FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Gaia theory
Gaia theory
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
 | |||
"Depends on the question. Being nice helps. Being angry doesn't help. Making generalisations doesn't help. That's wisdom I've just given you ". I had you down as 2-1 to reply first!. . So the question is, you've seen the way the world is moving, you've asked the questions about the problems yourself... When there's no logic where does logic take you for our future? | |||
| |||
I've been reading through the politics forum lately (perhaps it's due to sort reflection on my country's impending doom this week  ). I think this place is too wrapped up in the minutiae to see the bigger picture most of the time.... | |||
"You're such a philosopher at heart
I've been reading through the politics forum lately (perhaps it's due to sort reflection on my country's impending doom this week ). I think this place is too wrapped up in the minutiae to see the bigger picture most of the time....". Aha a voice of wisdom and beauty. . So my first flight in 25 years!. You know where I'm going with this  .
| |||
| |||
| |||
". The problem is, most people wont care or hear about these issues, enough to influence decision making on them until it gets to a year or so they can be seen to impact." . So let's play out a scenario. You've been reading an awful lot for twenty years, your not biased in your political beliefs and you realise that some answers aren't or don't fit well with political options. So that bigger picture, who really is our enemy, is it Russia, Iran, Isis or our own government?... The narrative is always be on your toes for foreigners be that government or individuals... But when you examine the facts, that doesn't always add up, I mean who's spying on all the UK and US citizens, Russia? Iran? Isis?. Who's interning people for torture who's organising secret flights to small islands, who's selling your medical records, who's catalogued you by wealth and usefulness, are we really free because we get to vote?.... Maybe your enemy isn't Russia or Iran or terrorism or our next war on something that means nothing to you?. Why didn't all those Jews get out of Nazi Germany long before it came to putting them on trains to concentration camps? | |||
| |||
". The problem is, most people wont care or hear about these issues, enough to influence decision making on them until it gets to a year or so they can be seen to impact.. So let's play out a scenario. You've been reading an awful lot for twenty years, your not biased in your political beliefs and you realise that some answers aren't or don't fit well with political options. So that bigger picture, who really is our enemy, is it Russia, Iran, Isis or our own government?... The narrative is always be on your toes for foreigners be that government or individuals... But when you examine the facts, that doesn't always add up, I mean who's spying on all the UK and US citizens, Russia? Iran? Isis?. Who's interning people for torture who's organising secret flights to small islands, who's selling your medical records, who's catalogued you by wealth and usefulness, are we really free because we get to vote?.... Maybe your enemy isn't Russia or Iran or terrorism or our next war on something that means nothing to you?. Why didn't all those Jews get out of Nazi Germany long before it came to putting them on trains to concentration camps?" I actually have major gripes with how our government and the american government operates. I also am a little weary of Russia and Iran - that might be because I am young and have really heard mainly one narrative. I certainly do't like how as countries they operate though. The war on drugs was a terrible decision by the West. At least it's branding and execution. Basically I do try to see through ideologies and see the underlying motives. Lets face it, one thing all governments do, is create a 'national enemy' someone or something to politicise and divide the public and keep them on their toes. Why though? Probably because a slightly divided and weary public are easier to sneak around if they have a Leviathan to e scared of. Its always a good question to ask - how free am I? And where do we draw the line of national freedom and safety, invading personal freedom. tbh when I talked about threats on the horizon, I was't even thinking of war or conflict. More of climate change and job market automation. Given that both of these could occur at the same time...Id hate to be in power of nations less effected by climate change, who will get hit by waves of displaced refugees, and will also have to deal with a very pissed off public when they find that a lot of them aren't needed in the private sector or public sector. An equally powerful nation is always dangerous, but the biggest danger comes from your own people feeling abandoned. | |||
". The problem is, most people wont care or hear about these issues, enough to influence decision making on them until it gets to a year or so they can be seen to impact.. So let's play out a scenario. You've been reading an awful lot for twenty years, your not biased in your political beliefs and you realise that some answers aren't or don't fit well with political options. So that bigger picture, who really is our enemy, is it Russia, Iran, Isis or our own government?... The narrative is always be on your toes for foreigners be that government or individuals... But when you examine the facts, that doesn't always add up, I mean who's spying on all the UK and US citizens, Russia? Iran? Isis?. Who's interning people for torture who's organising secret flights to small islands, who's selling your medical records, who's catalogued you by wealth and usefulness, are we really free because we get to vote?.... Maybe your enemy isn't Russia or Iran or terrorism or our next war on something that means nothing to you?. Why didn't all those Jews get out of Nazi Germany long before it came to putting them on trains to concentration camps?" The answer isn't clear cut one way or the other. There isn't a defined enemy. In a real democracy we should be safeguarding our own rights - not leaving it up to the government, or the corporations that they hire. Each entity is a friend or an enemy in some sense. Your only true friend is yourself. But at the same time we can't let this cynicism lead to complete scepticism or political nihilism. Do you know, I was watching "the big questions" today on tv and someone used a similar rational to this one in order to defend what has become widely known as "fake news" on the internet? Our cynicism can't lead us to absurdity. Sometimes I think the sheeple argument is just used to force people into thinking more radically than they should. We need to be critical, but most change is incremental. | |||
". Why didn't all those Jews get out of Nazi Germany long before it came to putting them on trains to concentration camps? The answer isn't clear cut one way or the other. There isn't a defined enemy. In a real democracy we should be safeguarding our own rights - not leaving it up to the government, or the corporations that they hire. Each entity is a friend or an enemy in some sense. Your only true friend is yourself. But at the same time we can't let this cynicism lead to complete scepticism or political nihilism. Do you know, I was watching "the big questions" today on tv and someone used a similar rational to this one in order to defend what has become widely known as "fake news" on the internet? Our cynicism can't lead us to absurdity. Sometimes I think the sheeple argument is just used to force people into thinking more radically than they should. We need to be critical, but most change is incremental. " . I'm not really worried so much about the fake news although to be honest even that it an exaggeration of a truth. You know why I think half of them didn't leave... Optimism, some people just are very optimistic despite the evidence, in the back of our minds, no matter how bad our government is... It's still our government, the optimistic side always rationales there bad deeds in doing the right thing, there protecting us, helping us, need us. We are in reality the proverbial frog in a pan slowly but surely having the water temperature raised so it won't jump out!. | |||
". Why didn't all those Jews get out of Nazi Germany long before it came to putting them on trains to concentration camps? More of climate change and job market automation. Given that both of these could occur at the same time...Id hate to be in power of nations less effected by climate change, who will get hit by waves of displaced refugees, and will also have to deal with a very pissed off public when they find that a lot of them aren't needed in the private sector or public sector. An equally powerful nation is always dangerous, but the biggest danger comes from your own people feeling abandoned. " . The whole purpose of a state is to protect the wealthy from the poor. Adam Smith wealth of nations!!. . . When the state requires more and more power to do that were in trouble because that means they no longer have control of people via economics, half the world don't have a job and the other half have one that they'll soon lose through automation.,... And then you throw in the problem of climate change, resource depletion and decreasing food yields... Why does the world suddenly need right wing authoritarian governments, it's certainly not to invade other countries, we've seen the center and the left more than happy to do that for the last twenty years...I don't think the right wing are getting in by accident, there getting in by design and there being installed not to invade but to control their own citizens | |||
"Have any of you considered the possibility that we are all sheep!" Sheep, no. Pawns, yes. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I think that a little too much credit is given to large companies or political movements having long-term global strategies. A significant problem is that almost all the thinking that shapes the world is tactical now due to the election cycle and quarterly financial reporting." Agreed. Honestly, as much as I dislike Nigel Farage in many ways, I believe he once said that most politicians are only concerned about the public r show interest when the local elections are on, and when a general election comes. Now I don't agree with that entirely, but, it is clear to see that in this day and age political objectives tend to be short, no more than one or two election cycles. Brexit is a good example. Everything is focused on freeing us entirely from the EU, or keeping part of it as we leave. What will Mrs May say tomorrow (everyday in the news but tomorrow, what will she say?) Basically on all sides, what the public hear is the short term goals - apparent from the very vaguest of points, leave the EU completely and go global, or , stay in the single market but leave so we can have our hands in two pots easily. What we need is a concise plan for the coming decade. If Britain is to be independent, then we need to train a proportion of our young individuals in the skills which in 6 to 12 years will be crucial for any modern economy. Heck, perhaps if the government does start training people in programming, robotics ect , we might be a major global success as we actually might be the first ones who can capitalise on this market. But, that's the problem, nobody seems to want to take a strong step and put concrete plans down for that event. | |||
| |||
"I think that a little too much credit is given to large companies or political movements having long-term global strategies. A significant problem is that almost all the thinking that shapes the world is tactical now due to the election cycle and quarterly financial reporting." . I'm a beliver in the opposite train of thought. I think the giant corporations absolutely have long term plans, Google mapping, smartphones, robotics, GM foods.... These are the fruition of 30 year plans.. . Political movements are I'll agree very fastidious but ideologies very rarely go away, even when they get defeated (communism, Nazism).... Money always befriends money the only true enemy of the wealthy are the poor, that's not changed in 2000 years | |||
"I think that a little too much credit is given to large companies or political movements having long-term global strategies. A significant problem is that almost all the thinking that shapes the world is tactical now due to the election cycle and quarterly financial reporting.. I'm a beliver in the opposite train of thought. I think the giant corporations absolutely have long term plans, Google mapping, smartphones, robotics, GM foods.... These are the fruition of 30 year plans.. . Political movements are I'll agree very fastidious but ideologies very rarely go away, even when they get defeated (communism, Nazism).... Money always befriends money the only true enemy of the wealthy are the poor, that's not changed in 2000 years " 
I agree. One of the reasons why the poor remain poor is because they don't have long term plans and don't really see the ones that other interests have cultivated. | |||
"Does anybody notice how a thread about the "bigger picture" has already gotten mired in the details?
". Mmmm it's tricky to think about without getting mired in the detail. I like to think of it as long term tends,I get this thinking mainly from studying climate change... Now we often get mired in the detail of that as well for many reasons however. Should you look at the long term graph of human population you should notice it's basically the hockey stick, you can overlay nearly every other graph on top of it. Oil usage, coal usage, copper ore, iron, co2 emissions, global temperatures, debt, GDP growth, crop yields, water usage, energy, aircraft flights, reduction in habitat, species extinction rates... There all hockey stick by nature, an ever steeper curve upwards.. So the question is when does it stop climbing?, what would the start of plateau look like and if you studied these things for long term planning(which in my mind they obviously do) what would you do about it?. | |||
| |||
"Does anybody notice how a thread about the "bigger picture" has already gotten mired in the details?
"Absolutely. But, as anyone should know by now, you can't make something 'fit into' the big picture without looking at the details. The saying holds true, the devil is in the detail. | |||
"Does anybody notice how a thread about the "bigger picture" has already gotten mired in the details?
"On another note, anyone notice how whenever a politics thread is about something which effects the entire nature of humanity, we only really get a few dedicated posters wanting to discuss and debate. Whilst UK politics threads just become a shit post list of ideologues? | |||
"I think that a little too much credit is given to large companies or political movements having long-term global strategies. A significant problem is that almost all the thinking that shapes the world is tactical now due to the election cycle and quarterly financial reporting.. I'm a beliver in the opposite train of thought. I think the giant corporations absolutely have long term plans, Google mapping, smartphones, robotics, GM foods.... These are the fruition of 30 year plans.. . Political movements are I'll agree very fastidious but ideologies very rarely go away, even when they get defeated (communism, Nazism).... Money always befriends money the only true enemy of the wealthy are the poor, that's not changed in 2000 years
I agree. One of the reasons why the poor remain poor is because they don't have long term plans and don't really see the ones that other interests have cultivated. "Slightly disagree here. I don't think that the poor remain poor due to a lack of planning. In some cases yes, but there are other factors. Also define long term plan? Because I'd say if an individual in this day and age is working towards say, thee objectives to meet at the end of 5 years, that is fairly long term...a 10 year plan is a long term plan to stick to for a couple of family. However, groups of people, organisations, companies, and ultimately nations, do succeed or have more successful end results for targets, if they have thorough long term plans which have been rigorously examined. So, yes, good planning and testing is crucial to reaching an objective. But it does not mean that people will become wealthier. | |||
| |||
"Does anybody notice how a thread about the "bigger picture" has already gotten mired in the details?
.
Mmmm it's tricky to think about without getting mired in the detail.
I like to think of it as long term tends,I get this thinking mainly from studying climate change... Now we often get mired in the detail of that as well for many reasons however.
Should you look at the long term graph of human population you should notice it's basically the hockey stick, you can overlay nearly every other graph on top of it.
Oil usage, coal usage, copper ore, iron, co2 emissions, global temperatures, debt, GDP growth, crop yields, water usage, energy, aircraft flights, reduction in habitat, species extinction rates... There all hockey stick by nature, an ever steeper curve upwards..
So the question is when does it stop climbing?, what would the start of plateau look like and if you studied these things for long term planning(which in my mind they obviously do) what would you do about it?.
"Anything which is a bi-product or product of anthropocentric action will correlate to the hockey stick. It's just the nature of trends and correlation. As for how do we break the unsustainable cycle? I don't know, as it stands, there are a few possible outcomes. Further innovation might mean greater crop yield per-hectre, might create cost-effective carbon neutral energy...politics might influence the growth of renewable energy and more sustainable levels of population growth. As it stands, I still think we wont see the hockey stick plateau for another decade at least... | |||
"Let's not forget the dictionary definition of redundant. Not or no longer of any use?... . . You might need to remove yourself from being human to answer.. What use are 7.2 billon humans on a human driven system that only requires a few hundred million! Or a natural system that only ever allowed for a few hundred million?. That's tricky to answer as a human but not so tricky if your say...A tuna or a dolphin or a lower primate" That's the issue. Remove emotion and sentiment from the issue, and lets just say o the 7.4 billion people alive, we only need 1-2 billion...then the remaining 5-6 billion are just a drain on resources. And there are two main outcomes when people see it that way. We either redesign society and politics so we have a system which doesn't penalise those who aren't tooled up or can't innovate, or, society penalises those who can't effectively take part in the produce and consume cycle. This is why people need to start thinking and planning for this issue now, so we have some form of plan to put in place. | |||
"Does anybody notice how a thread about the "bigger picture" has already gotten mired in the details?
.
Mmmm it's tricky to think about without getting mired in the detail.
I like to think of it as long term tends,I get this thinking mainly from studying climate change... Now we often get mired in the detail of that as well for many reasons however.
Should you look at the long term graph of human population you should notice it's basically the hockey stick, you can overlay nearly every other graph on top of it.
Oil usage, coal usage, copper ore, iron, co2 emissions, global temperatures, debt, GDP growth, crop yields, water usage, energy, aircraft flights, reduction in habitat, species extinction rates... There all hockey stick by nature, an ever steeper curve upwards..
So the question is when does it stop climbing?, what would the start of plateau look like and if you studied these things for long term planning(which in my mind they obviously do) what would you do about it?.
Anything which is a bi-product or product of anthropocentric action will correlate to the hockey stick. It's just the nature of trends and correlation.
As for how do we break the unsustainable cycle?
I don't know, as it stands, there are a few possible outcomes.
Further innovation might mean greater crop yield per-hectre, might create cost-effective carbon neutral energy...politics might influence the growth of renewable energy and more sustainable levels of population growth.
As it stands, I still think we wont see the hockey stick plateau for another decade at least...". Have you ever heard of the book the limits to growth?. It's basically a husband and wife team from MIT in the early 70s who wrote a computer model of prediction and limits to growth. I haven't read it for awhile but I do remember that the prediction was for growth to hit the buffers around 2015 due to constraints on resource depletion, the computer predicted that the first two things that would be cut back on when this happens is health spending and eduction, because A you don't need old people and B you can get already educated people from abroad. Due to the cut backs on health spending the death rate starts increasing while the birth rate decreases to the point where they meet around 2030!... At this point I'd like to admit to evidence that crop yields have been falling already for a decade and fresh water is already in scarcity in the first world let alone the third world (due to warming trends the atmosphere already holds 8% more water vapour) , we plateaued on conventional oil extraction 15 years ago, that gap is being filled with technological innovation... Otherwise known as fracking (water intensive) tar sands (hideous, you can see it on Google earth) ,.. All capital (energy) intensive and all much more environmentally worse (pushing that graph upwards). . Dinosaurs were around in one form or another on earth for about 150 million years before a comet wiped them out, homosapiens are what 150,000 years 600,000 in various forms, civilisation however is only around 5000 years old, that's a long way in a short time | |||
| |||
"Which reminds of the line from the film blade runner. . The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long... And we've burnt ever so brightly "Careful, now! You're getting morbid  | |||
"Which reminds of the line from the film blade runner. . The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long... And we've burnt ever so brightly
Careful, now! You're getting morbid "True though | |||
| |||
"Which reminds of the line from the film blade runner. . The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long... And we've burnt ever so brightly
Careful, now! You're getting morbid
True though"Yes, I know. | |||
| |||
"Does anybody notice how a thread about the "bigger picture" has already gotten mired in the details?
.
Mmmm it's tricky to think about without getting mired in the detail.
I like to think of it as long term tends,I get this thinking mainly from studying climate change... Now we often get mired in the detail of that as well for many reasons however.
Should you look at the long term graph of human population you should notice it's basically the hockey stick, you can overlay nearly every other graph on top of it.
Oil usage, coal usage, copper ore, iron, co2 emissions, global temperatures, debt, GDP growth, crop yields, water usage, energy, aircraft flights, reduction in habitat, species extinction rates... There all hockey stick by nature, an ever steeper curve upwards..
So the question is when does it stop climbing?, what would the start of plateau look like and if you studied these things for long term planning(which in my mind they obviously do) what would you do about it?.
Anything which is a bi-product or product of anthropocentric action will correlate to the hockey stick. It's just the nature of trends and correlation.
As for how do we break the unsustainable cycle?
I don't know, as it stands, there are a few possible outcomes.
Further innovation might mean greater crop yield per-hectre, might create cost-effective carbon neutral energy...politics might influence the growth of renewable energy and more sustainable levels of population growth.
As it stands, I still think we wont see the hockey stick plateau for another decade at least....
Have you ever heard of the book the limits to growth?.
It's basically a husband and wife team from MIT in the early 70s who wrote a computer model of prediction and limits to growth.
I haven't read it for awhile but I do remember that the prediction was for growth to hit the buffers around 2015 due to constraints on resource depletion, the computer predicted that the first two things that would be cut back on when this happens is health spending and eduction, because A you don't need old people and B you can get already educated people from abroad.
Due to the cut backs on health spending the death rate starts increasing while the birth rate decreases to the point where they meet around 2030!...
At this point I'd like to admit to evidence that crop yields have been falling already for a decade and fresh water is already in scarcity in the first world let alone the third world (due to warming trends the atmosphere already holds 8% more water vapour) , we plateaued on conventional oil extraction 15 years ago, that gap is being filled with technological innovation... Otherwise known as fracking (water intensive) tar sands (hideous, you can see it on Google earth) ,.. All capital (energy) intensive and all much more environmentally worse (pushing that graph upwards).
.
Dinosaurs were around in one form or another on earth for about 150 million years before a comet wiped them out, homosapiens are what 150,000 years 600,000 in various forms, civilisation however is only around 5000 years old, that's a long way in a short time"Not heard of that book but I will deffo look for it and give it a read. Though I'd say old books might not be as accurate now. However, I could see, quite possibly, depending on policy and conflicts around resources and their extraction, population growth suddenly declining. And certainly death rates will increase. People have been living longer due to an abundance of food, warmth from cheap fossil fuel based energy, affordable and readily available health care. In this country two of those bubbles are about to pop, and when they do, we can expect death rate to increase and live expectancy to stagnate. | |||
"Does anybody notice how a thread about the "bigger picture" has already gotten mired in the details?
.
Mmmm it's tricky to think about without getting mired in the detail.
I like to think of it as long term tends,I get this thinking mainly from studying climate change... Now we often get mired in the detail of that as well for many reasons however.
Should you look at the long term graph of human population you should notice it's basically the hockey stick, you can overlay nearly every other graph on top of it.
Oil usage, coal usage, copper ore, iron, co2 emissions, global temperatures, debt, GDP growth, crop yields, water usage, energy, aircraft flights, reduction in habitat, species extinction rates... There all hockey stick by nature, an ever steeper curve upwards..
So the question is when does it stop climbing?, what would the start of plateau look like and if you studied these things for long term planning(which in my mind they obviously do) what would you do about it?.
Anything which is a bi-product or product of anthropocentric action will correlate to the hockey stick. It's just the nature of trends and correlation.
As for how do we break the unsustainable cycle?
I don't know, as it stands, there are a few possible outcomes.
Further innovation might mean greater crop yield per-hectre, might create cost-effective carbon neutral energy...politics might influence the growth of renewable energy and more sustainable levels of population growth.
As it stands, I still think we wont see the hockey stick plateau for another decade at least....
Have you ever heard of the book the limits to growth?.
It's basically a husband and wife team from MIT in the early 70s who wrote a computer model of prediction and limits to growth.
I haven't read it for awhile but I do remember that the prediction was for growth to hit the buffers around 2015 due to constraints on resource depletion, the computer predicted that the first two things that would be cut back on when this happens is health spending and eduction, because A you don't need old people and B you can get already educated people from abroad.
Due to the cut backs on health spending the death rate starts increasing while the birth rate decreases to the point where they meet around 2030!...
At this point I'd like to admit to evidence that crop yields have been falling already for a decade and fresh water is already in scarcity in the first world let alone the third world (due to warming trends the atmosphere already holds 8% more water vapour) , we plateaued on conventional oil extraction 15 years ago, that gap is being filled with technological innovation... Otherwise known as fracking (water intensive) tar sands (hideous, you can see it on Google earth) ,.. All capital (energy) intensive and all much more environmentally worse (pushing that graph upwards).
.
Dinosaurs were around in one form or another on earth for about 150 million years before a comet wiped them out, homosapiens are what 150,000 years 600,000 in various forms, civilisation however is only around 5000 years old, that's a long way in a short time
Not heard of that book but I will deffo look for it and give it a read.
Though I'd say old books might not be as accurate now.
However, I could see, quite possibly, depending on policy and conflicts around resources and their extraction, population growth suddenly declining.
And certainly death rates will increase. People have been living longer due to an abundance of food, warmth from cheap fossil fuel based energy, affordable and readily available health care. In this country two of those bubbles are about to pop, and when they do, we can expect death rate to increase and live expectancy to stagnate."There was a 40 year update in 2012 on the limits to growth (1972).The simulation was ran again and the outcomes are the same.The computer simulation world3 gave the same outcome. | |||
"Does anybody notice how a thread about the "bigger picture" has already gotten mired in the details?
.
Mmmm it's tricky to think about without getting mired in the detail.
I like to think of it as long term tends,I get this thinking mainly from studying climate change... Now we often get mired in the detail of that as well for many reasons however.
Should you look at the long term graph of human population you should notice it's basically the hockey stick, you can overlay nearly every other graph on top of it.
Oil usage, coal usage, copper ore, iron, co2 emissions, global temperatures, debt, GDP growth, crop yields, water usage, energy, aircraft flights, reduction in habitat, species extinction rates... There all hockey stick by nature, an ever steeper curve upwards..
So the question is when does it stop climbing?, what would the start of plateau look like and if you studied these things for long term planning(which in my mind they obviously do) what would you do about it?.
Anything which is a bi-product or product of anthropocentric action will correlate to the hockey stick. It's just the nature of trends and correlation.
As for how do we break the unsustainable cycle?
I don't know, as it stands, there are a few possible outcomes.
Further innovation might mean greater crop yield per-hectre, might create cost-effective carbon neutral energy...politics might influence the growth of renewable energy and more sustainable levels of population growth.
As it stands, I still think we wont see the hockey stick plateau for another decade at least....
Have you ever heard of the book the limits to growth?.
It's basically a husband and wife team from MIT in the early 70s who wrote a computer model of prediction and limits to growth.
I haven't read it for awhile but I do remember that the prediction was for growth to hit the buffers around 2015 due to constraints on resource depletion, the computer predicted that the first two things that would be cut back on when this happens is health spending and eduction, because A you don't need old people and B you can get already educated people from abroad.
Due to the cut backs on health spending the death rate starts increasing while the birth rate decreases to the point where they meet around 2030!...
At this point I'd like to admit to evidence that crop yields have been falling already for a decade and fresh water is already in scarcity in the first world let alone the third world (due to warming trends the atmosphere already holds 8% more water vapour) , we plateaued on conventional oil extraction 15 years ago, that gap is being filled with technological innovation... Otherwise known as fracking (water intensive) tar sands (hideous, you can see it on Google earth) ,.. All capital (energy) intensive and all much more environmentally worse (pushing that graph upwards).
.
Dinosaurs were around in one form or another on earth for about 150 million years before a comet wiped them out, homosapiens are what 150,000 years 600,000 in various forms, civilisation however is only around 5000 years old, that's a long way in a short time
Not heard of that book but I will deffo look for it and give it a read.
Though I'd say old books might not be as accurate now.
However, I could see, quite possibly, depending on policy and conflicts around resources and their extraction, population growth suddenly declining.
And certainly death rates will increase. People have been living longer due to an abundance of food, warmth from cheap fossil fuel based energy, affordable and readily available health care. In this country two of those bubbles are about to pop, and when they do, we can expect death rate to increase and live expectancy to stagnate. There was a 40 year update in 2012 on the limits to growth (1972).The simulation was ran again and the outcomes are the same.The computer simulation world3 gave the same outcome."I'll deffo take a look at that then. Though, going by the original post about this, saying population growth will hit the buffer sat 2015 or around then - define around then? Cause I cannot see it slowing globally. In developed nations it definitely will - in fact it most likely has. I think it's more likely that by 2020 we'll see global population growth plateau. | |||
"Which reminds of the line from the film blade runner. . The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long... And we've burnt ever so brightly
Careful, now! You're getting morbid ". Sorry mother .
| |||
" I'll deffo take a look at that then. Though, going by the original post about this, saying population growth will hit the buffer sat 2015 or around then - define around then? Cause I cannot see it slowing globally. In developed nations it definitely will - in fact it most likely has. I think it's more likely that by 2020 we'll see global population growth plateau." . No if I remember correctly it was resource growth that hit the buffer in 2015 leading to population stagnation by 2030 and then a trend downwards thereafter...I never really thought much about the book for a long time until the 07 global banking crash, capital will always be the first casualty of a resource depletion as inevitably it's allocated more and more in its appropriation. . It's interesting because the big picture might actually lead you to a point where you realise there are no answers to the smaller questions..... you know the difference between a problem and a predicament! | |||
". The problem is, most people wont care or hear about these issues, enough to influence decision making on them until it gets to a year or so they can be seen to impact.. So let's play out a scenario. You've been reading an awful lot for twenty years, your not biased in your political beliefs and you realise that some answers aren't or don't fit well with political options. So that bigger picture, who really is our enemy, is it Russia, Iran, Isis or our own government?... The narrative is always be on your toes for foreigners be that government or individuals... But when you examine the facts, that doesn't always add up, I mean who's spying on all the UK and US citizens, Russia? Iran? Isis?. Who's interning people for torture who's organising secret flights to small islands, who's selling your medical records, who's catalogued you by wealth and usefulness, are we really free because we get to vote?.... Maybe your enemy isn't Russia or Iran or terrorism or our next war on something that means nothing to you?. Why didn't all those Jews get out of Nazi Germany long before it came to putting them on trains to concentration camps?" You are paranoid... My enemies are fear, the fleeting passage of time and corporate culture of sterilising the humanity out of us Change is a constant. Countries rise and fall, like always, there will be big changes, like always and we may exterminate ourselves as a race... But who cares (tongue in cheek) But no know gets out alive in any case
| |||
"Where are we heading.? Global governance is where. It can't come soon enough.It will be a technocracy rather than a democracy. "Hell no Keep your future to yourself thanks | |||
". The problem is, most people wont care or hear about these issues, enough to influence decision making on them until it gets to a year or so they can be seen to impact.. So let's play out a scenario. You've been reading an awful lot for twenty years, your not biased in your political beliefs and you realise that some answers aren't or don't fit well with political options. So that bigger picture, who really is our enemy, is it Russia, Iran, Isis or our own government?... The narrative is always be on your toes for foreigners be that government or individuals... But when you examine the facts, that doesn't always add up, I mean who's spying on all the UK and US citizens, Russia? Iran? Isis?. Who's interning people for torture who's organising secret flights to small islands, who's selling your medical records, who's catalogued you by wealth and usefulness, are we really free because we get to vote?.... Maybe your enemy isn't Russia or Iran or terrorism or our next war on something that means nothing to you?. Why didn't all those Jews get out of Nazi Germany long before it came to putting them on trains to concentration camps? You are paranoid... My enemies are fear, the fleeting passage of time and corporate culture of sterilising the humanity out of us Change is a constant. Countries rise and fall, like always, there will be big changes, like always and we may exterminate ourselves as a race... But who cares (tongue in cheek) But no know gets out alive in any case
"i can agree with everything you said except the extermination of the human race If we are the only sentient beings in our galaxy thats a monumental fucking waste of a billion years of evolution. | |||
" Now I don't agree with that entirely, but, it is clear to see that in this day and age political objectives tend to be short, no more than one or two election cycles. " I've made this point a few times but no one ever picks up on it. Democracy in its current form is a complete joke for the above reason. 50% of potentially productive time is spent on a 4 yearly popularity content in between day to day belittlement of opposition. Is it democratic if you vote democratically for an idea that may or may not even happen or totally bastardised in its application to something else entirely by what ever clown who told you what you wanted to hear? Is that really a democratic process for choosing what happens? It is the polar opposite of how good businesses work... Strong leadership, a long term plan and design by consensus towards a common goal. | |||
". The problem is, most people wont care or hear about these issues, enough to influence decision making on them until it gets to a year or so they can be seen to impact.. So let's play out a scenario. You've been reading an awful lot for twenty years, your not biased in your political beliefs and you realise that some answers aren't or don't fit well with political options. So that bigger picture, who really is our enemy, is it Russia, Iran, Isis or our own government?... The narrative is always be on your toes for foreigners be that government or individuals... But when you examine the facts, that doesn't always add up, I mean who's spying on all the UK and US citizens, Russia? Iran? Isis?. Who's interning people for torture who's organising secret flights to small islands, who's selling your medical records, who's catalogued you by wealth and usefulness, are we really free because we get to vote?.... Maybe your enemy isn't Russia or Iran or terrorism or our next war on something that means nothing to you?. Why didn't all those Jews get out of Nazi Germany long before it came to putting them on trains to concentration camps? You are paranoid... My enemies are fear, the fleeting passage of time and corporate culture of sterilising the humanity out of us Change is a constant. Countries rise and fall, like always, there will be big changes, like always and we may exterminate ourselves as a race... But who cares (tongue in cheek) But no know gets out alive in any case
i can agree with everything you said except the extermination of the human race If we are the only sentient beings in our galaxy thats a monumental fucking waste of a billion years of evolution."I'll let pacha mama figure that out for herself | |||
"What use are 7.2 billon humans on a human driven system that only requires a few hundred million" Sounds like Georgia Guidestones territory... | |||
". Why didn't all those Jews get out of Nazi Germany long before it came to putting them on trains to concentration camps? You are paranoid... But no know gets out alive in any case
". Bring paranoid is only a problem when you don't realise your paranoid!. . What that remark meant is like the frog in the pan lots of Jews didn't see it coming because it was a show process over a decade. . It's why often we don't see problems because of that long curve on the graph, humans are in built not to be worried about stuff that's years away | |||
