[Vampyr]

onoway, on 2013-January-22, 16:39, said:

Perhaps you should be specific about what sort of thing you are talking about when you speak of leisure and social activities. Concerts? Sports? I can't imagine why you would think that because people have minimal money they are cut off from leisure and social activities.

It's not about money, it's about the fact that there would be no places to go if even a small proportion of people were given plots of land to work. This lifestyle you wish to return to is not realistic; but perhaps you can find a satisfactory equivalent if you join a commune.

I regret having responded to your comments and will not do so again.

[onoway]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-22, 19:24, said:

It's not about money, it's about the fact that there would be no places to go if even a small proportion of people were given plots of land to work. This lifestyle you wish to return to is not realistic; but perhaps you can find a satisfactory equivalent if you join a commune.

I regret having responded to your comments and will not do so again.

Your first statement is NOT a fact and there is absolutely no reason to allow it any validity whatsoever. It is the ever increasing appetite for land caused by land degradation which is threatening wild and wonderful places, if that's what you mean.

The desertification of land around the Sahara and other places can be reversed and made fertile, not all at once of course, and likely not all of it, but a lot of it and surprisingly quickly. It has been and is being done. The Sahara and others will be around until after you are gone if that is what's worrying you, just getting smaller rather than bigger every year.

Sterile and abandoned farmland which has caused farmers to move on to "fresh" land can and is being restored, so it's no longer necessary to move to uncultivated land. The exercise now is to stop the degradation of the land which makes restoration necessary.Changes in attitude and agricultural practices will save the wild and wonderful places because they will not be needed, once we stop mining the soil.

You have absolutely no clue about what I am saying if you think a commune has anything to do with anything, Is the concept of cooperation so lost that it is inconceivable?

I'm not "wishing to return" to anything, I wish to avoid the future which seems to lie on the path we are following which several writers have envisioned. This is: most people living in city warrens,no privacy,little or no independence, activities closely monitored for "antisocial" behaviour or conversation, living on scientifically designed pseudofood, and drugged by the manipulation of the media - through a mixture of fearmongering and encouragement of obedient behaviour to authority - to believe this is the best way to live.

Hitler did quite well with this format in Germany and he didn't have access to either the knowledge we now have about how to manipulate people, nor the technology to make it happen. Not that the future holds another Hitler, necessarilly, though it certainly could, but there are always people who never have enough power and never have enough wealth. They show up time and time again throughout history.

Diversity is the hope of the future imo, and people living with dignity and self respect within the context of a larger society. Diversity is something which makes most governments unhappy as soon as it steps beyond the bounds of their control. A surprising (to me) number of people admire anthills and think human society ought to emulate them. I emphatically do not.

[billw55]

So, where do you live, onoway?

[onoway]

billw55, on 2013-January-23, 07:18, said:

So, where do you live, onoway?

I am Canadian but that little bit at the end of my last post came as a result of listening to a news interview about what's going on in Hungary at the moment, which sounded very sad and scary.

[blackshoe]

The future will always hold another Hitler. The trick is to keep him, or her for that matter, from gaining power.

[jdeegan]

The classic error of the doomsayers is to project a growing population assuming no improvements in science and technology over time. This incredibly stupid mistake is blind to a 500 year history that has featured both rapid population growth and incredible increases in the quality of life for nearly everyone - esp. in the so-called First World.

That said, population growth in almost all of the economically advanced nations has ended and shows clear signs of reversing in much of Western Europe. Why? No one really seems to know. Who can say what happens between a man and a woman in the bedroom? The pre-existing patterns of population growth and economic development seem to suggest a global peak population of 10-12 billion according to most demographers. If nothing goes wrong, this should easily be sustainable along with a nice improvement in the quality of life from one generation to the next as science and technology advance.

Most younger male bridge players are much smarter than average. In today's world that can make them serious alpha dogs in the gene pool sweepstakes. Don't fall for the doomsayers' classic error.

[onoway]

jdeegan, on 2013-January-27, 04:06, said:

The classic error of the doomsayers is to project a growing population assuming no improvements in science and technology over time. This incredibly stupid mistake is blind to a 500 year history that has featured both rapid population growth and incredible increases in the quality of life for nearly everyone - esp. in the so-called First World.

That said, population growth in almost all of the economically advanced nations has ended and shows clear signs of reversing in much of Western Europe. Why? No one really seems to know. Who can say what happens between a man and a woman in the bedroom? The pre-existing patterns of population growth and economic development seem to suggest a global peak population of 10-12 billion according to most demographers. If nothing goes wrong, this should easily be sustainable along with a nice improvement in the quality of life from one generation to the next as science and technology advance.

Most younger male bridge players are much smarter than average. In today's world that can make them serious alpha dogs in the gene pool sweepstakes. Don't fall for the doomsayers' classic error.

One thing you might take into account that a major part of what revitalized and drove the rapid expansion AND the increased quality of life was the "discovery" of North America by the Europeans, with all that lovely apparently empty space and seemingly unlimited natural resources. Until we find a planet somewhat more habitable than Mars and have the technology to reach and settle it within a rational amount of time we are now stuck without any such place to rescue us from our own excesses.

It's such a comfort to know that young male bridge players are so ready to sacrifice their superior genes to the gene pool. Now if only women would recognise their natural superior intelligence, and not be revolted by their astonishing ego..

[jdeegan]

onoway, on 2013-January-27, 10:44, said:

One thing you might take into account that a major part of what revitalized and drove the rapid expansion AND the increased quality of life was the "discovery" of North America by the Europeans, with all that lovely apparently empty space and seemingly unlimited natural resources. Until we find a planet somewhat more habitable than Mars and have the technology to reach and settle it within a rational amount of time we are now stuck without any such place to rescue us from our own excesses.

It's such a comfort to know that young male bridge players are so ready to sacrifice their superior genes to the gene pool. Now if only women would recognise their natural superior intelligence, and not be revolted by their astonishing ego..

Oh si yo little brother. My European ancestors have been in America since 1680. This place was never "empty" in any way shape or form. Europeans eventually conquered the place, but it took 250+ years. The so-called Columbian exchange did help Europe in the 1600's, but not that much. The European Enlightenment and the scientific and industrial revolutions started in the 1600's despite cold weather and economic hard times. Once those got going they spread to North America, and the Cherokee were screwed.

[billw55]

Of course technology will continue to advance. But eventually that won't matter. There is only so much biomass and surface area on the planet, no matter what the technology. Therefore, there is a hard cap on human population. I don't claim to know what it is, but I do know that even well below it, quality of life will deteriorate. Look at the world already - what percentage of living humans do you think exist at a reasonable quality of life? That's only only for political reasons, you say? Maybe it is ... for now.

And no, I don't believe that the growth will stop at 10-12 billion, or at any number, until forced to by global disasters such as famine and disease.

[onoway]

jdeegan, on 2013-January-28, 05:47, said:

Oh si yo little brother. My European ancestors have been in America since 1680. This place was never "empty" in any way shape or form. Europeans eventually conquered the place, but it took 250+ years. The so-called Columbian exchange did help Europe in the 1600's, but not that much. The European Enlightenment and the scientific and industrial revolutions started in the 1600's despite cold weather and economic hard times. Once those got going they spread to North America, and the Cherokee were screwed.

Osiyo. I think you need to consider all the people who got shipped off to North America (and Australia for that matter) and what society might have looked like had all those people no place to go. Admittedly some were remittance men and some were perhaps younger sons with no hope of inheritance and some lusted after adventure and the chance to make a fortune, or freedom of belief (which is ironic, considering what's going on in the States today).

However as far as I can tell, many thousands were people with enough desperation to take such a leap of faith because anything would be better than the future they faced at home. Want to starve, be hung for stealing bread or emigrate? For many, perhaps the sort of desperation that today may lead to such things as suicide bombers, in fact. You don't need to look far to find examples of a population pushed too far, eventually deciding enough is enough and revolting. What would Europe have looked like today had North America and Australia not been available for these people?

Judging from what's going on in various places around the world, in general science doesn't much flourish in a country ripped apart by violence spawned by despair when survival at all is the concern of the day.

btw I said "apparently empty" as that is decidedly how the Europeans treated it, not that there was validity to that view. Donadagohvi

[Fluffy]

billw55, on 2013-January-28, 09:04, said:

Of course technology will continue to advance. But eventually that won't matter. There is only so much biomass and surface area on the planet, no matter what the technology. Therefore, there is a hard cap on human population. I don't claim to know what it is, but I do know that even well below it, quality of life will deteriorate. Look at the world already - what percentage of living humans do you think exist at a reasonable quality of life? That's only only for political reasons, you say? Maybe it is ... for now.

And no, I don't believe that the growth will stop at 10-12 billion, or at any number, until forced to by global disasters such as famine and disease.

There is surface under the surface, surface over the water... But yes there is a point were no more can be done, and I don't even see the point to try to reach it. We don't need more people for anything.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-29, 06:11, said:

We don't need more people for anything.

In 1958, Tom Watson, who was CEO of IBM, opined "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers".

[Fluffy]

and for the prize they had he wasn't that far