearing around a desert wasteland in my hotrod, doing battle with mohawk wearing freaks.

A daily life or death struggle over the last few remaining resources, is just what I need.

Just put up a fake "Sorry Out Of Gas" sign at the local gas station and you'll get to practice today.

[Tenchiro]

Just put up a fake "Sorry Out Of Gas" sign at the local gas station and you'll get to practice today.

My leather chap outfit is at the cleaners...

[Reactor]

I think human beings are like yeast. We'll keep devouring the planet and it's resourses until our waste kills. The a giant space alien will drink us.

[Reactor]

On a serious note. The biggest problem humanity faces is the over indetification with and need to put everything in, groups instead of identifying with humanity as a whole.

Americans, Russians, Christians Muslims, Black, White, Raghead, cracker, Republicans, Democrats, N8, welfare recipients...yadda yadda yadda. People spend so much time identifying with and supporting the advancement of their groups that they end up hurting everyone. As far as I'm concerned the NAACP is just as wrong as the KKK. Any group that promotes the goals of a few over the many is wrong, and devisive.

If people are hungry, starving and don't have a job, we shouldn't be trying to figure out how we pick a group to blame, we should be helping them. If everytime people made a hateful statement they'd think about how they would feel on the receiving end... well there would be a lot less hate.

[narlus]

strange to see this post not get much attention...i've been thinking about this on and off for the last year or two, and i can't say i'm too optimistic for the world my children will inherit. kinda bums me out.

i think that for better or for worse, capitalism is one of the key drivers...i am no economist, and could be way off, but the 'bigger, better, more, growth-oriented' mandate of capitalism means that statis isn't an option. CEOs get fired for stagnant company growth. how does this jibe w/ a fixed natural resource? not well, unless huge technological advances can solve some of the issues.

on the other hand, i can't see a system working better than capitalism...any sort of socialist thinking or way of governing just doesn't seem to be very efficient.

thoughts?

[BurlyShirley]

On a serious note. The biggest problem humanity faces is the over indetification with and need to put everything in, groups instead of identifying with humanity as a whole.

Americans, Russians, Christians Muslims, Black, White, Raghead, cracker, Republicans, Democrats, N8, welfare recipients...yadda yadda yadda. People spend so much time identifying with and supporting the advancement of their groups that they end up hurting everyone. As far as I'm concerned the NAACP is just as wrong as the KKK. Any group that promotes the goals of a few over the many is wrong, and devisive.

If people are hungry, starving and don't have a job, we shouldn't be trying to figure out how we pick a group to blame, we should be helping them. If everytime people made a hateful statement they'd think about how they would feel on the receiving end... well there would be a lot less hate.

I disagree with this.

Human beings are social animals, and part of being social is being at war. It IS just human nature and wars, in the longrun are really not that detrimental to the human race as a whole. Now, things like nuclear weapons can be, but even still, I dont think there'd ever be a war where all life on earth was destroyed. Some people would make it and keep going. Or if not, big deal...

I always wonder why people put such importance on acceptance, diversity, etc... I mean, what good does it do? Stops people from being mean? Awwwwwww. That's cute, but really doesnt change much. If people didnt die from gunshot wounds they'd die from cancer or Aids or traffic accidents, why not keep things interesting and let people be the animals they are?
Trying to domesticate the human struggle for life makes the earth a boring place.

[LordOpie]

I just read a sci-fi book by Jack McDevitt. One interesting concept is over-population. Sure, we'll start to colonize other planets, but there's no way to transport a billion people from Earth to anywhere else... even if we discover worm-hole/quantum transporters where you walk in and *poof*, you're there, cuz how many people will voluntarily leave their home on earth for a new life on another planet?

If we don't start now, we're looking at a serious problem in 50 years. Heck, half of all people that's ever lived are alive now.

[BurlyShirley]

I just read a sci-fi book by Jack McDevitt. One interesting concept is over-population. Sure, we'll start to colonize other planets, but there's no way to transport a billion people from Earth to anywhere else... even if we discover worm-hole/quantum transporters where you walk in and *poof*, you're there, cuz how many people will voluntarily leave their home on earth for a new life on another planet?

If we don't start now, we're looking at a serious problem in 50 years. Heck, half of all people that's ever lived are alive now.

Animal populations fluctuate due to overpopulation all the time. When too many deer are in the woods, there's not enough food, and some die of starvation, the strong ones live. Once there are fewer deer, more food becomes available, and the population goes back up. Overpopulation isnt a doomsday threat by any means IMO. Just a phase.

[fluff]

strange to see this post not get much attention...i've been thinking about this on and off for the last year or two, and i can't say i'm too optimistic for the world my children will inherit. kinda bums me out.

i think that for better or for worse, capitalism is one of the key drivers...i am no economist, and could be way off, but the 'bigger, better, more, growth-oriented' mandate of capitalism means that statis isn't an option. CEOs get fired for stagnant company growth. how does this jibe w/ a fixed natural resource? not well, unless huge technological advances can solve some of the issues.

on the other hand, i can't see a system working better than capitalism...any sort of socialist thinking or way of governing just doesn't seem to be very efficient.

thoughts?
I'd have to agree on the lack of optimism, I fear we may be living in a golden age for mankind and that the world our grandchildren, perhaps even our children, inherit will be a much less fruitful place. Energy will be more expensive, but we'll still be killing each other over it so, plus ca change...

As for the economic side it seems that greed trips us up every time, regulated capitalism does seem the best solution, allow ambition to drive us forward but rein in the excesses. It's really a compromise between true capitalism and true socialism as I see it, which is where we are; it's just that we cannot agree on where the right point is.

[fluff]

Animal populations fluctuate due to overpopulation all the time. When too many deer are in the woods, there's not enough food, and some die of starvation, the strong ones live. Once there are fewer deer, more food becomes available, and the population goes back up. Overpopulation isnt a doomsday threat by any means IMO. Just a phase.
It is hard to see mankind being wiped out by overpopulation. It woudl be more of a corrective adjustment. Not good if you are one of the 'adjusted', but god stopped caring a long time ago.

[LordOpie]

but animals don't have WMDs.

[BurlyShirley]

but animals don't have WMDs.
Poeple are animals.

[LordOpie]

Poeple are animals.
mmmm, Kentucky Fried People.

[fluff]

but animals don't have WMDs.
You sure? - I think you'll find that if you check the intelligence thoroughly you will, in fact, see that many of them are desperately trying to obtain them and must be stopped.

I bring you the Global War on Terriers.

[The Amish]

If people are hungry, starving and don't have a job, we shouldn't be trying to figure out how we pick a group to blame, we should be helping them. If everytime people made a hateful statement they'd think about how they would feel on the receiving end... well there would be a lot less hate.

I disagree completly. When people/nations are starving, cant support themselve's or are being wiped out by disease, we should do nothing. Survival of the fitest, let them die. We keep helping these people just enough so they can eek by some miserable existance, its no wonder there's so much violence and so many wars. Let the palestinians starve, the africans die off from aids, shi'ites kill the sunnis, in the end it doesnt matter anymore than loosing the dinosaurs. The world would be a much better place with less begging mouths to feed anyways

[narlus]

I disagree completly. When people/nations are starving, cant support themselve's or are being wiped out by disease, we should do nothing. Survival of the fitest, let them die. We keep helping these people just enough so they can eek by some miserable existance, its no wonder there's so much violence and so many wars. Let the palestinians starve, the africans die off from aids, shi'ites kill the sunnis, in the end it doesnt matter anymore than loosing the dinosaurs. The world would be a much better place with less begging mouths to feed anyways

that's a pretty rich statement to make, given that you happened to have won the genetic lottery (healthy white male born in america).

[BurlyShirley]

that's a pretty rich statement to make, given that you happened to have won the genetic lottery (healthy white male born in america).

You could look at it like that, or that my family did the smart thing and left their hellhole for a better situation for their family. Am I supposed to be sorry for that?

[narlus]

You could look at it like that, or that my family did the smart thing and left their hellhole for a better situation for their family. Am I supposed to be sorry for that?

i'm guessing yr family didn't come from sub-sahara africa or some slum in bangalore. when did they migrate over? and w/ all the hubbub about immigration, you think that the masses could come in if they somehow found the means to get transport over to the states?

[LordOpie]

i'm guessing yr family didn't come from sub-sahara africa or some slum in bangalore. when did they migrate over? and w/ all the hubbub about immigration, you think that the masses could come in if they somehow found the means to get transport over to the states?
so what y'all are saying is, the descendents of slaves should really be thanking whitey?

[narlus]

so what y'all are saying is, the descendents of slaves should really be thanking whitey?

precisely.

[BurlyShirley]

i'm guessing yr family didn't come from sub-sahara africa or some slum in bangalore. when did they migrate over? and w/ all the hubbub about immigration, you think that the masses could come in if they somehow found the means to get transport over to the states?
1895 and sometime during WW2, both from Poland. While the masses couldnt get in now, they had a chance...

[Tenchiro]

1895 and sometime during WW2, both from Poland. While the masses couldnt get in now, they had a chance...

Since my family has been here since before the US existed I would appreciate it if you and your kind left. We don't want you here and you don't belong.

Thanks. :monkey:

(Since when did this becaome an anti-immigration thread)

[syadasti]

Human beings are social animals, and part of being social is being at war. It IS just human nature and wars, in the longrun are really not that detrimental to the human race as a whole. Now, things like nuclear weapons can be, but even still, I dont think there'd ever be a war where all life on earth was destroyed.

Yes thats true, its natural behavior. Wars, violence, or murder are definately not restricted to humans. You can see similar behaviors in wild in higher mammals (chimps, dolphins) and other animals.

Chimps like to hunt down monkeys and eat them. Also they go on campaigns to fight other groups and beat each other to death (I think they also eat rival's offspring occasionally).

Dolphins are known to kill dolphins (for example, when not of their offspring) and beat/kill porpoises purely for fun (they don't eat them at all, just beat and bite them to death).

Natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, volcanoes, and asteriods) can surpass the power of our own weapons and the Earth still goes on living.

Humans are arrogant to think that they are above animals or can destroy all life on Earth.

[kinghami3]

mmmm, Kentucky Fried People.
Just you wait...


The way I see it, people have been around for a helluva long time, and I don't see any reason we're not going to last that much longer. Nature has an amazing ability to balance itself out. Dinosaurs were on the face of the earth for hundreds of millions of years, and they were nowhere near as resourceful as humans.

[BurlyShirley]

Since my family has been here since before the US existed I would appreciate it if you and your kind left. We don't want you here and you don't belong.

Thanks. :monkey:

(Since when did this becaome an anti-immigration thread)

Too bad your kind wasnt tough enough to make the laws then, I say...

[Westy]

Our grandchildren will be slaving in dirty factories making cheap crap for Chinese consumer.

[BurlyShirley]

Our grandchildren will be slaving in dirty factories making cheap crap for Chinese consumer.
We have lots of land, and people are breeding less. If manufacturing started coming back to the states...where our workers could make it cheaply again...would that necessarily be bad?

I dont mind seeing China as THE superpower, Im just glad we have nukes to keep em' off our banks.

[fluff]

I disagree completly. When people/nations are starving, cant support themselve's or are being wiped out by disease, we should do nothing. Survival of the fitest, let them die. We keep helping these people just enough so they can eek by some miserable existance, its no wonder there's so much violence and so many wars. Let the palestinians starve, the africans die off from aids, shi'ites kill the sunnis, in the end it doesnt matter anymore than loosing the dinosaurs. The world would be a much better place with less begging mouths to feed anyways
So should the residents of New Orleans have been left to die?

[LordOpie]

So should the residents of New Orleans have been left to die?

well, they were.

[MMike]

When armegeddon finally comes, will there be pie?

[BurlyShirley]

well, they were black.
fixed for its true meaning.

[LordOpie]

fixed for its true meaning.
I don't really care cuz the people who stayed behind were idiots. There were options to get out in advanced and the weather service was screaming to leave.


But back to the original topic... if you want to see what I think is the most likely version of our future hundreds of years from now, read Orson Scott Card's "Ender's Game" and parallel novels.

[narlus]

i wanna hear more people's take on capitalism as a destructive force for the longevity of our planet/way of living.

[Westy]

i wanna hear more people's take on capitalism as a destructive force for the longevity of our planet/way of living.

I don't think capitalism is the problem. Imagine what would happen to the planet if our current administration took over the economy. The problem is greed, it is natural survival instinct. My dog is greedy, he would eat himself sick everyday if he could. We have found ourselves in a state where the greed could be considered excessive and damaging in the long term. Have socialists countries treated the environment better, no. Some have but that is more because of that is what the people want.

[syadasti]

i wanna hear more people's take on capitalism as a destructive force for the longevity of our planet/way of living.

Don't be silly. Man can't even come close to ending life on Earth (at least not yet).

[narlus]

Don't be silly. Man can't even come close to ending life on Earth (at least not yet).

i'm not talking about 28 Days Later scenario, i'm talking about crap like coral reefs dying and polar ice caps melting due to the temp changes...regardless of whether it's caused by MancilG's hummer or a naturally occurring phenomenon, you can't deny that real changes are taking place, and at a pretty quick rate. china's got some real environmental problems to deal w/ now, not to mention 10-20 years down the road.

[H8R]

Don't be silly. Man can't even come close to ending life on Earth (at least not yet).

You're joking right?

We have the power to turn the planet into a smoking pile of glass.


I think that it's a matter of time, when not if - either mankind itself or nature will eventually take us out. I'm leaning more towards nature. (viruses, disasters, etc.)

Not every species will get wiped out, this planet is in a nice spot in the universe to support life. We suck though, it was a nice run but we are too dangerous for the earth to let us go on too much longer.

[H8R]

Reminds me, couple of my favorite quotes from artist Jenny Holzer:

Children are the hope of the future
Children are the cruelest of all

[LordOpie]

You're joking right?

We have the power to turn the planet into a smoking pile of glass.
I think between the US and Russia, we have over 30,000 nukes. I'm pretty sure that's enough to permanently destroy life on this planet for 1000s of years.

[fluff]

I think between the US and Russia, we have over 30,000 nukes. I'm pretty sure that's enough to permanently destroy life on this planet for 1000s of years.
Have you heard about the wildlife around Chernobyl, it's radioactive as hell but lives just as long as its non-radioactive cousins elsewhere. It seems that DNA is very adaptable indeed.

[H8R]

It seems that DNA is very adaptable indeed.

Not if it's wiped out.

[LordOpie]

Have you heard about the wildlife around Chernobyl, it's radioactive as hell but lives just as long as its non-radioactive cousins elsewhere. It seems that DNA is very adaptable indeed.
Cool. Now I'm not nearly as worried and I won't bother signing the petition to ban all nukes on the planet.

[Changleen]

Wow, you lot sure are fatalistic.

[H8R]

Wow, you lot sure are fatalistic.

Try living in Oakland for 20 years, you'd want the whole planet destroyed too.

:blah:

[narlus]

Wow, you lot sure are fatalistic.

easy to say when yr down in NZ (aside from that nasty ozone hole you have to deal w/ ).

[Changleen]

Look, we probably arn't all going to be wiped out. There may be some nasty wars and a few bad diseases, but I'm pretty sure humanity will still be around in a few thousand years.

The question is, what do you want for future generations? And how do we get there? Do you really want your future decendants to live the same way, in the same society that you live in now? What do you want to change?

Do you think unhindered capitalism will get us there? I personally think that whilst capitalism is a great driving force, it needs to be kept in check in some ways for the good of the bulk of the population. You may or may not have heard of social capitalism, which essentially means that your bottom line isn't only about $$$, but also about societal and quality of life and environment benefits. Some corporations already practice this in the UK and Europe, I don't know about in the US.

I also think areas of science that some people consider unethical for whatever reason are probably some of the most important for us to get a handle on, and religious and other groups who hinder this can fvck off.

[noname]

Look, we probably arn't all going to be wiped out. There may be some nasty wars and a few bad diseases, but I'm pretty sure humanity will still be around in a few thousand years.

The question is, what do you want for future generations? And how do we get there? Do you really want your future decendants to live the same way, in the same society that you live in now? What do you want to change?

Do you think unhindered capitalism will get us there? I personally think that whilst capitalism is a great driving force, it needs to be kept in check in some ways for the good of the bulk of the population. You may or may not have heard of social capitalism, which essentially means that your bottom line isn't only about $$$, but also about societal and quality of life and environment benefits. Some corporations already practice this in the UK and Europe, I don't know about in the US.

I also think areas of science that some people consider unethical for whatever reason are probably some of the most important for us to get a handle on, and religious and other groups who hinder this can fvck off.
The problem with people that push social capitalism is that they don't understand prosperity under capitalism or how prices regulate the consumption of resources. People see the positive effects of these things all around them and demonize the processes that created them ignorant of the causal relationships between the two.
As far as social capitalism is concerned, it isn't nessecarily any different than capitalism, it is the people telling the coprorations what they expect from them. People reach a certain level of affluence where they no longer spend all their time concerned with the basic nessecities and they take a more active interest in the world around them. Their enviroment and overall health become more important.
The increase in convenience and liesure brought about through the bounties of capitalism have created a rennesaince of enviromental
and social awareness. The mere fact that people have enough disposable income now to demand from producers higher quality goods and more eco friendly production tecniques (increasing the cost of said goods) says volumes about the flexibility of the system. Just think, you never see a bum planting a tree on Arbor day, it's always someone who is well to do and can afford to allocate the time resources and effort while a poorer person would likely choose to stay at work.

[noname]

As far as population bombs and resource depletion. The resources aren't all being depleted unless we are shooting them off into space. They are just being moved around and becoming less centralized.
I imagine at some point it may become economically plausible to start mining landfills for metals and plastics. Hmmmmm
As resources become scarce in a capitalist system, the prices rise. When the price reaches a point where it is no longer profitable to use said material, something else will be substituted. As technology marches on things become smaller and more complex, doing far more with far less. Reducing further the burden on suppliers of raw goods. Yes I know that population is always growing, or is it? In maturing societies as people become more affluent they tend to have fewer children, eventually you end up with a situation like that seen in many western countries where the native population is actually shrinking or holding steady, any growth comes primarily from incoming immigrant populations (like the US) if there is any growth at all.

[Changleen]

The problem with people that push social capitalism is that they don't undrstand prosperity under capitalism or how prices regulate the consumption of resources. People see the positive effects of these things all around them and demonize the processes that created them ignorant of the causal relationships between the two.If that's what you think you are severely ignorant about social capitalism and the motivations of people. You sound like you're talking about 10 year old communists. In reality, many very large and successful corporations are embracing social capitalist ideals, and I think they probably better understand their environment than you.
As far as social capitalism is concerned, it isn't nessecarily any different than capitalism, it is the people telling the coprorations what they expect from them.I agree that a lot of this change has come about due to consumer pressure.People reach a certain level of affluence where they no longer spend all their time concerned with the basic nessecities and they take a more active interest in the world around them. Their enviroment and overall health become more important.Once again though here you seem to imply that only the rich care about their environment. Even a couple of seconds of rational thought makes it obvious that this absolute rubbish.
The increase in convenience and liesure brought about through the bounties of capitalism have created a rennesaince of enviromental and social awareness. The mere fact that people have enough disposable income now to demand from producers higher quality goods and more eco friendly production tecniques (increasing the cost of said goods) says volumes about the flexibility of the system.You have such a narrow view of the world. Your immediate society isn't the only way people think or behave in the world. Maybe when you one day come to recognise that you won't make such ignorant statements.Just think, you never see a bum planting a tree on Arbor day, it's always someone who is well to do and can afford to allocate the time resources and effort while a poorer person would likely choose to stay at work.Once again, complete tosh.

Most of your post had nothing to do with social capitalism, or showed your complete lack of a broad, or even quasi-realistic world view. Well done.

[LordOpie]

People reach a certain level of affluence where they no longer spend all their time concerned with the basic nessecities and they take a more active interest in the world around them. Their enviroment and overall health become more important.
Once again though here you seem to imply that only the rich care about their environment. Even a couple of seconds of rational thought makes it obvious that this absolute rubbish.
are you looking for a fight? Cuz how do you come to that conclusion?

You clearly misread him.

[noname]

If that's what you think you are severely ignorant about social capitalism and the motivations of people. You sound like you're talking about 10 year old communists. In reality, many very large and successful corporations are embracing social capitalist ideals, and I think they probably better understand their environment than you. Embracing those ideas because society wants them to.
I agree that a lot of this change has come about due to consumer pressure.Once again though here you seem to imply that only the rich care about their environment. Did I ever say the rich? No. Even a couple of seconds of rational thought makes it obvious that this absolute rubbish.
You have such a narrow view of the world.Narrow view? take a look around, the cleanest societies are also the most affluent ones. Your immediate society isn't the only way people think or behave in the world. Maybe when you one day come to recognise that you won't make such ignorant statements.Once again, complete tosh. read the progress paradox by Greg Easterbrook or the virtues of prosperity by Dinesh D'souza

Most of your post had nothing to do with social capitalism, or showed your complete lack of a broad, or even quasi-realistic world view. Well done. Or maybe you are once again proving your lack of comprehension. I'm not in the least bit surprized.
http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/dvv/cwmjitter.gif

[noname]

are you looking for a fight? Cuz how do you come to that conclusion?

You clearly misread him.
He's always lookin for a fight. I can't really say he's looking for a debate, cause he doesn't really debate, just calls you names and says you're stupid. It's like arguing with a 13 year old.

[Changleen]

As far as population bombs and resource depletion. The resources aren't all being depleted unless we are shooting them off into space. They are just being moved around and becoming less centralized.Wrong. They are undergoing Entropy to a point where they require more energy to reform than they produce int he system. Often far further.
I imagine at some point it may become economically plausible to start mining landfills for metals and plastics. HmmmmmDo you understand the concept of entropy? Apparantly not. Although there is a long way to go, and many other sources of energy and raw materials to be exploited before we actually run out, we will reach a point, even with a plateau or decrease in population where we have used up all the useful resources on the planet.
As resources become scarce in a capitalist system, the prices rise. When the price reaches a point where it is no longer profitable to use said material, something else will be substituted. As technology marches on things become smaller and more complex, doing far more with far less. Reducing further the burden on suppliers of raw goods. Yes I know that population is always growing, or is it? In maturing societies as people become more affluent they tend to have fewer children, eventually you end up with a situation like that seen in many western countries where the native population is actually shrinking or holding steady, any growth comes primarily from incoming immigrant populations (like the US) if there is any growth at all.This is laregly correct, although it doesn't have much to do with social capitalism, which operates under basically the same rules. If you think however, as you seem to be implying, that capitalism and technology will save us from ever having to need to leave the planet, I think you are somewhat delusional.

[Changleen]

are you looking for a fight? Cuz how do you come to that conclusion?

You clearly misread him.He said that poor people would rather stay at work that go and plant trees, because they're poor and need the cash. This isn't true. His general attitude to the poor, that they are unfit to play with those who 'understand capitalism' is how I interpretted his point.

And yes, of course I'm looking for an e-fight. You have met me before right? :)

[noname]

Wrong. They are undergoing Entropy to a point where they require more energy to reform than they produce int he system. Often far further.
Do you understand the concept of entropy? Apparantly not. Although there is a long way to go, and many other sources of energy and raw materials to be exploited before we actually run out, we will reach a point, even with a plateau or decrease in population where we have used up all the useful resources on the planet.
This is laregly correct, although it doesn't have much to do with social capitalism, which operates under basically the same rules. If you think however, as you seem to be implying, that capitalism and technology will save us from ever having to need to leave the planet, I think you are somewhat delusional.
They don't have a choice, unless someone finds a way around the theory of relativity or we start sending out colony ships.
As far as a system of capitalism where the government tries to intervene and control to some extent the allocation of resources, that is horribly inefficient. More is wasted when the government steps in in any area, not less.

[noname]

People are always asking for the government to do more, then they complain about what the government has done. No one is ever really happy with the government, yet they keep going back to them for answers when a percieved problem arises.

[Changleen]

Narrow view? take a look around, the cleanest societies are also the most affluent ones.Pre-industrial societies are cleaner than any industrial society, and America, the most affluent country in the world is also the biggest polluter. Advanced countries that are the cleanest, such as northern European communities, have a far stronger socialist influence in their government and without fail practice a more socialist form of capitalism than say, the UK, the US or Japan.

[Changleen]

They don't have a choice, unless someone finds a way around the theory of relativity or we start sending out colony ships.That's what this thread is about, except we don't have to take such an extreme step at first. Mining asteroids on a limited scale would solve a great many of our resource problems without sending half of humanity off on some Battlestar Galactica type mission. As far as a system of capitalism where the government tries to intervene and control to some extent the allocation of resources, that is horribly inefficient. More is wasted when the government steps in in any area, not less.Again, you are only looking at your system of government. Many European and Asian governments manage to regulate far more 'harshly' without harming economic growth, and giving their citizens a better average quality of life.

[Changleen]

People are always asking for the government to do more, then they complain about what the government has done.That's not quite right - Often people ask for the government to do less. And social capitalism is about corporations doing more for the greater good, not the government. No one is ever really happy with the government, yet they keep going back to them for answers when a percieved problem arises.They are a regulatory body. Actually in some places most people do have a positive view of their governments. Things change though and that's what democracy is all about. The most successful governments adapt and don't hang on to irrational policy based on religion or the needs of special interest groups.

[narlus]

In maturing societies as people become more affluent they tend to have fewer children, eventually you end up with a situation like that seen in many western countries where the native population is actually shrinking or holding steady, any growth comes primarily from incoming immigrant populations (like the US) if there is any growth at all.

right, and that's going to be a problem for countries like Germany and France, as they face stagnating populations and the resulting stagnating economies. the alternative is to increase worker productivity on a unit basis. how much can be made up in this manner?

[Changleen]

right, and that's going to be a problem for countries like Germany and France, as they face stagnating populations and the resulting stagnating economies. the alternative is to increase worker productivity on a unit basis. how much can be made up in this manner?First, I don't think you need to have a growing population to ensure a growing economy. For sure it can help, but an average increase in per-transaction value is equally important. Technology obviously helps this, so R+D and science is increasingly important.

Second, I think France's problems mostly boil down to their overly-socialist pollicies. I mean you can take this stuff too far. The French work less hours than pretty much anyone, and the welfare state is unsustainably generous. It'd be a great place to live while it holds up though!

Germany is getting it together now I think, and most of their problems were caused by changes in the markets they were traditionally strongest in. The country has had to evolve and I think they are doing what needs to be done.

[noname]

Pre-industrial societies are cleaner than any industrial society, and America, the most affluent country in the world is also the biggest polluter. Advanced countries that are the cleanest, such as northern European communities, have a far stronger socialist influence in their government and without fail practice a more socialist form of capitalism than say, the UK, the US or Japan.
those countries have three major differences than the US that makes it like comparing apples to oranges.
First off, by populated land mass, the US is huge, and people are spread out everywhere. Our infrastructure gets continuously upgraded but it is still too cost prohibitive to replace it. late in 01 there was a blackout in the mid atlantic/northeast. It all started with something very small getting tripped up and it shut down power to millions. Surely you can imagine how costly it would be to try and change a system like that. The affected area was huge.
Also, americans have a really bad case of NIMBY, amoungst other things, they actually push the government to keep power producers from upgrading their production means to something more efficient.
On top off that, we haven't fought a war on our own soil since god knows when, so while everyone else was recovering from one war or another we were getting a huge headstart on everyone else.
Also, look at the actual levels of pollution in the US in a time lapsed scale. The eco friendly thing started to really get a foothold on American pop culture in the 70's, and since then the numbers have been steadily falling ever since.
Of course I would expect countries that are much smaller to pollute less, I would also expect countries that aren't fully/thoughly developed to pollute less, in certain respectsin other regards they pollute more. At the same time I would posit that the current US energy situation is a perfect example of both what can go right(providing a binding forum for citizens to hold corporations accountable) and what can go wrong (allowing politicians to set policy and standards on fields they are completely ignorant of basing their desicions almost soley on emotion and superstition).

[noname]

First, I don't think you need to have a growing population to ensure a growing economy. For sure it can help, but an average increase in per-transaction value is equally important. Technology obviously helps this, so R+D and science is increasingly important. A stagnating population would actually lead to inflation, all things being equal.

Second, I think France's problems mostly boil down to their overly-socialist pollicies. I mean you can take this stuff too far. The French work less hours than pretty much anyone, and the welfare state is unsustainably generous. It'd be a great place to live while it holds up though! France, Because hard work never killed anyone, but in some places it's illegal.

Germany is getting it together now I think, and most of their problems were caused by changes in the markets they were traditionally strongest in. The country has had to evolve and I think they are doing what needs to be done.Most EU countries were struggling through the past few years due partly to too much socialism, that's why some countries have voted in slightly more conservative leaders. Although that is still relative if you try to compare it to US politics.

[noname]

Since this thread was originally started about the long term future of humanity, I have one question. Does anyone else think that people may eventually develop into two distinctly different types?
I'm thinking there will be those that still are fully physically proficient and able to travel outside regularly, then there will be ones like my roommate who live in a virtual world with fully integrated computer systems implanted in their bodies and they live off a diet of sugar water and high carb pizza like dishes. Hmmmmm

[Changleen]

those countries have three major differences than the US that makes it like comparing apples to oranges.
First off, by populated land mass, the US is huge, and people are spread out everywhere. Our infrastructure gets continuously upgraded but it is still too cost prohibitive to replace it. late in 01 there was a blackout in the mid atlantic/northeast. It all started with something very small getting tripped up and it shut down power to millions. Surely you can imagine how costly it would be to try and change a system like that. The affected area was huge.
Also, americans have a really bad case of NIMBY, amoungst other things, they actually push the government to keep power producers from upgrading their production means to something more efficient.Yes. Apparantly around 25% of all pollution in the US is down to power companies. However on the other hand Europe is now largely one market, with an equivalent geographical size to the US and the pollution is far lower per head.
Also, look at the actual levels of pollution in the US in a time lapsed scale. The eco friendly thing started to really get a foothold on American pop culture in the 70's, and since then the numbers have been steadily falling ever since.Yes and no - Your largest industry is indeed polluting less now, something like a 7% drop since 1990 if I remember rightly, but pollution by smaller companies and idividuals is still going up, at least last time I looked.Of course I would expect countries that are much smaller to pollute less, I would also expect countries that aren't fully/thoughly developed to pollute less, in certain respectsin other regards they pollute more.Yes, I try to look at it as a per capita thing to be fair to everyone. 2% of the world's population making 25% of the pollution is not a good look IMO, and the big challenges now are to get that figure down, and help developing countries, especially China and India from having to go through the same ultra-high polluting stages of development most of the west has done.
At the same time I would posit that the current US energy situation is a perfect example of both what can go right (providing a binding forum for citizens to hold corporations accountable) and what can go wrong (allowing politicians to set policy and standards on fields they are completely ignorant of basing their desicions almost soley on emotion and superstition).I hope you hold your corporations accountable as well as you can, and I hope you get some politicians who arn't entirely self serving after Bush.

[Changleen]

Since this thread was originally started about the long term future of humanity, I have one question. Does anyone else think that people may eventually develop into two distinctly different types?
I'm thinking there will be those that still are fully physically proficient and able to travel outside regularly, then there will be ones like my roommate who live in a virtual world with fully integrated computer systems implanted in their bodies and they live off a diet of sugar water and high carb pizza like dishes. HmmmmmSounds like it's already happening... :(

[syadasti]

I think between the US and Russia, we have over 30,000 nukes. I'm pretty sure that's enough to permanently destroy life on this planet for 1000s of years.

I am not saying we shouldn't do anything to protect civilization and the planet but its wrong to think mankind is anything more than a bee sting on the Earth's ass in the scheme of things.

Earth's forces and space (asteroids) can easily dwarf our weapons:

-Average nuclear weapon today = 1 megaton
-Biggest bomb ever detonated by mankind = 50 megatons
-Biggest bomb ever made by mankind = 100 megatons
-Peak of total worldwide stockpile size approx. 16000 megatons (2/3 the energy of the 1815 Mount Tambora eruption. Today we only have a fraction of the energy with about 20000 active warheads on earth right now)
-Biggest event on Earth = 190,000,000 megatons Chicxulub Crater Event (ended the rein of dinosaurs on Earth)


It would take about 2 MILLION 100 Megaton Tsar Bombs to equal the asteroid that didn't wipe out life on earth in its past.

We've only ever had less than 1/10000th the energy of an major asteroid at our peak historical stockpile levels.

Mankind can't touch mother nature when it comes to destruction. The Earth will be alive long after our species has become extinct.

* The first nuclear bomb tested at the Alamagordo test site released 18.6 kilotons of TNT (Rhodes, page 677), or approximately 78 terajoules.

* The Little Boy weapon dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of approximately 13 kilotons of TNT (54 TJ). Thus, a megaton of TNT is equivalent to roughly 77 Hiroshima bombs. The Nagasaki bomb, Fat Man, released 20 kilotons of TNT = 84 TJ.

* The largest nuclear weapon ever detonated was the Tsar Bomba, which had a yield of 50 megatons of TNT (210 PJ). The most powerful nuclear weapon ever produced was a version of the Tsar Bomb that would have yielded some 100 megatons of TNT.

* Typical H-bombs today have a yield of around 1 megaton of TNT.

* The 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens was reportedly equivalent to 27,000 Hiroshima-sized atomic bombs - which translates roughly to 350 megatons.

* The 1912 eruption of Novarupta in Alaska was ten times the size of Mount St. Helens. That is about 3500 megatons.

* The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa was about 50% larger than Novarupta. That is about 5250 megatons.

* The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora was about seven times larger than Novarupta. That is about 24500 megatons.

* The 1650 BC eruption of Santorini was much larger than Mount Tambora.

* The Lake Toba eruption 73,000 years ago was larger even than Santorini, and is likely to have caused a mass global die-off. See Toba catastrophe theory.

* The Yellowstone Caldera was formed by a massive volcanic explosion some 640,000 years ago that was 2500 times the size of Mount St. Helens. That is about 875000 Megatons. This would have caused a mass global die-off as well

*Of the roughly 135,000 warheads ever built by the two superpowers, about 3% had yields over 4.5 megatons.

*The U.S. has now retired all of its multimegaton weapons. Disassembly of the last type removed from service, the B53, may be completed in 2006. Russia probably maintains a small number ICBMs in high-yield single warhead versions. The People's Republic of China has one type of ICBM armed with high-yield warheads.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/multimeg-3.gif

A gigaton of TNT is more commonly used as a measure of energy equal to that released by 1 billion metric tons of TNT, or 4.184 × 1018 joules = 4.184 exajoules (EJ). A gigaton is equal to 1,000 megatons, and is from the same family of terms. However, while megatons are commonly used as a measure of explosive devices, the most powerful explosive device ever detonated - the Tsar Bomba - had a yield of only 57 megatons (October 30, 1961 - U.S.S.R.).

The term gigaton is therefore used mostly in seismology. An earthquake measuring an 8.0 on the Richter scale releases the equivalent of approximately 1.01 gigatons of TNT; the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake is estimated to have released the equivalent of 100 gigatons of TNT. Even in this context however, the term gigaton is not often used. It is perhaps more appropriately used in planetary science, where impact events can release thousands or even millions of gigatons of energy; the body that caused the Chicxulub crater in Mexico is estimated to have released the equivalent of as much as 190,000 gigatons of TNT.

[bigdrop05]

It's going to all look like it did in Star Wars episode whatever ,all city all built up everywhere in 500 years..

Vampires live forever,just become one & wait & see !...lol

[noname]

Sounds like it's already happening... :(
on the upswing, I do look foward to the future of medical nanotech. I'd like to see just how far we can go with it in my life time.

[bjanga]

I think I will see the use of a nuclear weapon with the aim to kill people in my lifetime.

I also think areas of science that some people consider unethical for whatever reason are probably some of the most important for us to get a handle on, and religious and other groups who hinder this can fvck off.

i wanna hear more people's take on capitalism as a destructive force for the longevity of our planet/way of living.

I think capitalism will drive technology, and while we will struggle and bitch and moan with various moral implications things will slowly progress and the world(s?) will become a nicer place to live in, although new problems / social abberations such as the sensitive-to-light computer junkies will surface.

[Changleen]

on the upswing, I do look foward to the future of medical nanotech. I'd like to see just how far we can go with it in my life time.For sure. Gimme some of that Sci-fi sh1t.

[fluff]

Try living in Oakland for 20 years, you'd want the whole planet destroyed too.

:blah:
I went there once; you don't need 20 years, 1 evening is enough.

[The Amish]

Too bad your kind wasnt tough enough to make the laws then, I say...


ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZap!