The Capitalist System

[All Else Failed]

Ed, all of your opinions are not possible and not based in any sort of reality. There will never be an elimination of government. The entire planet will never be totally switched over to solar. Oh, and it takes a ton of oil and petrol to actually manufacture solar panels, so you'd be even MORE reliant on oil.


We need to deter and stay away from globalism as much as possible, champion and enact localism and small scale production with very conservative guidlines for the preservation of our culture.

Educate every person on the planet? Absurd. You just flooded the world job market and made every single masters and degree utterly useless. Most modern jobs are unnecessary fluff positions. Are you just going to make up job titles just so everyone can have one? Absurd.

House everyone? Never mind the cost, imagine the environmental devastation. Depending on the size of the dwellings, you'd need to clear cut vast amounts of already dwindling forests to have enough material to even build them. Then urban sprawl will expand.


And here is the biggest problem with your "solutions": People who have a higher standard of living consume and pollute more. You want to take innumerable amounts of people and transform them all into living an American lifestyle? You might as well just destroy the entire planet.


My solutions will only help. I don't see why my country should send billions, thats with a B, to third world war zones. Take Africa for instance; we send untold amounts to the continent every year yet most of their countries live in HIV/AIDS squalor amongst innumerable tribal conflicts. Africa will never change. This is not giving up, it is simply facing reality. It would literally take hundreds of years to actually turn most of them around into civilized nations. There was once a glimmer of hope in the South (South Africa), but ever since the Boers got the boot its gone to shit. So much for that.

Reality is harsh and cold. We must form our actions and thoughts around it, not try to make Reality fit to us.



You're focusing on the symptoms of the real problem. The actual root of the problem: too many people.

 

[Minor Axis]

We need to deter and stay away from globalism as much as possible, champion and enact localism and small scale production with very conservative guidlines for the preservation of our culture.

Globalization has been marketed as a huge scam since the 70's, being sold as the best thing since sliced bread, the means of raising everyone's income. The low paying jobs go overseas, the high paying jobs and of course more of them supposed to stay here. We now know that was a big fat lie put forth by big business interests. As it has turned out, 3rd world countries get jobs along with what used to be relatively high paying jobs (here), but they have been converted to low paying jobs, while millions of our jobs have vanished. This orchestrated by our own countrymen against fellow citizens. :yuk

My solutions will only help. I don't see why my country should send billions, thats with a B, to third world war zones.

You might as well include the 3000 ++ Bs we squandered prosecuting non-traditional wars in the good ole fashioned way. It's huge business again (imagine) but we are like the soldiers marching in line straight across the fields while the enemy picks us off from the woods. If you look at the two sides, I wonder what the exact ratio of expense is prosecuting the war? 1000 to 1? 10000 to 1? 100,000 to 1? Just the Iraq War is estimated at costing us 3,000,000,000,000. Three TRILLION. By the way all those fiscal conservatives who are screaming today that Obama is taking us down, just where were they exactly when Dumbo gleefully launched the 2nd Iraq War and who would have happily voted in McCain & Palin?? I understand the message, Bs for people suck, Bs for war is outstanding. This comment is not intended as a personal jab, but it's part of the conservative territory.

 

[Accountable]

By the way all those fiscal conservatives who are screaming today that Obama is taking us down, just where were they exactly when Dumbo gleefully launched the 2nd Iraq War and who would have happily voted in McCain & Palin??

Well when you narrow it down to fiscal conservatives who liked McCain/Palin .....
I can speak only for myself, not being of the McCain/Palin variety of fiscal conservative. I was flat-out confused. 9/11 terrorist screaming spotted in Afghanistan. Attack Afghanistan. Okay. Bin Laden reported to have fled to Syria, attack .......... Iraq?!? :wtf:
Then the logical follow-up question: where were they when Bush & Co were shoving nearly a trillion down the gullet of Big Finance & buying AIG? I for one was screaming bloody murder.

Y'know, Minor, most of your complaints aren't really against capitalism, but against big corporations paying for legislation to manipulate and control the market, formerly know as the free market. Returning to real free market capitalism would naturally balance things out.

 

[All Else Failed]

Globalization has been marketed as a huge scam since the 70's, being sold as the best thing since sliced bread, the means of raising everyone's income. The low paying jobs go overseas, the high paying jobs and of course more of them supposed to stay here. We now know that was a big fat lie put forth by big business interests. As it has turned out, 3rd world countries get jobs along with what used to be relatively high paying jobs (here), but they have been converted to low paying jobs, while millions of our jobs have vanished. This orchestrated by our own countrymen against fellow citizens. :yuk

You might as well include the 3000 ++ Bs we squandered prosecuting non-traditional wars in the good ole fashioned way. It's huge business again (imagine) but we are like the soldiers marching in line straight across the fields while the enemy picks us off from the woods. If you look at the two sides, I wonder what the exact ratio of expense is prosecuting the war? 1000 to 1? 10000 to 1? 100,000 to 1? Just the Iraq War is estimated at costing us 3,000,000,000,000. Three TRILLION. By the way all those fiscal conservatives who are screaming today that Obama is taking us down, just where were they exactly when Dumbo gleefully launched the 2nd Iraq War and who would have happily voted in McCain & Palin?? I understand the message, Bs for people suck, Bs for war is outstanding. This comment is not intended as a personal jab, but it's part of the conservative territory.

For the record I do not agree that we should have even set a single toe in Iraq.

 

[Minor Axis]

Well when you narrow it down to fiscal conservatives who liked McCain/Palin .....
I can speak only for myself, not being of the McCain/Palin variety of fiscal conservative. I was flat-out confused. 9/11 terrorist screaming spotted in Afghanistan. Attack Afghanistan. Okay. Bin Laden reported to have fled to Syria, attack .......... Iraq?!? :wtf:
Then the logical follow-up question: where were they when Bush & Co were shoving nearly a trillion down the gullet of Big Finance & buying AIG? I for one was screaming bloody murder.

Y'know, Minor, most of your complaints aren't really against capitalism, but against big corporations paying for legislation to manipulate and control the market, formerly know as the free market. Returning to real free market capitalism would naturally balance things out.

Sound thinking on our past foreign policy.

Isn't it capitalism at it's freest that enables the excesses? I hope your vision of free market capitalism includes adequate regulations and protections.

For the record I do not agree that we should have even set a single toe in Iraq.

I respect that.

 

[Accountable]

Sound thinking on our past foreign policy.

Isn't it capitalism at it's freest that enables the excesses? I hope your vision of free market capitalism includes adequate regulations and protections.

Define "excesses". If a businessman goes out and makes fair deals, profits from those deals, and has the vision to capitalize on the situation at hand, is that to be considered excessive?

What I consider excessive is when a businessman knowingly pays politicians to enact legislation that gives him unfair advantage over his competition. What I consider treasonous is the politician that accepts those payouts and enacts that legislation.

Also you & I likely don't agree on what's "adequate" since the only useful regulations are those that keep honest people honest, such as truth in advertising, lending, etc. Regulation I would like to see is to block any participation in the political & legislative process by any person or entity other than individual citizens.

 

[edgray]

Ed, all of your opinions are not possible and not based in any sort of reality. There will never be an elimination of government. The entire planet will never be totally switched over to solar. Oh, and it takes a ton of oil and petrol to actually manufacture solar panels, so you'd be even MORE reliant on oil.

In your opinion. I've been down this road with everyone else on this forum before but there have been, and still are examples of societies functioning without a govt. Check out Spain, for example, did you know they have been an anarchist society in recent history?

Look up Libertarian Socialism before you start making such false claims. Don't push your ignorance of political models on me.

As for oil, once the panels are made, we won't need oil anymore. That's the whole point. If we don't do this soon, we won't have enough oil to make the switch over to solar. And I'm sure you'll agree, that will be a very bad thing. Or do you want oil to run out? What do you think is going to happen when it does? Where will you get your food? Your power? Your water? We need to start switching to solar NOW and it's capitalism that is hindering this as there is no profit in making the planet solar powered.

We need to deter and stay away from globalism as much as possible, champion and enact localism and small scale production with very conservative guidlines for the preservation of our culture.

We need to stop globalization immediately. But your very standard of living is built upon globalization. You ready to give that up? America couldn't survive without it right now.

I agree, everything needs to be organized locally. But the world needs to unite, otherwise wars and financial oppression and sanctions will continue to create massive poverty and equality worldwide.

Educate every person on the planet? Absurd. You just flooded the world job market and made every single masters and degree utterly useless. Most modern jobs are unnecessary fluff positions. Are you just going to make up job titles just so everyone can have one? Absurd.

Yes, educate every person on the planet. The smarter people are, the more educated people are, the better society will be. Imagine a world of smart people all contributing to society? Imagine what can be achieved.

There wouldn't be any need to make up job titles, without any capitalist, profit based system to support, everybody could contribute in places that society needs. You wouldn't be able to look at the world with the same eyes you are now - there would be no need for job scarcity (which capitalism both creates and demands).

House everyone? Never mind the cost, imagine the environmental devastation. Depending on the size of the dwellings, you'd need to clear cut vast amounts of already dwindling forests to have enough material to even build them. Then urban sprawl will expand.

Hang on, so you are actually FOR homelessness?!!!! So, just because YOU were born in a developed country, YOU'RE allowed to be housed, but other's aren't?? That is a very sick and twisted opinion.

Your logic is weird. The people are already on the Earth, taking up room. It's not going to take much more to put a decent roof over their heads. You seem to think that everyone needs to flock to the US to be housed. People flock to the US because of the devastation the US imposes on their countries.

There are many housing solutions, sustainable ones, that can be applied anywhere. We have more than enough landmass to house every person on the planet right now, and double again. At least.

And here is the biggest problem with your "solutions": People who have a higher standard of living consume and pollute more. You want to take innumerable amounts of people and transform them all into living an American lifestyle? You might as well just destroy the entire planet.

No. No one on the planet should adopt the American lifestyle. It's selfish and highly destructive. What I'm suggesting, what a growing number of people are suggesting, is creating a sustainable society. This is possible. And it can create a better standard of living that the US.

There are already countries with a higher standard of living that America, who pollute less, and have a much more equal society. Look at the Northern European/Nordic countries. Lower CO2 emissions, better standard of living for all.

My solutions will only help. I don't see why my country should send billions, thats with a B, to third world war zones. Take Africa for instance; we send untold amounts to the continent every year yet most of their countries live in HIV/AIDS squalor amongst innumerable tribal conflicts. Africa will never change. This is not giving up, it is simply facing reality. It would literally take hundreds of years to actually turn most of them around into civilized nations. There was once a glimmer of hope in the South (South Africa), but ever since the Boers got the boot its gone to shit. So much for that.

Given that your country steals resources from all over the planet, if there was an uprising, a proper uprising against the US, you'd be screwed. Your country consumes so much more than it produces, you'd all be in poverty if it wasn't for the exploitation of these third world countries.

So basically, you're supporting that. You're supporting sweatshop labour, entire countries enslaved by a national debt they can't pay off. You're supporting monetary led invasions not to mention the wanton destruction of the environment. You're supporting monetary bullying that increases poverty and starvation. This is what YOUR standard of living costs the rest of the world.

As for Africa, Africa has been screwed over by the French, British, Dutch and Americans. It's our responsibility to help them. To say it cannot change, is giving up. The only reason it can't change is because people like yourself don't want change. You want Africa to be in the state it's in right now.

Reality is harsh and cold. We must form our actions and thoughts around it, not try to make Reality fit to us.

Reality is what it is. It's only harsh and cold because we make it that way. You're right, we should fit our actions around reality, but that's not what you're doing. You're forming your thoughts around the reality we've created, not reality itself.

The reality is that we live in an emergent universe. As our knowledge progresses, which it is doing continually, we need to adapt and change. You're proposing staying the same, not growing, not being open to new ideas, to new directions. You're saying we need to remain as we are.

You're focusing on the symptoms of the real problem. The actual root of the problem: too many people.

Too many people isn't the problem. We're a long way off the carrying capacity of the Earth. The root of the problem is the way we've been organizing ourselves, the fact that we have small concentrations of power and wealth. This is nothing to do with the size of the population. And population growth has been slowing for the past 15 years now. And the only way to get it to stop is to raise the standard of living for everyone.

Let me ask you this: do you think people have more or fewer children when they have a high standard of living?

The answer is less, just in case you didn't know.

 

[Accountable]

I'm not sure if I said this before (prolly did) but, Ed, your utopian libertarian socialist system doesn't take human nature into account. You yourself look at how some have more than others and get angry. Some people (not you) will always see the glass as half empty while everyone else's is half full and be dissatisfied. That distrust and jealousy can't be irradicated, imo, and undermines the system from square one.

 

[edgray]

I'm not sure if I said this before (prolly did) but, Ed, your utopian libertarian socialist system doesn't take human nature into account. You yourself look at how some have more than others and get angry. Some people (not you) will always see the glass as half empty while everyone else's is half full and be dissatisfied. That distrust and jealousy can't be irradicated, imo, and undermines the system from square one.

Tell me, what is human nature?

As far as I can see, the only traits that are universally exhibited by humans, are the need to eat, sleep, defecate, communicate and procreate.

Everything else is learned. We're nothing but products of our environment coupled with a few genetic imperatives. Human nature is whatever the hell we want it to be.

 

[All Else Failed]

And I hope that you would know that the so called "anarcho-communes" in Spain were actually largely controlled by the military.


You understand how much oil it would take to manufacture billions and billions of solar panels, correct? Oh, and lets not forget that the other materials used to make solar panels are very scarce as it is.Unless you 110% switch over to wood and metal to make things, you're going to need oil to manufacture a SHIT LOAD of things. Do you know how much petrol and oil goes into making life saving drugs? A whole lot. Maybe you'd like to stop making many kinds of important medicines? In the end, your solar panel idea would quickly end or devastate the environment even more. Oh and Capitalism is actually the thing that is spurring solar panel growth in the world. Solar technology has been growing by leaps and bounds since the 80's and it is more profitable than ever before.

We both agree that globalism is bad. It destroys culture and harms the environment. We're just arriving at our solutions differently. Yes, we could have a nice standard of living that does not involve globalization, however, I think you're fooling yourself if you think that wars would end. Man is a beast of prey. No matter what sort of economy or society he may dwell in or under. War is eternal. No one likes this fact, yet it is reality.

Who exactly is going to educated every single person on the planet? You seem to be some strange hybrid of anarchist/libertarian so you'd be totally fine with forcing people to get educated? Forcing governments to spend probably billions on educating other people they may not even have inside of their borders? A bit of hypocrisy there.


No, you're still not getting it with jobs. If you want to employ every single person on the planet, you're GOING to have to create more fluff jobs. In order to keep a civilization running, there is actually a relative low number of necessary jobs. The key word is necessary. Now, once those jobs are taken up, where will the rest go for employment? Will you force employers to hire 3,000 engineers when they only need 200? 30 scientists when they only need about 7?


No, I'm not for homelessness. However, I am practical and a realist. If you think you can build billions of even smaller, decent homes for everyone on the planet the environmental impact would be absolutely terrible. Urban sprawl will eventually spread as more people get house. There is only so many square feet available until before you know it you're bumping up against endangered woodlands. Oh, wait, they won't be there since it will take an ungodly amount of timber to even build decently sized dwellings for billions of people.


I am all for creating sustainable societies. I'm for smaller, localized farming communities that have a mixture of both public lands and private property. A smaller community or a few hundred, or maybe a few thousands would prosper. Each one would be governed by a council, single ruler or whatever they want. Why swamp them with outsiders?


You forget that those Scandinavian counties do not have 300+ million people living there. Of course they are going to produce less CO2. Can you guess why? Number of people that produce it. Scandinavian countries are being swamped by third worlders as we speak. They will quickly become overpopulated within 50 years.


Um, aren't you from Europe? Europe is right there behind the US in terms of consumption. Sorry pal, but the entire West lives an unsustainable lifestyle, not just the US. No, I do not support sweatshops. Sweatshops are a product of globalization. In my vision, everything that a small community would need would be locally manufactured, or made by a nearby town.


No, reality has always been harsh no matter what kind of outlook you have or socio-economic-political beliefs you have. Liberalism is not an ideology, but a list of complaints against reality. Conservatism is forming decisions around reality, not trying to make reality fit around what we want. I do not think we should not progress in some ways. And I am not for staying in this "McWorld" or globalism and rabid materialism. I am for change to a more conservative, scaled back community life. What you suggest is forced building, forced education, forced manufacture of goods worldwide. That sounds like globalism to me, buddy. So who really is for change here?


Many experts disagree that we are not close or maybe a little over the carrying capacity of the planet. But, you won't agree, so why bother? At the end of the day, there are to many people consuming and polluting. They buy into globalism and material wealth. You seem to want to just extend this through globalist strategies such as WORLD education, WORLD building initiatives, WORLD solar power. When will the number be enough for you? When we reach 9 billion in 2050? 12 billion? 16 billion? 25 billion? You're right, it will all balance out one day, but odds are the process of balancing out will have nature at the wheel, and many people will die. Not to mention wars for rapidly disappearing resources. My solutions nip this in the bud early.

 

[edgray]

And I hope that you would know that the so called "anarcho-communes" in Spain were actually largely controlled by the military.

No they weren't at all. They were controlled by the people. And they were finally destroyed by the military.

You understand how much oil it would take to manufacture billions and billions of solar panels, correct? Oh, and lets not forget that the other materials used to make solar panels are very scarce as it is.Unless you 110% switch over to wood and metal to make things, you're going to need oil to manufacture a SHIT LOAD of things. Do you know how much petrol and oil goes into making life saving drugs? A whole lot. Maybe you'd like to stop making many kinds of important medicines? In the end, your solar panel idea would quickly end or devastate the environment even more. Oh and Capitalism is actually the thing that is spurring solar panel growth in the world. Solar technology has been growing by leaps and bounds since the 80's and it is more profitable than ever before.

Read my thread here: http://www.offtopicz.net/showthread.php?t=66530

We need to cover 6 very large areas right now to power the planet. And yes, it will take a LOT of manufacturing, but the resources for that aren't scarce yet. We will need massive amounts of oil for the task, and for the transportation of the devices. But after that, the remaining oil will just be needed for manufacturing plastics etc until better methods have been found.

There wouldn't be a need to stop making medicines during the switch. We might need to stop making shit like super soakers, and stop running cars etc.

How would solar devastate the environment more? Once it's installed, we would never need to burn fossil fuels EVER AGAIN! A small outlay for an absolutely MASSIVE reward.

Amd yes, capitalism IS holding this back otherwise we'd be doing it right now. Solar is growing, but so slowly because the profits aren't there, and whilst there's still oil and coal to be dug, that's where the attention will be. Capitalism SLOWS the process of technology reaching the market place. Solar has been around for decades, and photovoltaic panels, capable of harnessing big amounts of solar power, have been around for 10 years. But capitalism isn't interested until there's big profits.

We both agree that globalism is bad. It destroys culture and harms the environment. We're just arriving at our solutions differently. Yes, we could have a nice standard of living that does not involve globalization, however, I think you're fooling yourself if you think that wars would end. Man is a beast of prey. No matter what sort of economy or society he may dwell in or under. War is eternal. No one likes this fact, yet it is reality.

It doesn't involved globalisation? Are you kidding me? Why is your oil cheap? What about your cheap electronics? Cheap fruit? You think these are produced in the US? No, they're purchased cheaply from countries that you've laden with unpayable debt.

To say war is eternal is simply wrong. It's a result of the way we are, a symptom of the sick societies in which we live. Man is adaptable and changes over time. We're outgrowing war, the majority of people on the planet want peace, as they always have done. The wars we have now are simply by-products of global capitalism, remove that, and remove our war-mongering governments, and you remove war from the planet. Man can be whatever he chooses, we just need to make better decisions.

Who exactly is going to educated every single person on the planet? You seem to be some strange hybrid of anarchist/libertarian so you'd be totally fine with forcing people to get educated? Forcing governments to spend probably billions on educating other people they may not even have inside of their borders? A bit of hypocrisy there.

Teachers will teach, as they do now. As each generation gets smarter, more will be available to teach, without economic restraints.

I wouldn't force anyone into education. There'd be no need to do that. Economic forces generally take people out of education. Remove the economic forces and you'd be able to have a better educated populous.

Seeing as there'd be on govt, nor any money, the last point you make is moot.

No, you're still not getting it with jobs. If you want to employ every single person on the planet, you're GOING to have to create more fluff jobs. In order to keep a civilization running, there is actually a relative low number of necessary jobs. The key word is necessary. Now, once those jobs are taken up, where will the rest go for employment? Will you force employers to hire 3,000 engineers when they only need 200? 30 scientists when they only need about 7?

Not at all. Job scarcity is a feature of capitalism. If we organise ourselves properly, there'd be no need for that at all. The burden of necessary work could be shared, leaving room and time for more creativity, further advancing the human race rather than putting people in fluff jobs like anything to do with profit or money.

There would be no employers either, btw. You couldn't have equality with employers.

The human resource could be moved where ever it's needed. Firstly, the focus would be on building sustainable societies. After than, the human resource could be moved into other areas, improving life, scientific enquiry etc.

To reiterate, job scarcity is necessary in a capitalist society. Capitalism can't work with 100% employment. If we weren't capitalist, everyone could contribute.

No, I'm not for homelessness. However, I am practical and a realist. If you think you can build billions of even smaller, decent homes for everyone on the planet the environmental impact would be absolutely terrible. Urban sprawl will eventually spread as more people get house. There is only so many square feet available until before you know it you're bumping up against endangered woodlands. Oh, wait, they won't be there since it will take an ungodly amount of timber to even build decently sized dwellings for billions of people.

Why would that affect the environment? There are many sustainable ways to build, including building homes from the very dirt upon which they are being built. Look into sustainable development, there are so many different ways to do it. You're not being realistic to ignore all of the current technology.

The square feet are taken already. The homeless in the third world already live somewhere, we just need to put a proper roof on it, running water, electricity and job done. The size of the urban sprawl will increae no more than it is already, and once the process is complete, it can halt completely. Population growth WILL stop.

I am all for creating sustainable societies. I'm for smaller, localized farming communities that have a mixture of both public lands and private property. A smaller community or a few hundred, or maybe a few thousands would prosper. Each one would be governed by a council, single ruler or whatever they want. Why swamp them with outsiders?

Why would they need to be swamped with outsiders? I don't understand your reasoning here. You seem to think that to house homeless people, every city would need to expand. That simply isn't the case. People move towards cities because they are homeless. Build communities where they are.

You forget that those Scandinavian counties do not have 300+ million people living there. Of course they are going to produce less CO2. Can you guess why? Number of people that produce it. Scandinavian countries are being swamped by third worlders as we speak. They will quickly become overpopulated within 50 years.

CO2 is calculated PER CAPITA. It doesn't matter how many people there are in a country. Otherwise, India would top the US. But it doesn't. The US is way ahead of Europe in terms of CO2 produced per capita. Take Britain for example. Even with population increase, CO2 produced per capita is actually falling.

Um, aren't you from Europe? Europe is right there behind the US in terms of consumption. Sorry pal, but the entire West lives an unsustainable lifestyle, not just the US. No, I do not support sweatshops. Sweatshops are a product of globalization. In my vision, everything that a small community would need would be locally manufactured, or made by a nearby town.

Yes I'm from Europe. And we do consume too much. But we're WAY behind the US.

 

[edgray]

No, reality has always been harsh no matter what kind of outlook you have or socio-economic-political beliefs you have. Liberalism is not an ideology, but a list of complaints against reality. Conservatism is forming decisions around reality, not trying to make reality fit around what we want. I do not think we should not progress in some ways. And I am not for staying in this "McWorld" or globalism and rabid materialism. I am for change to a more conservative, scaled back community life. What you suggest is forced building, forced education, forced manufacture of goods worldwide. That sounds like globalism to me, buddy. So who really is for change here?

You have absolutely no idea what liberalism is, do you?

Liberalism is the free market, just so you know.

Conservatism is about conserving the status quo, hanging onto old traditions. In what way does conservatism form decisions around reality? Conservatism is about conserving, hanging on to old traditions etc. Ignoring reality, sweeping it under the carpet or trying to bend society to fit an archaic belief system. The world is emergent. Conservatism flies in the very face of reality.

I don't suggest forced anything. I suggest the human race let go of the shackles that hold us back (conservatism, money, capitalism, communism, socialism, govt etc etc) and actually progress to our technical capabilities.

Your change involves fucking everyone over so you're alright jack. How can you scale back in a growing world without leaving many people out in the cold?

Many experts disagree that we are not close or maybe a little over the carrying capacity of the planet. But, you won't agree, so why bother? At the end of the day, there are to many people consuming and polluting. They buy into globalism and material wealth. You seem to want to just extend this through globalist strategies such as WORLD education, WORLD building initiatives, WORLD solar power. When will the number be enough for you? When we reach 9 billion in 2050? 12 billion? 16 billion? 25 billion? You're right, it will all balance out one day, but odds are the process of balancing out will have nature at the wheel, and many people will die. Not to mention wars for rapidly disappearing resources. My solutions nip this in the bud early.

Some agree, some don't. No one can know for sure, because no one fully understands the implications of what is technically possible. I don't either, but as far as I see it, we've 6 billion on this planet and the only reason we're screwing it up is because it's not financially viable not to.

You misunderstand our idea of a global resource economy and globalisation. We do not propose anything like we have now, no extensions of any programs we have now. We don't want a world govt. We don't want to force people to do anything. We just want a new framework put in place that finally allows the human race to excel, rather than trap it under debt, tyrannical rule and technological ignorance. We want the world to unite, which is VERY different than what you're thinking about.

As for population, it's generally thought that once we reach around 11 billion, population growth will stop, or at least that's what the mathematical predictions are. And the faster we get every man woman and child in this world in an advanced environment, the sooner it will stop.

As I said, population growth halts with technological progress. By keeping the third world in existence, the problem will ALWAYS exist.

 

[edgray]

Look, rather than me bang on about my own opinion about a resource based future, with my own inaccuracies and so on, take a look at these sites, they explain things pretty well:

http://www.rbefoundation.com/
http://www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com/

 

[edgray]

God I've just reread what I've written. I can be an antagonistic prick at times, apologies for that, All Else Failed.

 

[edgray]

if you can find someone with a subscription, this is a good article about switching the US to solar power:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

 

[1029066]

I agree with you man, and the picture is a correct depiction. But the thing is, what you're suggesting is a good idea but I don't think it's realistic. Like yeah it would be great if we found a system that could benefit everyone using our technology and world resources. But sadly, I don't know if that's possible to create a utopia like that. Capitalism seems to be the best option for now. It at least provides the most OPPORTUNITY to do well and rise to the top.

 

[Accountable]

Tell me, what is human nature?

As far as I can see, the only traits that are universally exhibited by humans, are the need to eat, sleep, defecate, communicate and procreate.

Everything else is learned. We're nothing but products of our environment coupled with a few genetic imperatives. Human nature is whatever the hell we want it to be.

Knowledge of brain development is part of my job, though I don't claim to be remotely expert in the area. Trust, logic, and consideration of long-term consequences are higher order thinking that is done primarily in the frontal lobe. This part:

. The frontal lobe is the last to develop, doesn't fully develop until a person is in the early to mid-twenties, and sometimes (often?) isn't used as often as we would like.

Eat, sleep, defecate, communicate, procreate, and honor Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Hoarding and being suspicious are also natural, though they can be overcome. It's a nice picture you paint, but once you get into the weeds the logic just fails on anything but a small scale.

 

[edgray]

I agree with you man, and the picture is a correct depiction. But the thing is, what you're suggesting is a good idea but I don't think it's realistic. Like yeah it would be great if we found a system that could benefit everyone using our technology and world resources. But sadly, I don't know if that's possible to create a utopia like that. Capitalism seems to be the best option for now. It at least provides the most OPPORTUNITY to do well and rise to the top.

Capitalism pretends to offer opportunities, but it doesn't work out that way. Social mobility is on the decline, generational mobility is practically stagnant, even in the US. What we're seeing now - concentrations of power, rising crime and poverty, increasing gap between the rich and the poor, is the direct result of capitalism.

More and more people I meet have lost faith in govts and capitalism. More and more are realising that money is nothing but a pyramid scheme.

Change won't happen over night, but if we carry on in our current direction, where do you think we'll end p when resources become even more scarce? Martial law, I'm guessing.

Knowledge of brain development is part of my job, though I don't claim to be remotely expert in the area. Trust, logic, and consideration of long-term consequences are higher order thinking that is done primarily in the frontal lobe. This part:

. The frontal lobe is the last to develop, doesn't fully develop until a person is in the early to mid-twenties, and sometimes (often?) isn't used as often as we would like.

Eat, sleep, defecate, communicate, procreate, and honor Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Hoarding and being suspicious are also natural, though they can be overcome. It's a nice picture you paint, but once you get into the weeds the logic just fails on anything but a small scale.

Being suspicious? that seems like a negative way of putting it! Inquisitive, I think is a better phrase. Hoarding? I don't believe that, other than perhaps hoarding food for winter...

So if it's good on a small scale, then we can keep it on a small scale. Imagine society made up of thousands of small communities. Then imagine this across the globe...

 

[KimmyCharmeleon]

I heard the average life expectancy of a person in Botswana is 27 years old. Can you imagine a mid-life crisis at thirteen and a half? Very hard to buy a Porsche and fuck someone half your age... (quote comedian Will Anderson )

 

[edgray]

I heard the average life expectancy of a person in Botswana is 27 years old. Can you imagine a mid-life crisis at thirteen and a half? Very hard to buy a Porsche and fuck someone half your age... (quote comedian Will Anderson )

the life expectancy is about 40, which means that you may be able to drive the porsche, probably not afford it tho... as for screwing a 10yo, that's wrong on so many levels...