• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Where are we going?

Bikewer

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Sep 12, 2003
Messages
13,242
Location
St. Louis, Mo.
By "we" I refer to the human race itself.

I'm listening to author Jeffery Sachs, who's discussing his new book, Common Wealth. He's the director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

He paints a rather bleak picture. We are all familiar with these things, of course; overpopulation, extreme poverty, lack of resources in all sectors, pollution, climate change, etc, etc.
Countries that were essentially "third world" just not too long ago are undergoing rapid development now, China and India notable for their increased use of resources and continuing population growth.
Human governments do not noticeably seem to have shown any tendency to seriously address these problems; they seem to be subject to the same old problems that have always beset governments. It appears that there is still a tendency towards less and less in the way of democracy, and more and more in the way of consolidated power and suppression of individual rights.
Poverty worldwide accounts for human suffering on a scale hard to imagine, with it's attendant problems of disease, starvation, and inevitable unrest.

Sachs seems to be of the opinion that the nations of the world must work together to address these problems before they become unsupportable, but attempts to do so seem to be minimal and pro-forma at best.

What do you think? Where are we headed in say, 50 years? If the worst-case scenarios of the climate-change folks are correct, we can expect massive displacements of people and all that entails.
Even if climate change does not approach the levels forecast, the other problems remain and will be exacerbated by population growth and resource consumption.

I personally am not optimistic. I have long thought that human nature is what it is, and that evolution has ill-prepared us for the world we find ourselves in at present. We are geared to be rather self-centered and insular little buggers, looking out for our own welfare and that of a very small cadre of friends, relatives, and immediate neighbors.
The problems of "everyone else" tends to be a rather elusive concept...
 
IMO the human race (just like any other unrestrained animal) will keep consuming all known resources until infighting (wars) cut down the population to a level the remaining resources can effectively support.
The only solution (historically) has been warfare and/or expansion.
At present the only places left to expand to, with out destroying to much of the Earth and leaving enough room for the animals, is Antarctica or Space.
Me, I vote for space. Just over coming the technical challenge alone should advance the progress of science and technology.
 
We have a magnificent way to end poverty. It's called freedom and the rule of law.

North Korea has rule of law, but no freedom. Poverty

Africa has (anarchy) freedom but no rule of law. Poverty


But the "command and control" blinders people want to put on keep them from seeing the obvious as the solution.


Julian Simon has theories which made predictions, which came true over and over again, as set against the predictions of the gloom-and-doom environmentalists of the '70's and '80's, which included running out of resources, populations too large, and the like.


A stable, free society can rise to the challenges much faster than anything else. Capitalism allows businesses to satisfy needs, which shows up economically through rising prices. Government, contrary to the command-and-control mindset, actually gets in the way when it goes beyond just protecting the rule of law, which is to say, property and contracts.
 
I argue the opposite, that tens of thousands of years of working together tracking and bringing down large animals, making tools, and using language and art has prepared us very well to overcome anything that comes our way. There'll be a population reduction of over 80% this century and then it'll be smooth sailing and our descendents will enjoy a hyper technologically advanced rich society, virtually infinite resources given such reduced population, peace which will accompany these developments and new ideas about family planning that will allow them to keep it that way until they can settle other planets.
 
Last edited:
Where are we going?

By "we" I refer to the human race itself.
Nowhere.

We, the human race, are stuck on the planet earth for the foreseeable future.

We are going nowhere, in another sense, as our planet circles the same point year after year, ending up in basically the same place each year. (Yes, astronomer pedants, I realize there is some variation. Work with me here.)

We are going nowhere, as our solar system travels in a circular (ellipictal?) motion around the gravitational center of our galaxy.

We are real Nowhere men, sitting on our nowhere land, making all our nowhere plans on the edge of the swirl of a cosmic flush.

Let's enjoy the journey before "we" all go down the galactic drain.

Beer?

DR
 
There'll be a population reduction of over 80% this century and then it'll be smooth sailing and our descendents will enjoy a hyper technologically advanced rich society, virtually infinite resources given such reduced population, peace which will accompany these developments and new ideas about family planning that will allow them to keep it that way until they can settle other planets.

I never really examined the problem of "where are we going" but I can't help but wonder why there doesn't seem to be more emphasis placed on the reduction of the world's population. I recall reading a few years ago about some international organization that promotes a world-wide population reduction but, IIRC, the concept is generally not very popular.

Perhaps I am being oversimplistic, but I don't understand why a significantly lower world population wouldn't result in a much higher overall standard of living. The fact that this idea doesn't seem to have garnered much attention leads me to assume that I must be missing something. What's wrong with the notion of reducing the world's population???
 
Overpopulation seems to be more of a hot-button issue than you'd think. I remember when there were dire predictions back in the 80s, and the crowing of individuals who were (for lack of a better term) pro-reproduction when the promised disasters did not materialize.

However, that all appears to have been rather short-sighted. I see that the population of India will surpass that of China in just a few years. Even the US, long at zero population growth, has started to increase again. (some say due to immigration...)

However, it appears to provoke strong reactions. Some seem to think that it has a religious context, part of the "go forth and multiply" directive. The Catholics are still down on any form of birth control, and the Mormons famously favor large families as well.
I have seen apologists making statements like "The entire population of the Earth could fit into the state of Texas." Well, perhaps, but I wouldn't like to be there....

There is a political component as well, especially among less-developed nations. The idea seems to be that if they can't have industry or resources, at least they can have a big population...
Let's face it, reproduction is a powerful urge. Individuals who have no business whatever having children do so anyway, for the most-rationalized excuses. "I just wanted something to love", said one unmarried teen mother.
 
A stable, free society can rise to the challenges much faster than anything else. Capitalism allows businesses to satisfy needs, which shows up economically through rising prices. Government, contrary to the command-and-control mindset, actually gets in the way when it goes beyond just protecting the rule of law, which is to say, property and contracts.

I foresee continuing disagreement betwixt right wing Americans and the EU on this matter, which will serve to seperate the two blocs still further.
 
Overpopulation seems to be more of a hot-button issue than you'd think. I remember when there were dire predictions back in the 80s, and the crowing of individuals who were (for lack of a better term) pro-reproduction when the promised disasters did not materialize.

However, that all appears to have been rather short-sighted. I see that the population of India will surpass that of China in just a few years. Even the US, long at zero population growth, has started to increase again. (some say due to immigration...)

However, it appears to provoke strong reactions. Some seem to think that it has a religious context, part of the "go forth and multiply" directive. The Catholics are still down on any form of birth control, and the Mormons famously favor large families as well.
I have seen apologists making statements like "The entire population of the Earth could fit into the state of Texas." Well, perhaps, but I wouldn't like to be there....

There is a political component as well, especially among less-developed nations. The idea seems to be that if they can't have industry or resources, at least they can have a big population...
Let's face it, reproduction is a powerful urge. Individuals who have no business whatever having children do so anyway, for the most-rationalized excuses. "I just wanted something to love", said one unmarried teen mother.

It might be much more simple than that. My wife and I are well educated and both of us understand how much better the word would be with fewer people. I was perfectly willing not to have children. However, my wife's drive to raise kids is VERY strong, and she would not be denied.

How many others feel this way? If the population is to be reduced, who among those that want to procreate are to be forbidden to do so? Tough question.
 
King Catfish: Oh, I'm in full agreement. The biological urge to reproduce is very potent, and without it we would not be here at all.
The answer? I don't know. Draconian measures like the Chinese employ appear to be only partly successful, and would not be tolerated in any free society. It appears that in general, more affluent and more educated people have fewer children (which has led certain world leaders to try to promote child-bearing by these "better" classes....), and that impoverished peoples tend to have more pregnancies due to the high child death rate.
 
Where are we going?



We're going to VEEEEGAAAAAASSSS!!!!

Woo Hoooo!!!!
grab your bags, pack your macs and get ready to go cause we're on a winning spree!!!!!!!!!!!!


Seriously now... It doesn't matter where we're going. Cause we are going there anyway. Just keep doing what we have to do.

Bye.
 
Last edited:
I never really examined the problem of "where are we going" but I can't help but wonder why there doesn't seem to be more emphasis placed on the reduction of the world's population. I recall reading a few years ago about some international organization that promotes a world-wide population reduction but, IIRC, the concept is generally not very popular.

???


http://www.zpg.org/
is the organization you are seeking/noting.
 
I think we are all going to journey forth on great space ships eventually to land on a bizzare planet ruled by damned dirty apes!

Wait.. is that the statue of liberty I see in the distance?!?!?!

Damn youse!!!! Youse blew it up!!!! Damn youse all to hell!!!
 
I argue the opposite, that tens of thousands of years of working together tracking and bringing down large animals, making tools, and using language and art has prepared us very well to overcome anything that comes our way. There'll be a population reduction of over 80% this century and then it'll be smooth sailing and our descendents will enjoy a hyper technologically advanced rich society, virtually infinite resources given such reduced population, peace which will accompany these developments and new ideas about family planning that will allow them to keep it that way until they can settle other planets.

A larger, free population will achieve "hyper techonolgy" much faster than a smaller one. A population lacking freedom may never achieve it at all.

The logical error people make when judging population is looking at starving masses in non-free areas and thinking, gee, too many is bad. Empirical data shows, over and over again, that free people will provide for themselves a higher and higher quality of life, and that the more there are, therefore the better. They solve "shortage" issues faster than they crop up, with the price of things ever dropping over the long run, in the absence of government interference.
 
Last edited:
...because "Everything will be just fine" doesn't fill many pages, nor sell many books.
 

Back
Top Bottom