Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
v01i0

Problematics on economic growth.

Recommended Posts

I was inspired by iraqi quotes and islam thread to collect together my thoughts about underlying reasons behind the complicated situation of the modern world. Everyone interested is invitated to depate over the matter.. Here's my outline on the matter:

The sheer insustainability of economical growth requires revising of global marketing policies. At the moment decision makers and company leaders are widely delusional about economical growth, which they believe can continue into the far future. But on the contrary, we are living in the world which has limits and exceeding those causes an inevitable collapse of global systems.

Preceding has already been observed by Nikolai Kondratieff(see KondratieffÔÇÖs cycles). The reason of Kondratieff cycles is controversial but reality is that they do exist. One of the credible explanations is given by Club of Rome in their report ÔÇ£Limits of GrowthÔÇØ (Meadows - Randers - Meadows) which states that when a system exceeds itÔÇÖs limits of sustainability, it collapses. From this follows the supposition that fast growing economy keeps exceeding its limits and collapses over and over again, causing KondratieffÔÇÖs cycles to emerge. Reasons for this ÔÇ£economical overheatingÔÇØ can be conducted in delusions of economic growth.

Today we have even new problem at hand. The current population has exceeded seven billions, while most of them are living in poverty and have no actual change for decent quality of life. The problem grows even greater, as we have already observed that poverty causes increase on birthrates. With the global media, this poor population becomes aware of the quality of life in the west, which makes them want it, and some people here of course want them to have it. Yet they fail to see the impossibility in this. They fail to see, that by demanding better life quality to the poor, they should reduce their own quality of life. Although one day we all may be poor due the depleted natural resources, and that day is not very far in the future. Our children may be the ones experiencing it. There is hope however, since we cannot tell for sure what kind of inventions future science will make. Some materials can always be replaced by others, and fusion energy may be the solution to the worldÔÇÖs energy issue. But that will be then, but present is now, and we have to remember, that future may also bring us problems that are not yet visible.

Anyway, the huge chasm between the poor and rich could be one of the explaining factors behind the unrest in world today. ThereÔÇÖs a Marxian problem, when the profits of economy are mostly collected by the owners of capital, the poor become poorer and the rich even richer. Although there are systems(like taxes) that are designed to level this imbalanced division of income, it does not remove the problem of in-equilibrium on income division. It wouldn't be first time, when coups and wars would start due the extreme poverty of the masses.

Other problem is the increasing pollution of growing production in world. Since the population is continuously growing and governments seek to enhance the welfare of their citizens, we are nowhere near of the limits of increasing pollution. It has been controversial whether the climate change is caused by pollution, but now there is growing consensus on the fact that it is, at least, speed up by growing pollution caused by increasing agriculture and industry.

Based on preceding, one have to ask how to achieve sustainable development? No matter what you think, you have to agree that resources on this globe won't last forever. But will they last long enough so other alternatives like moon- and asteroid mining will become reality? Is the air still breathable after 20 years of growing industrialization?

There's something to think about. Let the critical analyzing begin...

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kondratieff backed up Capitalism.

"What was dangerously unacceptable to his Communist masters was the idea that there was an inherent self-correcting mechanism perpetuating capitalism. He was banished to the Gulag where he was quickly condemned to solitary confinement. He became mentally ill and died."

The flaw was the he was trying to prove the notion of finite production. One doesn't exist. It's as if a forester is cutting down his trees for sale, and the demand is so great that he doesn't replant them. Well, if he is the major provider of lumber, and will finally run out of trees because he is cutting them down so fast that he will deplete his supply, there will be a temporary SHORTAGE of lumber, but NOT a collapse. As Kondratieff himself pointed out, there's a self correcting mechanism in Capitalism. Other interpenuers will see the potential profits, especially when there's a shortage, and will step in to fill in that gap.

Second. The notion that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is flawed. The only true part of it is when you have money, it's easier to make more money, when you know how. That's about it. There's plenty of millionaires that have lost it all, and there's even more people that have started with nothing and ended up milliionares.

Those who live in poverty, either do not have anything that will allow them o succeed, even if they lived in US, or some of them do, BUT their government is socialist (Mexico for example) and destroys any potential ways that person can start his own bussiness and make his own money. Take Russia for example. It was rotting away, literally. When Socialism was overthrown in 1990's, private bussinesses sprung up left and right. The economy took off. Go to Moscow now, you will see that it resembles big western cities with all the store, malls, ect... Some of my cousins in Minsk have started their own bussinesses, albeit, Belarus is still communist and you are working your own bussiness under constant threat of complete confiscation, so you do it really private, by word of mouth and under the table. So, in Belarus, by comparison to Russia, peoples quality of life is MUCH lower. Although they were both in the same boat in 1990. Just by abolishing socialism Russia was able to make giant strides in improving economy and therefore quality of life, while Belaruss is still stuck in the rotting Communist days. That's your comparison between socialism and Capitalism.

The Marxian "problem" is not a problem at all. I work in an industry that wouldn't exist if it weren't for those "rich". Just in my industry alone those "rich" support millions of jobs, paying hunderds of millions, if not billions in taxes. Just like my flight instructor used to say, even if you take all the wealth in the world and re-distribute it equally between everyone. Within 5 years 95% of that wealth will end up with the people who had it before. And it's true. There are those who can make money, run their own bussiness, invent products, and there are those who can perform skillfull labor, and then there are those who can do a job that any person off the streen can do.

Guess which one is going to earn more. If you try to treat a person that went through 10 years of schooling so that he can cut people open and fix them, if you are going to treat that person the same as you treat a burger flipper. Guess what. Those people will stop working. If the enventor doesn't get the profits from his invention, he will stop releasing them. If the person who can run a giagantic bussiness will think the compensation is not worth it, he will stop running it. Socialism destroyed countries time and time again. Governments do NOT need to increase the wellfare of their citizens, they need to protect private property of their citizens, protect the rights of their citizens, and leave the rest UP TO their citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps I used too strong word(collapse), it was depression which I meant. However, worldsystem is heading towards steep depression, or worse, if we continue on current course of consuption. We are like locusts, altho we might not having next place to go when we have cleared this one.

Yeah, I can see the self-correcting mechanism in capitalism, thats why Kondratjeff's cycles are cycles. Every single system, of course, tries to preserve itself. That's law in system dynamics. However, does it have to work like Kondratjeff noticed? I mean, should we invent something that would regulate the "overheating" economy? At the moment technology businness could be causing another depression. Companies are pushing products on markets for which no one seems to have real needage. A lot of money have been invested in third generation mobile systems, yet consumers have welcomed it rather poorly.

Of course, it might be fantasizing to imagine that there would be a way to regulate markets in order to make this waving between boost and depression to end. Maybe well executed market researching and more accurate information would help on that.

Howerer, I think that growth cannot be endless - which it cannot be, as you agreed on - since eventually we have used every last piece of ore, last drop of oil, and cultivated the last square meter of land that is cultivable. Furthermore, with current rates of growth, that day might not be far in future.

In my opinion, promoting (free)capitalism will take us there faster. Maybe somekind of regulation is needed after all. Simple reasons for that is the increasing pollution and depletion of non-renewing natural resources(I feel like I'm repeating myself). Although the worldsystem probably is capable of taking care of itself and repair the damage we've caused in time, but I'd like to see that mankind would be wise enough that this(collapse) don't have to happen.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is absolutly no regualation needed. Any regulation is just another way of taxation.

There is also no un-needed products being pushed on the market. The consuer ultimatly decides what's needed and what is not. Just like we have already discussed in a previous thread. You can not force someone to buy what one does not want to buy. Therefore if you put out something that is not needed, people will not buy it, you will lose money, and go out of bussiness. And then, there will be someone else there to take your place and give the consumers what they want. It's that easy. What you are suggesting is some kind of comitee that decides what it will allow the market to sell, and what it will ban. This is just like communism. Communism is an abomination, and anyone who agrees with it is a murderer and a slave driver.

As far as this notion of mining the earth of all it's minerals. I don't know where you are getting it from, but it's nothing but fiction. Here's what you do. Look up a picture of the world that is taken from space during the night http://www.pitt.edu/~rps21/world_at_night.jpg . It will show you the the distribution of population in the world. You will notice that about 70% of land masses is unlit. That's because there is no population there. Another thing is, those lights have been enhanced, meaning if you zoom in, the actual space between those lights is going to be empty, which translates into hundreds of miles of sparse population, not sparse like the suburbs, but sparse like towns with population of 5000 and a couple of hundred miles of empty highways/roads till you see another one.

So, you know what's in the dark, unlit parts of the world. Resources. All kinds. Forests, mountains and hills filled with ores. You know why people are not there? Because of distances between the resources and a factorys, consumers. We are gathering resources, close to population centers. Why would we go hundreds of miles away from population centers to mine ore or cut timber if it's available 300 miles from a major population center. So we mine that resource, and a little town of a dozen thousand springs up 20 or 30 miles from that resource that will be gathered, processed and shipped to a major population/industrial center for farther product build/refinement/development. I am a pilot. When I fly over US, it's mind boggling how much land is sitting empty between the east and west coasts. Can you even imagine how much land is sitting empty in Russia, and even China. There's so much resources that it will last us thousands of years. So, iron ore running out is the least of our concerns, forget the least, it's not even a concern.

Oil. I have heard different estimates about oil. Some I heard way back in the 80's that estimated oil would run out by 2015, others I've heard more recently 2020 to 2030. Either way. Even if we run out of oil, we will have alternate power such as nuclear. We will just have to do massive overhauls of our transportation, including electrical and maybe even steam trains. So, don't worry about that either. Humans are a resourcfull breed, and if we don't kill ourselfs first with nuclear war, which is a much higher probability, we will not only live through, but prosper, when faced with a difficulty. Just like war is the mother of invention, so is what seems like an enormous problem of running out of oil.

We don't need to force or regulate energy transitions nor markets. They regulate themselfs. When oil becomes sparse, the market will dictate that we swith over to solar, hydrogen, nuclear, coal, steam, wood, vegetable oil, ect... whatever energy/power source the market will bear. It's just like natural selection, we will adapt to whatever is the best option. There's also no need to regulate the market, production or invention. It's the same thing there, the market will naturally regulate and select what and how much we produce, and what invention is good and will sell or what is useless and will go forgoten.

I went to the stoor this weekend and saw a vacuum robot for sale. I liked it. It automatically cleans floors, maps your rooms layout, and recharges itself. However, it only sweeped hard floors. I have hard floors but only in the kitchen, laundry and some coridors, so I didn't buy it, as I have little use for it. Now, if it vacuumed carpets, I would've bought it in a second. See, an invention, might be useless, or it might evolve and become usefull. Time and consumers will show. If there was a comitee regulating it, however, they might have decided for me that they don't want to waste plastic, batteries, silicone, and copper for wires on such a technology. That will actually hurt us, NOT help us. Things that will might make a huge difference, save labor time, increase our standard of living, open new resources, ect... might never make it to the market if there's some regulatory comitee overseeing it.

[ 03-27-2006, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, there's NOBODY, absolutly nobody that knows what is best for me, other than me. Nobody is more qualified to make a decission about what I want on the market, other than me.

Nobody but me, is more qualified to make a decission about how much I should earn.

Anyway, you get the point. A government regulating what goes on the market, how much we consume, what we consume, ect... Is a government that is overstepping it's boundaries, and that's what breeds the elites that want to tax soda because they think our kids are fat, want to tax cigarettes because they want to chose for you if you smoke or not, want to tax fast food because they decided it's unhealthy, want to make all the possible decissions for you, while you just work, produce, and serve. They, the elites, career politicians like the Kennedy family, Clintons, and Bush, who today has went against the popular vote of the citizens, and is approving of granting illegals ways to aquire citizenship, and the rest of them, become our rulers, with us becoming their slaves.

See, that's a great example. Apparently Bush has decided that he knows what is best for us. The citizens that have voted for him. And is going against our vote by dropping the bill that would criminally prosecute illegals, instead he is opening up new ways for them to acquire citizenship. You see, that is what is really dangerous. A government body that is making decissions for you, and against the popular vote.

We the people should regulate the government, not the other way around. The government is there to serve us, by our consent, remember that.

[ 03-27-2006, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although you have point in several occasions, your reasoning in some parts is, at least to say, feeble.

quote:

...if you take all the wealth in the world and re-distribute it equally between everyone. Within 5 years 95% of that wealth will end up with the people who had it before.


If whole world's capital(capital is not just money, it's factories, land and even the information you posses) would be redistributed equally between all people, who can say for certainty that most of it would end up to the same people it belonged originally? It may happen tho, if the influential relationships would remain same, but I doubt that they would, since wealth and production means often are part of influence. I don't deny that there would still be people that fail to do any good for themselves with the capital they had, but there are lot more people whom previously didn't had any chances for enhance their quality of life. Not anyone lives in U.S(or any other countries where are good infrastructure and underlying system to enhance the possibilities to success). Not anyone can flee their country when bad times are upon, into the countries where things are better. If they could, it would end up in great mess.

quote:

Look up a picture of the world that is taken from space during the night...So, you know what's in the dark, unlit parts of the world. Resources. All kinds. Forests, mountains and hills filled with ores.


Deserts and completely useless wastelands where even nature has failed to sustain life, except the toughest of it. Tho you are right of what comes to the distance of resources. But when the resource acquisition becomes harder, the expenses began to rise, so that the production will eventually end up being non-profiting. Same goes with feeding people of the earth. Most and the best cultivable land is already being used and the cultivation of the rest, where something can grow, is being expensive.

quote:

We don't need to force or regulate energy transitions nor markets. They regulate themselfs. When oil becomes sparse, the market will dictate that we swith over to solar, hydrogen, nuclear, coal, steam, wood, vegetable oil, ect... whatever energy/power source the market will bear.


Many people have said the same you did, and I'm sure it will be said many times after. Sometimes however, people fail to comprehend it in wider context. As we run out of any form of energy, the usage of other forms increases, which results faster consumption of alternate sources of energy. I couldn't agree more on when you say that market will bear, of course it will, it has to adapt to preserve itself. My point was that we are wasting our common resources by allowing this to happen! Take the un-needed products for example. As you said, the markets will take care of them that they won't be produced very long, however they are still produced. And it's pure wastage of resources. Of course in failed communism this would be even bigger problem, as the state would probably keep producing something that anyone wouldn't need.

Another problem that lies hidden in the quote above is that industry indeed is a system like any other, which tries to preserve itself. Tobacco industry is the most obvious example of all. They have even been caught of spreading misinformation about health impacts of tobacco, just to keep money flowing for their owners. Apart from that this is of course a huge ethical problem, other problems are socio-economical, that will occur when amounts of people with apartment loans and such will end up unemployed because some branch of industry quits existing.

Indeed, concluding from your and mine debate on here and on other threads, it is becoming more obvious to me, that perhaps the flaw is not on the systems, not in capitalism nor in socialism, which both works well on paper. It is the human, which is the actor on those systems that is the flaw.

I see our debate is originating from much deeper than just from our different views. I think it's from the contradictory nature of human being, whereas it is both, egocentristic and social being.

-v

PS.

quote:

As far as this notion of mining the earth of all it's minerals. I don't know where you are getting it from, but it's nothing but fiction.


From various sources. But if you want to check it by yourself, you'll have to introduce yourself with Club of Rome publication, 'Limits of Growth, the 30-year update'(Dennis Meadows et al.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'd jump in here, but so far I see Sobacks points being either ignored, or rebutted by some ridiculous assertion.

I find the whole conversation sad to say the least.

Volio, you are one of the most economicly naive people I have had the misfortune to meet in quite a while.

THen we hear from the Cheerleading section of the EU with his ra ra, we're socialist and we're proud.

OMG...

Why even bother Soback, they don't get it, and never will, the only way they will learn is when their world finally melts down around them.

And It will, it's sad too, the only reason that history repeats itself is because no one listened the first time.

Socialism is against human nature, and cannot, and never will work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

The US is heading for a meltdown of MAJOR proportions, there little Nomad.

But the EU is going to get there first, your socialistic fantasies are fun to rara about I am sure, but they are and will destroy you, just as it will do to the US, with our out of control spending, our trade deficits, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

There is a way to fix it, before it all melts down, but it's not going to happen.

I give the world economy 10 years max, and the US about the same.

The rate of debt, etc, is unsustainable, and sooner, rather then later, the little house of cards is going to collapse.

THe US economy has become 2 things, socialistic in it's welfare programs etc, which has indebted us to the point of bankruptcy, and then our trade deficits and international cororations running from the socialistic regulations of the Federal government.

The federal government, by getting out of control, playing wit socialism etc, has destroyed the constitution, and in the process has created a nonsustainable economy in the long term.

When the US melts down, which it will, since it is no longer a real free market economy, it is going to bring the whole worlds economy to it's knees. When the EU melts down, it will create a bump in the road, but not nearly what will happen when the US follows.

The EU melting down with it's own economically unsusatainable policies, will push the world to the edge, which will speed up the demise of the US economy.

I am not looking forward to it, I can just see the signs of it occurring.

I give it maybe 10 years, possibly 15, any longer, and it will be an even worse decline.

The longer it takes, or the longer it is propped up by socialistic government policies and controls, the worse the collapse will be. And it will be the ENTIRE world this time, not just one or 2 countries, or one or 2 regions.

We have a truly global economy now, and when it collapses, which it will, it is going to be a REAL mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This problem is a lot more widespread than just economic expansion problems. We're surpassing the limits of almost everything from pollution, population, morality, technology, etc... you name it. I could make a ten-page long list of problems and back each one up with a page of explantions its that bad. The thing is, most people know about these problems and how we are smashing past humanity's limits, but no one is going to act upon them. I think its time we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by The Black Ghost:

This problem is a lot more widespread than just economic expansion problems. We're surpassing the limits of almost everything from pollution, population, morality, technology, etc... you name it. I could make a ten-page long list of problems and back each one up with a page of explantions its that bad. The thing is, most people know about these problems and how we are smashing past humanity's limits, but no one is going to act upon them. I think its time we do.


Couldn't agree more.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

I'd jump in here, but so far I see Sobacks points being either ignored, or rebutted by some ridiculous assertion.


Not to be bitter or anything, but I find it strange that you fail to notice that I gave credit to Soback in several occasions.

I wonder if you even read my post or just see red flag flowing in their place every time you open your eyes.

World isn't that black and white, Jag. While disagreeing, people can still believe to each other having point in different matters although their disagreement is wider in it's nature. You seem to think that it's either us or them. Either ally or enemy. That is something which seems to be common problem in U.S society atm.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Volio, you are one of the most economicly naive people I have had the misfortune to meet in quite a while.


I take pride on that. I'm not having problem in admitting that I'm no expert in economics. However I find it troubling that you basically agree in my points by saying that the depression will come. That's basically something which is conclusion from the problems I've listed in this thread(assuming one reads and comprehends them).

But don't you worry, as Soback said and I've agreed: The economy will prevail after it has regained from it's depression.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are surpassing limits? What are you talking about. The only limits we are surpassing is the ones you set for yourself.

Limits on pollution? Not even close. If you are refering to global warming, there's at least a dozen threads about it in scientific section. Look them up.

Limits on population? Have you missed the globes night picture I posted? Go look again.

Limits on technology? I wasn't aware that technology had limits.

Limits on morality? Whos morality? Your morality? There's no such thing as limits on morality. Morality is a set of principles, there's no limits to principles people can hold for themselfs.

These thoghts are so socialistic. It reminds me of my childhood, makes me wretch. "You can't do this, consider your fellow man" "It's for the best of society" "Sacrificing your prinicples and yourself is the most virtous thing you can do" "There's no you, you is a part of society, there's only society". Makes me sick. Go ahead and set limits for yourself and your socialist countries. I'll always move where man is free. Free to build, to develop, to research, to make, to produce, to live. If we deplete one mine, we will dig it deeper, and open up another one farther. When we run out of space (which is a ludicrous concept, but..) we will build up into the sky, and we will build under the ground.

Oh, and by the way, as far as un-lit parts of the worlds being deserts. The only major deserts are in some parts of Africa and Australia, notice how I said SOME. Have you ever dug down 5 miles into the desert sands? No? Neither have I. Any ideas what's there? But anyway, we don't even need to wonder. There's enough resources in mineral deposits and forests to last us thousands of years.

Those who can, Volio, do. Those who can't, stay the hell out of my way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Limits on population? Have you missed the globes night picture I posted? Go look again.

Space isn't what people are thinking about when they say "Limits of Population". What most people who think this will become a problem are such things as food and water and the logistics of getting such commodities to people. It should be noted that there is enough food production world wide to feed the world population (last I checked).

quote:

When we run out of space (which is a ludicrous concept, but..)

Hardly, the Earth's surface is finite (which is what people are referring to as space) and so you cannot have it covered with all of one thing (whether it is cities or farms or mines) and hope to be fine.

Tying the two quotes together: The amount of space the human race can safely use is dependant on its technology. If it can't use the Earth's surface efficiently enough there is a problem. What people are worried about when it comes to overpopulation is the human race outgrowing its resources.

quote:

These thoghts are so socialistic.

Might I ask why you think so? Because I believe they are independent of one's economic preference.

quote:

"You can't do this, consider your fellow man" "It's for the best of society" "Sacrificing your prinicples and yourself is the most virtous thing you can do" "There's no you, you is a part of society, there's only society".

Sounds like what most people would call Communism. Granted it's practically the same thing as Socialism by the book but the meaning of Socialism has changed over the years.

quote:

Those who can, Volio, do. Those who can't, stay the hell out of my way.

Ohhh, someone doesnÔÇÖt like teachers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd jump in here as well, but I don't want to risk upsetting anyone.. after all.. the truth hurts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback

Limits on technology? I wasn't aware that technology had limits.


At the moment it seems, just for example, that physics sets limits for data transferring between two points. Currently we cannot exceed speed of light, least not on my knowledge.

Of course, that may change in future, which doesnÔÇÖt seem too credible however. And even claiming something like that is merely a supposition.

quote:

Originally posted by Soback

The only major deserts are in some parts of Africa and Australia, notice how I said SOME


Yea, I used wrong words in wrong succession. Although there are deserts, there are also steppes, mountains, swamps and such. Even there is a lot of free space, it is very expensive to take in use.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soback: I have nothing to say except....

It's time to face the truth, as hard as it is. The reason nothing ever changes to help end these issues in real life is because of people who argue against the truth. Then when a decsion is finally made to do something, it is too late to stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I have lots to say. Instead, I am just going to tell you to look lower, and read my quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Im going to conclude that you clearly dont follow your code as closely as you want us to beleive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL

Black Ghost. You can conclude whatever you want. On these forums, you are pretty much the most amateur debater, or the least capable. Pick whichever you like the most, or whichever sounds better.

Take this thread for example. People have posted their opinions, then to the best of their ability, explained how they reached those opinions, and whenever possible backed those explanations up by real world events and facts.

What have you done?

1. You have posted that we are surpassing every limit imaginable. "We're surpassing the limits of almost everything from pollution, population, morality, technology, etc... you name it. I could make a ten-page long list of problems and back each one up with a page of explantions its that bad. The thing is, most people know about these problems and how we are smashing past humanity's limits, but no one is going to act upon them. I think its time we do."

2. You have posted this masterpiece "Soback: I have nothing to say except.... "

3. And then you posted this, 6 days after the last post, in a clear effort to get the last word and provoke a reaction "And Im going to conclude that you clearly dont follow your code as closely as you want us to beleive."

You see. That's an example of how to debatte. First post an opinion - Amatuer debator whos conclusions carry no water. Second, exmplain why - Because statements are neither explained nor backed up. Third, provide facts - check #'s 1 through 3 above.

Care to tell me what conclusion this post leads you to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd really like to know how we are surpassing our limits, espically considering that all I see today is wars, famine, disease, hunger, water shortage's, and stuff like that

How can you say we are surpassing our limits when those problems are still occuring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion

I'd really like to know how we are surpassing our limits, espically considering that all I see today is wars, famine, disease, hunger, water shortage's, and stuff like that

How can you say we are surpassing our limits when those problems are still occuring?


Indeed, those limits we have cannot be surpassed for long, it will result in consequences you mention. However, we can temporarily exceed them, but then come crashing down.

You did comprehend concept of 'surpassing limits' quite differently, but nevertheless you are correct.

-v

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Kalshion:

I'd really like to know how we are surpassing our limits, espically considering that all I see today is wars, famine, disease, hunger, water shortage's, and stuff like that

How can you say we are surpassing our limits when those problems are still occuring?

..........Exactly what Im talking about. There is a natural balance for everything from politics to environment and these are the outcomes (not always) but yes. For example I read an article that says the high school generation of today could live to ages of 150 or older due to the medical advancements we have come up with. Im not going to go into details but already you can probably see where the problem would be with that...overpopulation, world hunger, etc... This is just a single example that stands for a milliong other little things we have crossed over into way too fast. Over the last hundred years more things and medicines have been invented than in the past 5000. ....I think we should slow down- bigtime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there starvation in the US. No.

Is there starvation in some third world countries? Yes.

Why? US has better agricultural technology, knowledge, machinery. WOW. No way, there is no starvation in US because we are more advanced. Hey, lets slow down. We gotta catch up to the third world countries.

Is there famine and disease in the US. No.

Is there famines and diseases in third world countries. Yes. You do know that Tuberculosis was all but eliminated in the US, DUE TO MEDICAL ADVANCES. Now, the immigrants from third world countries are re-introducing TB in US, again. So, why do third world countries have famine, diseases, ect, and we don't. TECHNOLOGY and scientific advances.

Water shortages? You mean those commercials you see on tv about water conservation. Has the water to your house EVER been turned off or rationed due to a shortage? Or did you mean there's water shortages in third world countries, where they don't have the technology to build water purification plants. ROFL.

Lets see. So far, for every single problem that a third world country faces, we have overcome, *gasps*, with science and technological advances.

Because of science and because we are "surpasing our limits", we enjoy better standards of living, better health, better food/water, longer lives, physically, emotionally and mentally happier people.

Now, let me also, tell you one little fact. US population is growing, NOT because of the birth rates, but due to immigration. US's birth rates are less than a point above sustainability rates. Which means that if we had no immigration, we would barely see any population increase, if any at all. Germany for example, is below sustainability rate. German population is actually dying off. Where do you see population growth. In THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, where there is not enough scientific knowledge, technological advances, and economical resources to allow for those people to live healthy lives. We should slow down? ROFL, maybe you can talk to South American el-presidentes, African dictators, and China's Stalin, tell them your theory of surpassing limits, then point out famine, diseases and overpopulation. Or maybe you can try to do what France did when it demanded that Apple has to give it's license for i-pod technology to "disprivledged" countries for free, so that they could build and sell them, maybe you think we should solve all worlds problems, give them the patents, the inventions, forget that, why don't we just build everything for them. Or, maybe we should just stop advancements and maybe in a decade we will reach the awesome quality of third world country life, have their spiritual nirvana, and be the best third world country in the world. ROFL, sure would cut down on illegals here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, third world countries do not apply to "surpassing the limits" because they are generally far behind us in technology and advancements. The US isnt the main problem right now and we havent begun to see the effects of what is happening in the world at large yet (we will probably be the last to) but a lot of little things we barely think about are going to come back and bite us someday- whether it be in fifty years or a thousand years.

My main point is not that technology/ medical advancement is bad, in fact, it is very good. But at the rate we have developed it we are begining to see no limits. We can clone people, genetically mutate people, create people, make people live to insane ages... ten years ago that wasnt possible, and what Im saying is that either we take things slowly and let nature balance with what we have created, or stop altogether before everything is lost in the meantime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL, so, all the problems you were talking about, like starvation, overpopulation, diseases, ect... all prevail in third world countries, the same ones that are NOT "surpassing the limits".

Now, since the countries that are "surpassing the limits" are not encountering these problems. That would lead to the conclusion that "surpassing the limits" is actually good, as it solves and elliminates the problems such as starvation, overpopulation, diseases, famine, ect... Who would have thought.

As far as us cloning people. Why don't you dig me up some proof about that. You do know that the Chinese scientist that claimed that he cloned a human was found out as a fraud, with no proof and faked research. Genetically mutate people? Yeah, has been happening for thousands of years. It's called evolution. Create people? Do I really need to educate you on that one? Make people live to insane ages? 70 to 80 years is insane? What about 100, is that insane? If you try to talk about the "stress" it puts on the rest of the population that is required to support it's elderly. I'll give you an answer, CUT WELLFARE. Easy enough. Make it the responsibility of the individual to save and manage for their retirement, and in the worst case, have them look for help with their family or charity.

Anyhow. You are yet to provide a single fact to back up your statements, or justify your conclusions. I on the other hand, have given you proof that the conditions of starvation, overpopulation, diseases that you speak of are prevalent in poverty, third world countries, that by your own admission are far behind us in technology and advancements, and are ways away from "surpassing the limits". While every country that is advanced scientifically and technologically, that is by your claims "surpassing the limits" does not suffer those ills that you talk about.

Anything else you have to present that "surpassing the limits" is bad, or even if there is such a notion. Kinda reminds me of the people in the dark ages, they had the same reaction when seeing pyramids build. Or how about the unionized wood cutters in 1700's Englad, rioting and laying destruction, protesting the implementation of the first water operated wood cutting saws. They were saying the exact same things that you are saying right now. That water operated wood cutting saw is bad technology. That the limits are being surpassed, people are going to be out of jobs, it's going to bring poverty, ect... Well, what that invention brought is more work for carpenters, more homes build, and homes became more affordable, it led to other inventions such as the drill, saved labor time, that time became available to spend on other things, therefore increased production, higher standards of living....and so on.

Yeah, surpassing the limits. LOL. If Bill Gates was thinking like that, we wouldn't even be having this little chat right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soback,

What's funny to me is that when I look at your map, Florida looks like it's Completely full. Yet when I drive 4Hrs from S. Florida to Central Florida (to Disney World), I'm amazed at all the empty land that I'm passing through. The VAST majority of the land between here and there is completly undeveloped. If I were to drive another 4 Hrs. to the State's Borders, I would find EVEN LESS development, since 70% of Florida's Population lives in South Florida, and a huge chunk of the remainder, lives in Central Florida, and I'm not even talking about the Pan Handle, and how BARELY populated that area is.

Most people don't seem to realize that the entire world population can fit in the State of Texas. and if you were to use the same population density as you have in Manhatten , you would only use 37% of the total land area of Texas. No, it's not the 1/2 Acre per person rumor that's been spreading around, but it also doesn't have to be as Dense as NY, if we were to fit everyone in Texas, considering that we would have the rest of the US (and the world for that matter) to leave unpopulated.

Another thing that most people don't realize is that WE DON'T HAVE AN ENERGY SHORTAGE! God, I'm so sick of hearing this. The problem is our reliance on one specific type of energy... Oil. The US has an overabundance of Coal, which using new technology can be cleanly burned to produce power. The US also has very large deposits of Natural Gas, that has not been fully utilized because, until just very recently, there hasn't been a great demand. I remember reading an article in my 20's (about 15 years ago), about a community of about 250 homes that decided to build their own Solar Power Generator, in the alleyway between their homes. This Array provided them with over 75% of their Power. when you consider that Solar Panels efficiency is MUCH more efficient today, this means that something similar would probably generate 90 to 95% of the power needed.

Once electricity, Gas and other forms of energy that we're using start to become "too expensive" then you will have the Market bring solutions. I would safely bet that if the current rise in prices continues, in a very short period, you will see more and more cars come out with "Hybrid" and Diesel models, along with homes that come with their own power generating, capacity in either Solar Panels, Hot Water Heating Panels and/or Wind Generators. At the same time, Electricity providors will move more and more of their production away from Oil & Gas, to things like Coal & Natural Gas. Who knows, the US might even lift the ban on growing Hemp to supply Ethanol as a direct fuel replacement in cars!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×