FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Biggest issues of the next 50yrs
Biggest issues of the next 50yrs
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
"Ageing population Automisation Climate change Poverty Good leadership " Pick one.. You're being greedy lol.. almost started talking possible solutions but had to check myself. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Taxation. Regardless of political affiliations or priorities there is a simple choice to be made worldwide... Do we continue the present trend to reduce taxation especially to the wealthiest or do we reverse course and start to build a worldwide high tax, high government spending economy? I would argue that we need a high taxation interventionism to sustain high productivity. Without high taxation there are not the investment resources to provide the infrastructure for transport, power, health, welfare, education or security. Without the above regardless of private investment productivity will stagnate and decline leading to economic and state failure. There are plenty of examples of the results of low taxation, small government across the globe and regardless of anyone's personal beliefs about the merits or demerits of any single issue none can be addressed without resources and having 100 families controlling and hoarding over 50% of the worlds wealth does not bode well for the human race." I agree.. but.. no solutions please.. not yet. We need to focus on top 5. First we have to decide together we have to decide what they are. So I take it you're going for Financial inequality? I'd definitely put that in top 5. | |||
"In addition.. -World drinking water shortage -Antibiotics failing to work -Pollution {including plastics breaking down small enough to be digested by us and get into our bloodstreams via food) -war over resources " All great.. but pick your top one. | |||
"Leaving society behind in the new digital age." You'll have to define that for me.. Do you mean a bit more humanity in politics or specifically online.. I don't understand. Please explain a bit as I think you've defiantly touching on something important. | |||
| |||
"Leaving society behind in the new digital age. You'll have to define that for me.. Do you mean a bit more humanity in politics or specifically online.. I don't understand. Please explain a bit as I think you've defiantly touching on something important." Kept it short. Mainly technology is shaping the world around us in and accelerating. I see it and work in it. But will there be a point we can't control it and people cannot handle it or use it. It will break society. But think about it. When two generations die it May not be an issue. | |||
"Its the impending employment crisis. Everyone involved in self deiving cars says 2021. In ten years there'll be no truck drivers, taxi drivers and most other drivers as well. China have already fully functional completely automated factories. Amazon have automised warehouses hugely and retail stores. McDonalds have digital service reps in their restaurants. Legal secretaries are being phased out. Theres a whole host of jobs that arent going to be done by people in the very, very near future. And this wont be like industrialisation, humans still held a major advantage over machines when that happened. Now we're on the brink of computers being as capable of doing everything better than we do. IBMs Watson is already a better diagnostician than humans and recommends better treatments." That too. I'm seeing language analysis, systems that can identify us, AI that predict the future. | |||
"Its the impending employment crisis. Everyone involved in self deiving cars says 2021. In ten years there'll be no truck drivers, taxi drivers and most other drivers as well. China have already fully functional completely automated factories. Amazon have automised warehouses hugely and retail stores. McDonalds have digital service reps in their restaurants. Legal secretaries are being phased out. Theres a whole host of jobs that arent going to be done by people in the very, very near future. And this wont be like industrialisation, humans still held a major advantage over machines when that happened. Now we're on the brink of computers being as capable of doing everything better than we do. IBMs Watson is already a better diagnostician than humans and recommends better treatments." Ok automation and jobs definitely seems to be on the list so far. | |||
"Ageing population Automisation Climate change Poverty Good leadership Pick one.. You're being greedy lol.. almost started talking possible solutions but had to check myself." Climate change.  | |||
"Ageing population Automisation Climate change Poverty Good leadership Pick one.. You're being greedy lol.. almost started talking possible solutions but had to check myself.Climate change. "The green way  .
Bad leadership is my number 2. | |||
"In addition.. -World drinking water shortage -Antibiotics failing to work -Pollution {including plastics breaking down small enough to be digested by us and get into our bloodstreams via food) -war over resources " I like that you mentioned antibiotics.. that is important. However I think gene manipulation may make antibiotics less important than they have been to date. Also there's a lot of new research going in soils and deep sea research. From what I heard recently. Definitely a major life threatening concern for our species though. | |||
"Its the impending employment crisis. Everyone involved in self deiving cars says 2021. In ten years there'll be no truck drivers, taxi drivers and most other drivers as well. China have already fully functional completely automated factories. Amazon have automised warehouses hugely and retail stores. McDonalds have digital service reps in their restaurants. Legal secretaries are being phased out. Theres a whole host of jobs that arent going to be done by people in the very, very near future. And this wont be like industrialisation, humans still held a major advantage over machines when that happened. Now we're on the brink of computers being as capable of doing everything better than we do. IBMs Watson is already a better diagnostician than humans and recommends better treatments. That too. I'm seeing language analysis, systems that can identify us, AI that predict the future." There are learning networks currently that are so advanced they make correct decisions with their own logic and we cant even figure out how it happened. At some point do we just say the machines know best when they consistently make better choices than us or do we stick to worse choices we understand? | |||
"So I take it you're going for Financial inequality? I'd definitely put that in top 5." No, funnily enough not, although I do believe it is an important factor is social cohesion. I believe that the most important thing in every issue is the roll of government, and the roll government plays is directly proportional to the taxation it levies on economic activity and wealth within it's sovereign borders. Corporate business is about making profit, nothing more or less, there is no "some day all this will be yours my son". It's get in get as much as you can and get out. There is no room for 'fair trade' or 'green friendly, non polluting sustainable management', for that you need strong independent governments to regulate business and impose standards. There is a reason why the vast majority of climate change deniers are directly connected to the petrochemical and tobacco industries and those industries finance anyone willing to question the harm of pollution or find ways to circumvent, weaken or remove all regulations. Combating this can only be done by direct intervention and that needs financing. The only way to finance that sort of government is to run a high tax economy. I see our biggest problem as being the rush by so many politicians to turn countries into banana republics where corporations can do what they like so long as they pay the puppet at the top a big enough bribe. | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"We're supposed to be focusing on which issues are the top five.. not debating solutions yet. So right now, I make it.. in my own words.. in no particular order Automation/Jobs Leadership/System faliures Climate change " Antibiotic resistance added as it's been said more than once now. I'll give people a little longer to decide then we can debate the possible solutions in order. | |||
"Taxation. Regardless of political affiliations or priorities there is a simple choice to be made worldwide... Do we continue the present trend to reduce taxation especially to the wealthiest or do we reverse course and start to build a worldwide high tax, high government spending economy? I would argue that we need a high taxation interventionism to sustain high productivity. Without high taxation there are not the investment resources to provide the infrastructure for transport, power, health, welfare, education or security. Without the above regardless of private investment productivity will stagnate and decline leading to economic and state failure. " But america has long had lower taxes than europe and higher productivity. Which econonies would you say are high tax and highly productive? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"But america has long had lower taxes than europe and higher productivity. Which econonies would you say are high tax and highly productive? " Not correct reflection of the USA. US infrastructure is on the brink of collapse. Its major economic highway (which is the Mississippi/Missouri/Great Lakes waterways and associated canals) locks are within 5 years of being 100% unusable, and the levies that make the rivers navigable are now failing regularly because they have not been maintained since the late 70's when the US moved from being a high tax economy to a pro business low tax economy. Of course since the late 70's as the infrastructure has fallen into decline the businesses that demanded low taxes have moved production (and jobs) to other places that offered better infrastructure. But hey, Ford, Exon and all the other US multinationals inflate US economic productivity with the movement of profit to the US from overseas holdings making the US seem to be in a better state than it is. But I am sure you already knew all this and really like the direction the US economy is heading in | |||
| |||
"Overpopulation. Is growing population sustainable? If so up to what level? If we don't have growing population then how do we sustain aging population with less younger? There's a good dilemma to get your teeth into. Most of the other problems are fundamentally linked to this one. Over to the forum!" Just what I was about to say, every cycle on earth that give life will eventually end, the earth will have more than 9 billion people by 50 years, the dinosaurs had the asteroid strike and our fate is over population, make the most of the time that is left. | |||
"But america has long had lower taxes than europe and higher productivity. Which econonies would you say are high tax and highly productive? Not correct reflection of the USA. US infrastructure is on the brink of collapse. Its major economic highway (which is the Mississippi/Missouri/Great Lakes waterways and associated canals) locks are within 5 years of being 100% unusable, and the levies that make the rivers navigable are now failing regularly because they have not been maintained since the late 70's when the US moved from being a high tax economy to a pro business low tax economy. Of course since the late 70's as the infrastructure has fallen into decline the businesses that demanded low taxes have moved production (and jobs) to other places that offered better infrastructure. But hey, Ford, Exon and all the other US multinationals inflate US economic productivity with the movement of profit to the US from overseas holdings making the US seem to be in a better state than it is. But I am sure you already knew all this and really like the direction the US economy is heading in" Not really, i just think it's still doing better than europe. I am genuinely interested in what you said though, do you have any figures or sources to illustrate it? For example, where would Exon's artificially benefiting productivity show up in a measure? I ask because its not an example i would have thought of myself, silicon valley really rescued US producitivity as far as im concerned. | |||
"Overpopulation. Is growing population sustainable? If so up to what level? If we don't have growing population then how do we sustain aging population with less younger? There's a good dilemma to get your teeth into. Most of the other problems are fundamentally linked to this one. Over to the forum!" . You dont need a growing population, you just need the 4 billon who live in the third world already to use the same resources as you currently do and its already unsustainable!. And even then its too late anyhow, I'm afraid everybody over 30 has already screwed everybody under 30!. Perhaps if we'd tackled climate change 40 years ago maybe even 20 years ago instead of arguing about how much poorer it would have made us, maybe we'd have left a planet that was habitable. Not now though barring a super volcanoe going up like yellow stone park, its game over on climate change | |||
"2050 you say?. Going off the evidence, were more than likely to be gone along with 98% of the other species on earth by then. No large species survives without habitat, water and food. Humans can survive a 4 or 6 degree increase in temperature however nothing else will unfortunately, we'll pass away into history like the 97% of other creatures that have lived on this planet before us" So what is the sequence of events that leads to our demise by 2050? | |||
"But america has long had lower taxes than europe and higher productivity. Which econonies would you say are high tax and highly productive? Not correct reflection of the USA. US infrastructure is on the brink of collapse. Its major economic highway (which is the Mississippi/Missouri/Great Lakes waterways and associated canals) locks are within 5 years of being 100% unusable, and the levies that make the rivers navigable are now failing regularly because they have not been maintained since the late 70's when the US moved from being a high tax economy to a pro business low tax economy. Of course since the late 70's as the infrastructure has fallen into decline the businesses that demanded low taxes have moved production (and jobs) to other places that offered better infrastructure. But hey, Ford, Exon and all the other US multinationals inflate US economic productivity with the movement of profit to the US from overseas holdings making the US seem to be in a better state than it is. But I am sure you already knew all this and really like the direction the US economy is heading in Not really, i just think it's still doing better than europe. I am genuinely interested in what you said though, do you have any figures or sources to illustrate it? For example, where would Exon's artificially benefiting productivity show up in a measure? I ask because its not an example i would have thought of myself, silicon valley really rescued US producitivity as far as im concerned. " Are you aware of the book "limits to growth"published 1972 and the world 3 computer simulation.It has accurately predict population and production and the death rate and pollution for 40 years. Heres an article from 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse | |||
"But america has long had lower taxes than europe and higher productivity. Which econonies would you say are high tax and highly productive? Not correct reflection of the USA. US infrastructure is on the brink of collapse. Its major economic highway (which is the Mississippi/Missouri/Great Lakes waterways and associated canals) locks are within 5 years of being 100% unusable, and the levies that make the rivers navigable are now failing regularly because they have not been maintained since the late 70's when the US moved from being a high tax economy to a pro business low tax economy. Of course since the late 70's as the infrastructure has fallen into decline the businesses that demanded low taxes have moved production (and jobs) to other places that offered better infrastructure. But hey, Ford, Exon and all the other US multinationals inflate US economic productivity with the movement of profit to the US from overseas holdings making the US seem to be in a better state than it is. But I am sure you already knew all this and really like the direction the US economy is heading in Not really, i just think it's still doing better than europe. I am genuinely interested in what you said though, do you have any figures or sources to illustrate it? For example, where would Exon's artificially benefiting productivity show up in a measure? I ask because its not an example i would have thought of myself, silicon valley really rescued US producitivity as far as im concerned. Are you aware of the book "limits to growth"published 1972 and the world 3 computer simulation.It has accurately predict population and production and the death rate and pollution for 40 years. Heres an article from 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse" How interesting, i think i just found my next read. Typical guardian bollucks layered on though: "The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 and ongoing economic malaise may be a harbinger of the fallout from resource constraints. The pursuit of material wealth contributed to unsustainable levels of debt." Nice re-writing of history there for the most human induced market crash of all time. | |||
"2050 you say?. Going off the evidence, were more than likely to be gone along with 98% of the other species on earth by then. No large species survives without habitat, water and food. Humans can survive a 4 or 6 degree increase in temperature however nothing else will unfortunately, we'll pass away into history like the 97% of other creatures that have lived on this planet before us So what is the sequence of events that leads to our demise by 2050? " . Out of control forest fires Bizarre and freakish weather Seasons becoming Tory topsy turvy Crop yields falling Water becoming scarce | |||
"Not really, i just think it's still doing better than europe. I am genuinely interested in what you said though, do you have any figures or sources to illustrate it? For example, where would Exon's artificially benefiting productivity show up in a measure? I ask because its not an example i would have thought of myself, silicon valley really rescued US producitivity as far as im concerned. " Good question, and nicely asked, thank you.
First one has to consider what GDP really is. We all know it is gross domestic product, but I wonder how many people realise it includes net profits from foreign subsidiaries transferred back to the parent company? Therefore the likes of Exon whose biggest market is outside the USA will inflate US GDP. As productivity is a function of GDP over workforce any industry where its major income source is external profits transferred in to an economy then it will naturally distort productivity. It would have been a better example if I had picked Koch Industries as the US petrochemical giant of my example but they really are less known but probably are the biggest offender after Microsoft (who now make all their processors in Vietnam).
| |||
"But america has long had lower taxes than europe and higher productivity. Which econonies would you say are high tax and highly productive? Not correct reflection of the USA. US infrastructure is on the brink of collapse. Its major economic highway (which is the Mississippi/Missouri/Great Lakes waterways and associated canals) locks are within 5 years of being 100% unusable, and the levies that make the rivers navigable are now failing regularly because they have not been maintained since the late 70's when the US moved from being a high tax economy to a pro business low tax economy. Of course since the late 70's as the infrastructure has fallen into decline the businesses that demanded low taxes have moved production (and jobs) to other places that offered better infrastructure. But hey, Ford, Exon and all the other US multinationals inflate US economic productivity with the movement of profit to the US from overseas holdings making the US seem to be in a better state than it is. But I am sure you already knew all this and really like the direction the US economy is heading in Not really, i just think it's still doing better than europe. I am genuinely interested in what you said though, do you have any figures or sources to illustrate it? For example, where would Exon's artificially benefiting productivity show up in a measure? I ask because its not an example i would have thought of myself, silicon valley really rescued US producitivity as far as im concerned. Are you aware of the book "limits to growth"published 1972 and the world 3 computer simulation.It has accurately predict population and production and the death rate and pollution for 40 years. Heres an article from 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse How interesting, i think i just found my next read. Typical guardian bollucks layered on though: "The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 and ongoing economic malaise may be a harbinger of the fallout from resource constraints. The pursuit of material wealth contributed to unsustainable levels of debt." Nice re-writing of history there for the most human induced market crash of all time. " Ignore the guardian the first i read about it was an article in new scientist in 2012.The book was realeased in 2012 with added data from MIT and of course computers are much faster than in 1972.The only argument against the data is that humans are inventive and new technology and resources will save us. | |||
"Not really, i just think it's still doing better than europe. I am genuinely interested in what you said though, do you have any figures or sources to illustrate it? For example, where would Exon's artificially benefiting productivity show up in a measure? I ask because its not an example i would have thought of myself, silicon valley really rescued US producitivity as far as im concerned. Good question, and nicely asked, thank you.
First one has to consider what GDP really is. We all know it is gross domestic product, but I wonder how many people realise it includes net profits from foreign subsidiaries transferred back to the parent company? Therefore the likes of Exon whose biggest market is outside the USA will inflate US GDP. As productivity is a function of GDP over workforce any industry where its major income source is external profits transferred in to an economy then it will naturally distort productivity. It would have been a better example if I had picked Koch Industries as the US petrochemical giant of my example but they really are less known but probably are the biggest offender after Microsoft (who now make all their processors in Vietnam).
"Ah ok, see you are using the conventional economist method of productivity, which is silliness like a lot of modern economic theory. GDP is, as you say, a horrendeously OBSOLETE measure and highly flawed. In terms of what any other human being, other than an economist, would describe productivity as; it's the ratio of an output (e.g. barrels of oil, number of haircuts, software lines of code) to a given input (usually an hour of time or a capital expenditure). Money, is what the output gets exchanged for. Since GDP is measured in money, it can't be used to measure (real) productivity. However I'm not arguing with you because you are using the economists conventional definition and i am not. Although I'm using the conventional definition of productivity used by every non-economist. The difference would mean that you are effectively saying a lot of the economic activity (which is what GDP measures) in the US is illusory? If so, i very much agree. | |||
"But america has long had lower taxes than europe and higher productivity. Which econonies would you say are high tax and highly productive? Not correct reflection of the USA. US infrastructure is on the brink of collapse. Its major economic highway (which is the Mississippi/Missouri/Great Lakes waterways and associated canals) locks are within 5 years of being 100% unusable, and the levies that make the rivers navigable are now failing regularly because they have not been maintained since the late 70's when the US moved from being a high tax economy to a pro business low tax economy. Of course since the late 70's as the infrastructure has fallen into decline the businesses that demanded low taxes have moved production (and jobs) to other places that offered better infrastructure. But hey, Ford, Exon and all the other US multinationals inflate US economic productivity with the movement of profit to the US from overseas holdings making the US seem to be in a better state than it is. But I am sure you already knew all this and really like the direction the US economy is heading in Not really, i just think it's still doing better than europe. I am genuinely interested in what you said though, do you have any figures or sources to illustrate it? For example, where would Exon's artificially benefiting productivity show up in a measure? I ask because its not an example i would have thought of myself, silicon valley really rescued US producitivity as far as im concerned. Are you aware of the book "limits to growth"published 1972 and the world 3 computer simulation.It has accurately predict population and production and the death rate and pollution for 40 years. Heres an article from 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse How interesting, i think i just found my next read. Typical guardian bollucks layered on though: "The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 and ongoing economic malaise may be a harbinger of the fallout from resource constraints. The pursuit of material wealth contributed to unsustainable levels of debt." Nice re-writing of history there for the most human induced market crash of all time. Ignore the guardian the first i read about it was an article in new scientist in 2012.The book was realeased in 2012 with added data from MIT and of course computers are much faster than in 1972.The only argument against the data is that humans are inventive and new technology and resources will save us." That's what has got malthus, but did it really counter him or just delay what he predicted? The latter in my opinion. | |||
"2050 you say?. Going off the evidence, were more than likely to be gone along with 98% of the other species on earth by then. No large species survives without habitat, water and food. Humans can survive a 4 or 6 degree increase in temperature however nothing else will unfortunately, we'll pass away into history like the 97% of other creatures that have lived on this planet before us So what is the sequence of events that leads to our demise by 2050? . Out of control forest fires Bizarre and freakish weather Seasons becoming Tory topsy turvy Crop yields falling Water becoming scarce" Changing weather patterns will cause huge disruption. A good example is monsoon rains.If the rains didnt arrive in india.A billion people could face starvation.The food source effected is rice,which is the cheapest food source but heavily reliant on the monsoon.If it happens a billion indians are not going to sit and wait to die.They'll be an exodus the like of has never been seen. | |||
"But america has long had lower taxes than europe and higher productivity. Which econonies would you say are high tax and highly productive? Not correct reflection of the USA. US infrastructure is on the brink of collapse. Its major economic highway (which is the Mississippi/Missouri/Great Lakes waterways and associated canals) locks are within 5 years of being 100% unusable, and the levies that make the rivers navigable are now failing regularly because they have not been maintained since the late 70's when the US moved from being a high tax economy to a pro business low tax economy. Of course since the late 70's as the infrastructure has fallen into decline the businesses that demanded low taxes have moved production (and jobs) to other places that offered better infrastructure. But hey, Ford, Exon and all the other US multinationals inflate US economic productivity with the movement of profit to the US from overseas holdings making the US seem to be in a better state than it is. But I am sure you already knew all this and really like the direction the US economy is heading in Not really, i just think it's still doing better than europe. I am genuinely interested in what you said though, do you have any figures or sources to illustrate it? For example, where would Exon's artificially benefiting productivity show up in a measure? I ask because its not an example i would have thought of myself, silicon valley really rescued US producitivity as far as im concerned. Are you aware of the book "limits to growth"published 1972 and the world 3 computer simulation.It has accurately predict population and production and the death rate and pollution for 40 years. Heres an article from 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse How interesting, i think i just found my next read. Typical guardian bollucks layered on though: "The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 and ongoing economic malaise may be a harbinger of the fallout from resource constraints. The pursuit of material wealth contributed to unsustainable levels of debt." Nice re-writing of history there for the most human induced market crash of all time. Ignore the guardian the first i read about it was an article in new scientist in 2012.The book was realeased in 2012 with added data from MIT and of course computers are much faster than in 1972.The only argument against the data is that humans are inventive and new technology and resources will save us. That's what has got malthus, but did it really counter him or just delay what he predicted? The latter in my opinion. " The argument is water tight on a finite world.We do however have a solar system full of water and rare minerals and a giant ball of nuclear fussion to harness. | |||
"2050 you say?. Going off the evidence, were more than likely to be gone along with 98% of the other species on earth by then. No large species survives without habitat, water and food. Humans can survive a 4 or 6 degree increase in temperature however nothing else will unfortunately, we'll pass away into history like the 97% of other creatures that have lived on this planet before us So what is the sequence of events that leads to our demise by 2050? . Out of control forest fires Bizarre and freakish weather Seasons becoming Tory topsy turvy Crop yields falling Water becoming scarceChanging weather patterns will cause huge disruption. A good example is monsoon rains.If the rains didnt arrive in india.A billion people could face starvation.The food source effected is rice,which is the cheapest food source but heavily reliant on the monsoon.If it happens a billion indians are not going to sit and wait to die.They'll be an exodus the like of has never been seen. " Ok so food and water shortages (i'll stock up) so then we get starvation is certain regions? It causes a humanitarian crisis? Does it spread to the northern hemisphere - genuinely interested. | |||
"But america has long had lower taxes than europe and higher productivity. Which econonies would you say are high tax and highly productive? Not correct reflection of the USA. US infrastructure is on the brink of collapse. Its major economic highway (which is the Mississippi/Missouri/Great Lakes waterways and associated canals) locks are within 5 years of being 100% unusable, and the levies that make the rivers navigable are now failing regularly because they have not been maintained since the late 70's when the US moved from being a high tax economy to a pro business low tax economy. Of course since the late 70's as the infrastructure has fallen into decline the businesses that demanded low taxes have moved production (and jobs) to other places that offered better infrastructure. But hey, Ford, Exon and all the other US multinationals inflate US economic productivity with the movement of profit to the US from overseas holdings making the US seem to be in a better state than it is. But I am sure you already knew all this and really like the direction the US economy is heading in Not really, i just think it's still doing better than europe. I am genuinely interested in what you said though, do you have any figures or sources to illustrate it? For example, where would Exon's artificially benefiting productivity show up in a measure? I ask because its not an example i would have thought of myself, silicon valley really rescued US producitivity as far as im concerned. Are you aware of the book "limits to growth"published 1972 and the world 3 computer simulation.It has accurately predict population and production and the death rate and pollution for 40 years. Heres an article from 2014 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse How interesting, i think i just found my next read. Typical guardian bollucks layered on though: "The Global Financial Crisis of 2007-08 and ongoing economic malaise may be a harbinger of the fallout from resource constraints. The pursuit of material wealth contributed to unsustainable levels of debt." Nice re-writing of history there for the most human induced market crash of all time. Ignore the guardian the first i read about it was an article in new scientist in 2012.The book was realeased in 2012 with added data from MIT and of course computers are much faster than in 1972.The only argument against the data is that humans are inventive and new technology and resources will save us. That's what has got malthus, but did it really counter him or just delay what he predicted? The latter in my opinion. The argument is water tight on a finite world.We do however have a solar system full of water and rare minerals and a giant ball of nuclear fussion to harness. " That's the spirit. This man for president. | |||
"2050 you say?. Going off the evidence, were more than likely to be gone along with 98% of the other species on earth by then. No large species survives without habitat, water and food. Humans can survive a 4 or 6 degree increase in temperature however nothing else will unfortunately, we'll pass away into history like the 97% of other creatures that have lived on this planet before us So what is the sequence of events that leads to our demise by 2050? . Out of control forest fires Bizarre and freakish weather Seasons becoming Tory topsy turvy Crop yields falling Water becoming scarceChanging weather patterns will cause huge disruption. A good example is monsoon rains.If the rains didnt arrive in india.A billion people could face starvation.The food source effected is rice,which is the cheapest food source but heavily reliant on the monsoon.If it happens a billion indians are not going to sit and wait to die.They'll be an exodus the like of has never been seen. " . These are already ongoing and have been for awhile, there just speeding up a bit. Nobody will notice till we reach the apex, by that time it will be a fast curve downwards. India and Pakistan share not just a border but rivers, rivers fed from Himalayan glacial melt, some of them go through India first before meandering into Pakistan, India are already contemplating diverting much much more of that river which is already erratic from glacial melt changes. Who thinks the nuclear armed Islamists in the Pakistan armed forces will just bend over and take it up the arse?. | |||
"2050 you say?. Going off the evidence, were more than likely to be gone along with 98% of the other species on earth by then. No large species survives without habitat, water and food. Humans can survive a 4 or 6 degree increase in temperature however nothing else will unfortunately, we'll pass away into history like the 97% of other creatures that have lived on this planet before us So what is the sequence of events that leads to our demise by 2050? . Out of control forest fires Bizarre and freakish weather Seasons becoming Tory topsy turvy Crop yields falling Water becoming scarceChanging weather patterns will cause huge disruption. A good example is monsoon rains.If the rains didnt arrive in india.A billion people could face starvation.The food source effected is rice,which is the cheapest food source but heavily reliant on the monsoon.If it happens a billion indians are not going to sit and wait to die.They'll be an exodus the like of has never been seen. Ok so food and water shortages (i'll stock up) so then we get starvation is certain regions? It causes a humanitarian crisis? Does it spread to the northern hemisphere - genuinely interested. " . Let's hope so  | |||
"Overpopulation. Is growing population sustainable? If so up to what level? If we don't have growing population then how do we sustain aging population with less younger? There's a good dilemma to get your teeth into. Most of the other problems are fundamentally linked to this one. Over to the forum!" Yup I agree. Robotics and automation will be a blessing and a curse. If we as a nation and a species embrace it and prepare the population for it, then current levels of productivity and wealth can be sustained and built upon without the need for more young people vs less older people. However I cannot see any of our, and very few other governments embracing and preparing the population for this. | |||
| |||
"Islamo-fascism/islamo-terrorism." Meh, pretty easy to solve relative to environmental issues | |||
"Ah ok, see you are using the conventional economist method of productivity, which is silliness like a lot of modern economic theory. GDP is, as you say, a horrendeously OBSOLETE measure and highly flawed. In terms of what any other human being, other than an economist, would describe productivity as; it's the ratio of an output (e.g. barrels of oil, number of haircuts, software lines of code) to a given input (usually an hour of time or a capital expenditure). Money, is what the output gets exchanged for. Since GDP is measured in money, it can't be used to measure (real) productivity. However I'm not arguing with you because you are using the economists conventional definition and i am not. Although I'm using the conventional definition of productivity used by every non-economist. The difference would mean that you are effectively saying a lot of the economic activity (which is what GDP measures) in the US is illusory? If so, i very much agree. " We are in agreement about the economic realities. But I do not agree with you about the traditional methods of measurement. Because, although they are deeply flawed when measuring national GDP in a global market, there is no better way of measuring output. Let me explain my thinking, as with the barter system it is virtually impossible to place a meaningful hourly relative productivity value on barrels of oil, number of haircuts, software lines of code. Therefore we need to find a common denominator, this we do by placing monetary value on the output. then rather than trying to work out how many hours were worked to produce the annual total we divide it by the population and get our productivity figure. Like any accounting system it is open to abuse and there will always be those who will cook the books, inflating and deflating figures to suit their purposes. But I would argue strongly that the problem is not the accounting method but the lack of understanding amongst the majority of people. I would further argue that our present growing problems nationally and internationally are a as a direct result of the move from a high tax high regulation economy to low tax deregulated economy. As for examples of how low tax deregulated economies work take a look at Somalia, Sudan, India or any other 3rd world country, and that is where I fear we are heading. On a slightly different note but still related, I have noticed that 3 issues keep being mentioned: Environment, population, and efficacy of antibiotics. I would suggest that none of these problems can be addressed by individuals and all require massive investment to solve, therefore I would suggest they require government and intergovernmental solutions, these require financing and therefore the means by which that finance is procured must be more important than these problems. So we are back to the most important issue to any government and humanity not only in the next 50 years but at all times has to be taxation and the only viable solution is to run a high tax and spend mixed economy.
Sorry I know you said no solutions...  | |||
"2050 you say?. Going off the evidence, were more than likely to be gone along with 98% of the other species on earth by then. No large species survives without habitat, water and food. Humans can survive a 4 or 6 degree increase in temperature however nothing else will unfortunately, we'll pass away into history like the 97% of other creatures that have lived on this planet before us So what is the sequence of events that leads to our demise by 2050? . Out of control forest fires Bizarre and freakish weather Seasons becoming Tory topsy turvy Crop yields falling Water becoming scarceChanging weather patterns will cause huge disruption. A good example is monsoon rains.If the rains didnt arrive in india.A billion people could face starvation.The food source effected is rice,which is the cheapest food source but heavily reliant on the monsoon.If it happens a billion indians are not going to sit and wait to die.They'll be an exodus the like of has never been seen. Ok so food and water shortages (i'll stock up) so then we get starvation is certain regions? It causes a humanitarian crisis? Does it spread to the northern hemisphere - genuinely interested. " Yes, climate change and water shortages will be global. Current predictions indicate that the Northern hemisphere will see increased storm events which will lead to permanent or seasonal flooding of much of the low lying agricultural land, where we do grow crops, we can see storm events creating lower yields. | |||
"Islamo-fascism/islamo-terrorism." Until religious fundmentalists get hold of a couple of nukes I'm not concerned. Yes it is sad what they do to other people regardless of their faith , nationality or skin colour, but it's a short term drop in the pond compared to what is to come. | |||
"Ah ok, see you are using the conventional economist method of productivity, which is silliness like a lot of modern economic theory. GDP is, as you say, a horrendeously OBSOLETE measure and highly flawed. In terms of what any other human being, other than an economist, would describe productivity as; it's the ratio of an output (e.g. barrels of oil, number of haircuts, software lines of code) to a given input (usually an hour of time or a capital expenditure). Money, is what the output gets exchanged for. Since GDP is measured in money, it can't be used to measure (real) productivity. However I'm not arguing with you because you are using the economists conventional definition and i am not. Although I'm using the conventional definition of productivity used by every non-economist. The difference would mean that you are effectively saying a lot of the economic activity (which is what GDP measures) in the US is illusory? If so, i very much agree. We are in agreement about the economic realities. But I do not agree with you about the traditional methods of measurement. Because, although they are deeply flawed when measuring national GDP in a global market, there is no better way of measuring output. Let me explain my thinking, as with the barter system it is virtually impossible to place a meaningful hourly relative productivity value on barrels of oil, number of haircuts, software lines of code. Therefore we need to find a common denominator, this we do by placing monetary value on the output. then rather than trying to work out how many hours were worked to produce the annual total we divide it by the population and get our productivity figure. Like any accounting system it is open to abuse and there will always be those who will cook the books, inflating and deflating figures to suit their purposes. But I would argue strongly that the problem is not the accounting method but the lack of understanding amongst the majority of people. I would further argue that our present growing problems nationally and internationally are a as a direct result of the move from a high tax high regulation economy to low tax deregulated economy. As for examples of how low tax deregulated economies work take a look at Somalia, Sudan, India or any other 3rd world country, and that is where I fear we are heading. On a slightly different note but still related, I have noticed that 3 issues keep being mentioned: Environment, population, and efficacy of antibiotics. I would suggest that none of these problems can be addressed by individuals and all require massive investment to solve, therefore I would suggest they require government and intergovernmental solutions, these require financing and therefore the means by which that finance is procured must be more important than these problems. So we are back to the most important issue to any government and humanity not only in the next 50 years but at all times has to be taxation and the only viable solution is to run a high tax and spend mixed economy.
Sorry I know you said no solutions... "I do like you when you are like this, all excellent points but allow me to challenge you on something. I'm not sure why we really need to measure output anyway? Seriously if GDP isn't going to distinguish any intrinsic value to items and focus exclusively on the market value, that sounds pointless to me (gosh that sounds left wing). What i mean is that if £1 of womens shoes is 'equal' to a £1 of food or water then what is the point of the measure? The thing is that what we really want is improved living standards for the majority of people. For that to happen we need real wages to rise and that is linked to (real) producivity. If productivity is measured in GDP it sends the wrong signals. Allow me to illustrate: An indian and a british programmer spend a day writing a computer programme. When the programme is complete it will be 32 lines of code long and assume both work for minimum wage. - The British guy writes 3 lines of code an hour so after an 8 hour day he is 75% complete. He exchanges his 24 lines of code for 8 hours of minimum wage and gets paid £57.60 - The indian guy writes 4 lines of code an hour so after an 8 hour day he has finished the programme. He exchanges the completed programme for 8 hours of minimum wage and gets paid £1.90. If we measure the 'productivity' in GDP terms the brit is producing £7.20 an hour whilst the Indian guy is producing 23p an hour. This is pure silliness and you can see that the Indian guy is much more productive. This matters a lot because in an internationally competitive market, british workers need to be more productive (e.g. lines of code per hour) than foreign workers otherwise their jobs will go offshore. But we kid ourselves we already are productive by measuring the wrong things. | |||
"2050 you say?. Going off the evidence, were more than likely to be gone along with 98% of the other species on earth by then. No large species survives without habitat, water and food. Humans can survive a 4 or 6 degree increase in temperature however nothing else will unfortunately, we'll pass away into history like the 97% of other creatures that have lived on this planet before us So what is the sequence of events that leads to our demise by 2050? . Out of control forest fires Bizarre and freakish weather Seasons becoming Tory topsy turvy Crop yields falling Water becoming scarceChanging weather patterns will cause huge disruption. A good example is monsoon rains.If the rains didnt arrive in india.A billion people could face starvation.The food source effected is rice,which is the cheapest food source but heavily reliant on the monsoon.If it happens a billion indians are not going to sit and wait to die.They'll be an exodus the like of has never been seen. Ok so food and water shortages (i'll stock up) so then we get starvation is certain regions? It causes a humanitarian crisis? Does it spread to the northern hemisphere - genuinely interested. Yes, climate change and water shortages will be global. Current predictions indicate that the Northern hemisphere will see increased storm events which will lead to permanent or seasonal flooding of much of the low lying agricultural land, where we do grow crops, we can see storm events creating lower yields. " We could get as cold as northern canada .If the greenland and arctic ice melts.The fresh water will effect the gulf stream maybe stopping it altogether.The worst scenario of above 6 degrees change would cause the methane trapped in the permafrost to be realeased this would mean extinction and runaway greenhouse effect. We know what this looks like.It looks like venus. | |||
"In addition.. -World drinking water shortage -Antibiotics failing to work -Pollution {including plastics breaking down small enough to be digested by us and get into our bloodstreams via food) -war over resources " | |||
"I do like you when you are like this, all excellent points but allow me to challenge you on something. I'm not sure why we really need to measure output anyway? Seriously if GDP isn't going to distinguish any intrinsic value to items and focus exclusively on the market value, that sounds pointless to me (gosh that sounds left wing). What i mean is that if £1 of womens shoes is 'equal' to a £1 of food or water then what is the point of the measure? The thing is that what we really want is improved living standards for the majority of people. For that to happen we need real wages to rise and that is linked to (real) producivity. If productivity is measured in GDP it sends the wrong signals. Allow me to illustrate: An indian and a british programmer spend a day writing a computer programme. When the programme is complete it will be 32 lines of code long and assume both work for minimum wage. - The British guy writes 3 lines of code an hour so after an 8 hour day he is 75% complete. He exchanges his 24 lines of code for 8 hours of minimum wage and gets paid £57.60 - The indian guy writes 4 lines of code an hour so after an 8 hour day he has finished the programme. He exchanges the completed programme for 8 hours of minimum wage and gets paid £1.90. If we measure the 'productivity' in GDP terms the brit is producing £7.20 an hour whilst the Indian guy is producing 23p an hour. This is pure silliness and you can see that the Indian guy is much more productive. This matters a lot because in an internationally competitive market, british workers need to be more productive (e.g. lines of code per hour) than foreign workers otherwise their jobs will go offshore. But we kid ourselves we already are productive by measuring the wrong things. " OOoo!Compliments! Thank you so much. xx xx As for your challenge, I totally agree that in theory we do not need a measure of output or for that matter money. However that would require a Utopian Communist system and we as a species will have to do a lot of evolving before such a state is possible. So having discarded Utopia we need a way to keep track of how things are progressing and as the only way to place a relative value on anything is to let the market find its level then market value is what we have to work with regardless of how it is rigged. Now lets look at your illustration critically. I would suggest it is fatally flawed because it's basic premise that wages determine value of product. They don't, they are not even linked to value of produce except as a variable overhead. Further it is not possible to measure GDP in hourly productivity. Think of it this way: Annual Global Productivity is the amount of cake mix the world turns out each year (it is measured in US $... GDP, is the share of the mix every country gets. Some countries get a lot more than others. Some countries mix has been beaten which makes it look more than it is. Every country gets to divide the mix by its population and that give a productivity figure. We all now have a picture of the cakes, the question is how are they divided? First we have to understand that if everything in the world was divided out equally today and everyone had exactly the same income by this time next year there would be 3 clear groups emerging, at the bottom a group in debt (the start of an underclass), in the middle the majority, maybe saving a little maybe enjoying a little luxury every now and then, but getting by and on the top a small group of acquisitive people (the beginnings of a wealthy elite). So baring this in mind, back to the cakes. First you have to remove the huge wedge that elite have reserved for themselves, then what is left is taken by the rest, their share depending on their ability to fight for it. Now add to this the fact that many of the elite are now global corporate enterprises that are taking larger and larger wedges of the cake from every country they operate in and you have a very bleak picture. There is only one way to somewhat redress the balance and that is to have high tax economies and have central governments target the funds raised by taxes to raise living standards across the board. Of course those of an acquisitive nature who run these organisation are not keen on this and much prefer low tax low regulation economies and will do just about anything to give themselves friendly governments who will aid their avaricious natures. If we want to address any of the issues facing humanity first we need global governments to stop racing to see who can get to 0% corporate tax first and all to start implementing progressive income-taxes on all, not just the poor. | |||
"I do like you when you are like this, all excellent points but allow me to challenge you on something. I'm not sure why we really need to measure output anyway? Seriously if GDP isn't going to distinguish any intrinsic value to items and focus exclusively on the market value, that sounds pointless to me (gosh that sounds left wing). What i mean is that if £1 of womens shoes is 'equal' to a £1 of food or water then what is the point of the measure? The thing is that what we really want is improved living standards for the majority of people. For that to happen we need real wages to rise and that is linked to (real) producivity. If productivity is measured in GDP it sends the wrong signals. Allow me to illustrate: An indian and a british programmer spend a day writing a computer programme. When the programme is complete it will be 32 lines of code long and assume both work for minimum wage. - The British guy writes 3 lines of code an hour so after an 8 hour day he is 75% complete. He exchanges his 24 lines of code for 8 hours of minimum wage and gets paid £57.60 - The indian guy writes 4 lines of code an hour so after an 8 hour day he has finished the programme. He exchanges the completed programme for 8 hours of minimum wage and gets paid £1.90. If we measure the 'productivity' in GDP terms the brit is producing £7.20 an hour whilst the Indian guy is producing 23p an hour. This is pure silliness and you can see that the Indian guy is much more productive. This matters a lot because in an internationally competitive market, british workers need to be more productive (e.g. lines of code per hour) than foreign workers otherwise their jobs will go offshore. But we kid ourselves we already are productive by measuring the wrong things. OOoo!Compliments! Thank you so much. xx xx As for your challenge, I totally agree that in theory we do not need a measure of output or for that matter money. However that would require a Utopian Communist system and we as a species will have to do a lot of evolving before such a state is possible. So having discarded Utopia we need a way to keep track of how things are progressing and as the only way to place a relative value on anything is to let the market find its level then market value is what we have to work with regardless of how it is rigged. Now lets look at your illustration critically. I would suggest it is fatally flawed because it's basic premise that wages determine value of product. They don't, they are not even linked to value of produce except as a variable overhead. Further it is not possible to measure GDP in hourly productivity. Think of it this way: Annual Global Productivity is the amount of cake mix the world turns out each year (it is measured in US $... GDP, is the share of the mix every country gets. Some countries get a lot more than others. Some countries mix has been beaten which makes it look more than it is. Every country gets to divide the mix by its population and that give a productivity figure. We all now have a picture of the cakes, the question is how are they divided? First we have to understand that if everything in the world was divided out equally today and everyone had exactly the same income by this time next year there would be 3 clear groups emerging, at the bottom a group in debt (the start of an underclass), in the middle the majority, maybe saving a little maybe enjoying a little luxury every now and then, but getting by and on the top a small group of acquisitive people (the beginnings of a wealthy elite). So baring this in mind, back to the cakes. First you have to remove the huge wedge that elite have reserved for themselves, then what is left is taken by the rest, their share depending on their ability to fight for it. Now add to this the fact that many of the elite are now global corporate enterprises that are taking larger and larger wedges of the cake from every country they operate in and you have a very bleak picture. There is only one way to somewhat redress the balance and that is to have high tax economies and have central governments target the funds raised by taxes to raise living standards across the board. Of course those of an acquisitive nature who run these organisation are not keen on this and much prefer low tax low regulation economies and will do just about anything to give themselves friendly governments who will aid their avaricious natures. If we want to address any of the issues facing humanity first we need global governments to stop racing to see who can get to 0% corporate tax first and all to start implementing progressive income-taxes on all, not just the poor. " I'm afraid the honourable gentleman is wrong on a point of logic. Assume in my example that there is a business employing two independent contractors on minimum wage hourly rate to write software. Then it's entirely valid that the wages determine the value of the product since they are being paid for their time and it is their time that creates the product. The sale, which is what GDP will measure is the two transactions that take place between each contractor (effectively businesses) and the buying business. I'm not sure if we're getting wires crossed but you said "Further it is not possible to measure GDP in hourly productivity". The OECD have figures on their website for "GDP per hour worked" so what's the difference here? | |||
"I'm afraid the honourable gentleman is wrong on a point of logic. Assume in my example that there is a business employing two independent contractors on minimum wage hourly rate to write software. Then it's entirely valid that the wages determine the value of the product since they are being paid for their time and it is their time that creates the product. The sale, which is what GDP will measure is the two transactions that take place between each contractor (effectively businesses) and the buying business. I'm not sure if we're getting wires crossed but you said "Further it is not possible to measure GDP in hourly productivity". The OECD have figures on their website for "GDP per hour worked" so what's the difference here? " Ah, I take your point. But I will hold my ground not because you are wrong in what you say or the source you quote. But because I believe that the OECD like many in the economic establishment are an organisation set up for the benefit of big (multinational) business and therefore much if not most of their output is designed to deflect attention away from the realities of what is is being done in the name of economic progress and its main roll is to be an enabler for corporate malfeasance on a global scale. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"I hate to point this out but your all arguing from a human stand point, that's why most of the conversation is about wealth and how to get wealthier!. I dont blame you for this, your entire life, modern history and everything that surrounds you says this is life, everybody thinks technology will save them or kill them, not from facts but that's how they've been conditioned. Even the question from the op is loaded, it assumes life will continue as normal and poses how we will avoid problems because that's the history we've been conditioned to presume will continue. Which is bollocks The complexity issue means we're always chasing our own errors, constantly trying to find cures to own problems, just like the debt or money problem its not sustainable... Sure there's an entire solar system out there for you to exploit like you exploit everything else, if that's what makes you sleep well at night thinking, go right ahead, your no different than the savages that thought throwing Virgin's into the volcanoe or throwing witches into lakes, stoning adulteress or none believers... You'll believe any old bollocks if you think it will get you through the night. We're all born to die, except that fate and deal with it! But dont fucking moan to me that it's a crap deal, its just a deal, the crappyness is your own making" So you're a Buddhist then, that explains a lot | |||
"I'd like to know.. from anyone who is interested in joining in.. What you think are the biggest issues we're likely to face as a nation and a planet in the next 50yrs. It's not a competion and I'd prefer it doesn't collapse into a left/right slanging match. Imagine if you will, that we've been forced to come together from all sides. Our first meeting is to decide the top five problems that are going to need our attention. We can follow each one up on with it's own thread. I'm tempted to put one forth myself from the get go.. but I'm going to watch and learn. Please begin." Pessimism,and having read this thread,It's already started. Is Pessimism,the new black.   | |||
"I used to be of the opinion that we could "solve things". I no longer believe or want that to be true, I'm more than happy to see mankind slip peacefully into the Oblivion we so rightly deserve! That's not born from the macabre and certainly no glee.. We've just had our time and frankly if we have any longer, we'll fuck it up for everything... So slip away into the night people, take your kids and your parents and hold them tight, your end is nigh.. Hopefully "3 billion years of evolution to get a sentient species and you've given up on homo sapiens because they fucked up.Its only at the precipice that we change and here we are looking into the abyss standing on the precipice with time left to change. | |||
"I used to be of the opinion that we could "solve things". I no longer believe or want that to be true, I'm more than happy to see mankind slip peacefully into the Oblivion we so rightly deserve! That's not born from the macabre and certainly no glee.. We've just had our time and frankly if we have any longer, we'll fuck it up for everything... So slip away into the night people, take your kids and your parents and hold them tight, your end is nigh.. Hopefully 3 billion years of evolution to get a sentient species and you've given up on homo sapiens because they fucked up.Its only at the precipice that we change and here we are looking into the abyss standing on the precipice with time left to change.". Were like the anti Midas, we get things of beauty given to us and we turn it to dog shit for the sake of a plastic wrapped bottle of sugary fizzy shit. The precipice was decades ago, we peered in and thought Mmmmmm you know what this needs! A theme park! Roll up roll up come see the precipice only 20 pounds, here have a foot long hotdog for another 5 quid while you stand in a two hour queue waiting, have your picture taken at the edge for another 5 quid, for 20 we can throw you off the edge with some rubber cord attached to your feet, roll up roll up, its your once in a lifetime opportunity to be entertained from your life of drudgery  | |||
"I used to be of the opinion that we could "solve things". I no longer believe or want that to be true, I'm more than happy to see mankind slip peacefully into the Oblivion we so rightly deserve! That's not born from the macabre and certainly no glee.. We've just had our time and frankly if we have any longer, we'll fuck it up for everything... So slip away into the night people, take your kids and your parents and hold them tight, your end is nigh.. Hopefully 3 billion years of evolution to get a sentient species and you've given up on homo sapiens because they fucked up.Its only at the precipice that we change and here we are looking into the abyss standing on the precipice with time left to change..
Were like the anti Midas, we get things of beauty given to us and we turn it to dog shit for the sake of a plastic wrapped bottle of sugary fizzy shit.
The precipice was decades ago, we peered in and thought Mmmmmm you know what this needs! A theme park! Roll up roll up come see the precipice only 20 pounds, here have a foot long hotdog for another 5 quid while you stand in a two hour queue waiting, have your picture taken at the edge for another 5 quid, for 20 we can throw you off the edge with some rubber cord attached to your feet, roll up roll up, its your once in a lifetime opportunity to be entertained from your life of drudgery
"All true but is that the sum of humanity.Unlike all other life that has evolved here we have the ability to peer into the future and change it.We can and will go to the stars we only have to get through this bottle neck that i imagine all sentient beings must traverse.I strongly believe the rare earth hypothesis is true .When humanity realizes how rare and precious earth is we'll change . | |||
"I used to be of the opinion that we could "solve things". I no longer believe or want that to be true, I'm more than happy to see mankind slip peacefully into the Oblivion we so rightly deserve! That's not born from the macabre and certainly no glee.. We've just had our time and frankly if we have any longer, we'll fuck it up for everything... So slip away into the night people, take your kids and your parents and hold them tight, your end is nigh.. Hopefully 3 billion years of evolution to get a sentient species and you've given up on homo sapiens because they fucked up.Its only at the precipice that we change and here we are looking into the abyss standing on the precipice with time left to change..
Were like the anti Midas, we get things of beauty given to us and we turn it to dog shit for the sake of a plastic wrapped bottle of sugary fizzy shit.
The precipice was decades ago, we peered in and thought Mmmmmm you know what this needs! A theme park! Roll up roll up come see the precipice only 20 pounds, here have a foot long hotdog for another 5 quid while you stand in a two hour queue waiting, have your picture taken at the edge for another 5 quid, for 20 we can throw you off the edge with some rubber cord attached to your feet, roll up roll up, its your once in a lifetime opportunity to be entertained from your life of drudgery
All true but is that the sum of humanity.Unlike all other life that has evolved here we have the ability to peer into the future and change it.We can and will go to the stars we only have to get through this bottle neck that i imagine all sentient beings must traverse.I strongly believe the rare earth hypothesis is true .When humanity realizes how rare and precious earth is we'll change .". Thats just more human conditioning, we like to feel special, God made the universe so vast just for little old us dont you know | |||
"I used to be of the opinion that we could "solve things". I no longer believe or want that to be true, I'm more than happy to see mankind slip peacefully into the Oblivion we so rightly deserve! That's not born from the macabre and certainly no glee.. We've just had our time and frankly if we have any longer, we'll fuck it up for everything... So slip away into the night people, take your kids and your parents and hold them tight, your end is nigh.. Hopefully 3 billion years of evolution to get a sentient species and you've given up on homo sapiens because they fucked up.Its only at the precipice that we change and here we are looking into the abyss standing on the precipice with time left to change..
Were like the anti Midas, we get things of beauty given to us and we turn it to dog shit for the sake of a plastic wrapped bottle of sugary fizzy shit.
The precipice was decades ago, we peered in and thought Mmmmmm you know what this needs! A theme park! Roll up roll up come see the precipice only 20 pounds, here have a foot long hotdog for another 5 quid while you stand in a two hour queue waiting, have your picture taken at the edge for another 5 quid, for 20 we can throw you off the edge with some rubber cord attached to your feet, roll up roll up, its your once in a lifetime opportunity to be entertained from your life of drudgery
All true but is that the sum of humanity.Unlike all other life that has evolved here we have the ability to peer into the future and change it.We can and will go to the stars we only have to get through this bottle neck that i imagine all sentient beings must traverse.I strongly believe the rare earth hypothesis is true .When humanity realizes how rare and precious earth is we'll change ..
Thats just more human conditioning, we like to feel special, God made the universe so vast just for little old us dont you know "There is no god there are no aliens nearby who will save us.We are alone. Its all down to us.There are no excuses. | |||
"I used to be of the opinion that we could "solve things". I no longer believe or want that to be true, I'm more than happy to see mankind slip peacefully into the Oblivion we so rightly deserve! That's not born from the macabre and certainly no glee.. We've just had our time and frankly if we have any longer, we'll fuck it up for everything... So slip away into the night people, take your kids and your parents and hold them tight, your end is nigh.. Hopefully 3 billion years of evolution to get a sentient species and you've given up on homo sapiens because they fucked up.Its only at the precipice that we change and here we are looking into the abyss standing on the precipice with time left to change..
Were like the anti Midas, we get things of beauty given to us and we turn it to dog shit for the sake of a plastic wrapped bottle of sugary fizzy shit.
The precipice was decades ago, we peered in and thought Mmmmmm you know what this needs! A theme park! Roll up roll up come see the precipice only 20 pounds, here have a foot long hotdog for another 5 quid while you stand in a two hour queue waiting, have your picture taken at the edge for another 5 quid, for 20 we can throw you off the edge with some rubber cord attached to your feet, roll up roll up, its your once in a lifetime opportunity to be entertained from your life of drudgery
All true but is that the sum of humanity.Unlike all other life that has evolved here we have the ability to peer into the future and change it.We can and will go to the stars we only have to get through this bottle neck that i imagine all sentient beings must traverse.I strongly believe the rare earth hypothesis is true .When humanity realizes how rare and precious earth is we'll change ..
Thats just more human conditioning, we like to feel special, God made the universe so vast just for little old us dont you know There is no god there are no aliens nearby who will save us.We are alone. Its all down to us.There are no excuses.". To imagine that something so vast and that weve only been able to view 0.00000001% of it and then to conclude we are it!.. Well its the apotyme of the human phycological, we didnt just imagine the universe revolved around us for nothing | |||
"I used to be of the opinion that we could "solve things". I no longer believe or want that to be true, I'm more than happy to see mankind slip peacefully into the Oblivion we so rightly deserve! That's not born from the macabre and certainly no glee.. We've just had our time and frankly if we have any longer, we'll fuck it up for everything... So slip away into the night people, take your kids and your parents and hold them tight, your end is nigh.. Hopefully 3 billion years of evolution to get a sentient species and you've given up on homo sapiens because they fucked up.Its only at the precipice that we change and here we are looking into the abyss standing on the precipice with time left to change..
Were like the anti Midas, we get things of beauty given to us and we turn it to dog shit for the sake of a plastic wrapped bottle of sugary fizzy shit.
The precipice was decades ago, we peered in and thought Mmmmmm you know what this needs! A theme park! Roll up roll up come see the precipice only 20 pounds, here have a foot long hotdog for another 5 quid while you stand in a two hour queue waiting, have your picture taken at the edge for another 5 quid, for 20 we can throw you off the edge with some rubber cord attached to your feet, roll up roll up, its your once in a lifetime opportunity to be entertained from your life of drudgery
All true but is that the sum of humanity.Unlike all other life that has evolved here we have the ability to peer into the future and change it.We can and will go to the stars we only have to get through this bottle neck that i imagine all sentient beings must traverse.I strongly believe the rare earth hypothesis is true .When humanity realizes how rare and precious earth is we'll change ..
Thats just more human conditioning, we like to feel special, God made the universe so vast just for little old us dont you know There is no god there are no aliens nearby who will save us.We are alone. Its all down to us.There are no excuses..
To imagine that something so vast and that weve only been able to view 0.00000001% of it and then to conclude we are it!.. Well its the apotyme of the human phycological, we didnt just imagine the universe revolved around us for nothing"We are as altruistic as we are selfish and as inventive as we are stupid. | |||
| |||
"I know were not supposed to do solutions yet but there is a cloud with 140 trillion times more water in it than earth has and it's only 12 billion lightyears away from earth. Should be easy enough to bottle some and bring it back right? " 12 billion light years is the edge of the known universe and impossible to get too even if you could achieve FTL speeds because the space in between is expanding . Europa with its salty ocean is in our backyard.Plenty of ice balls in space to mine nearby. | |||
"I know were not supposed to do solutions yet but there is a cloud with 140 trillion times more water in it than earth has and it's only 12 billion lightyears away from earth. Should be easy enough to bottle some and bring it back right? 12 billion light years is the edge of the known universe and impossible to get too even if you could achieve FTL speeds because the space in between is expanding . Europa with its salty ocean is in our backyard.Plenty of ice balls in space to mine nearby." Well you're just being a negative nathan today | |||
| |||
 | |||
"I know were not supposed to do solutions yet but there is a cloud with 140 trillion times more water in it than earth has and it's only 12 billion lightyears away from earth. Should be easy enough to bottle some and bring it back right? 12 billion light years is the edge of the known universe and impossible to get too even if you could achieve FTL speeds because the space in between is expanding . Europa with its salty ocean is in our backyard.Plenty of ice balls in space to mine nearby. Well you're just being a negative nathan today "Lets become a type 1 civilisation first on the kardashev scale.You've got to crawl before you can walk. | |||
"I know were not supposed to do solutions yet but there is a cloud with 140 trillion times more water in it than earth has and it's only 12 billion lightyears away from earth. Should be easy enough to bottle some and bring it back right? 12 billion light years is the edge of the known universe and impossible to get too even if you could achieve FTL speeds because the space in between is expanding . Europa with its salty ocean is in our backyard.Plenty of ice balls in space to mine nearby. Well you're just being a negative nathan today Lets become a type 1 civilisation first on the kardashev scale.You've got to crawl before you can walk. "Probably need to educate a few politicians on what that is first | |||
| |||
"Anyone heard the news from Norway? The doomsday seed bank that was built into the permafrost on Spitsbergen because it was guaranteed to remain frozen all year in 1984. HAS FLOODED DUE to the melting of the (not so) permafrost." . Unfortunately it's happening globally, theres hundreds of square miles of ocean thats been recorded bubbling away with methane clathrates thawing from sea bed permafrost! Like I said at the start, its highly unlikely that anybody will be here in 2050! Still lets argue about how more wealthy we can get in the remaining 33 years hey. | |||
| |||
"Anyone heard the news from Norway? The doomsday seed bank that was built into the permafrost on Spitsbergen because it was guaranteed to remain frozen all year in 1984. HAS FLOODED DUE to the melting of the (not so) permafrost.. Unfortunately it's happening globally, theres hundreds of square miles of ocean thats been recorded bubbling away with methane clathrates thawing from sea bed permafrost! Like I said at the start, its highly unlikely that anybody will be here in 2050! Still lets argue about how more wealthy we can get in the remaining 33 years hey. "You see no solution on the horizon.Only extinction? | |||
"Anyone heard the news from Norway? The doomsday seed bank that was built into the permafrost on Spitsbergen because it was guaranteed to remain frozen all year in 1984. HAS FLOODED DUE to the melting of the (not so) permafrost.. Unfortunately it's happening globally, theres hundreds of square miles of ocean thats been recorded bubbling away with methane clathrates thawing from sea bed permafrost! Like I said at the start, its highly unlikely that anybody will be here in 2050! Still lets argue about how more wealthy we can get in the remaining 33 years hey. You see no solution on the horizon.Only extinction? ". Firstly let me say c02 is the main driver for anthropological climate change, increasing c02 levels increases the amount of solar energy captured by the earth(they've already looked at soar output, its been down itself over the last 100 years) but Civilisations ARE heat engines, this has been widely proven be serval papers for years. Sulphate aerosols (that's fine particulates caused by industrialization) actually lower the amount of solar energy getting through in the first place (if you crunch the numbers its about 3 degrees c). It takes about 3-5 days for them to fall out of the atmosphere.. That means 3-5 days after human activity of burning fossil fuels stops you'd get a 3 degree increase in global temperature!...3 days. C02 stays in the atmosphere for nearly 500 years, theres a twenty lag on its effect as well, so we're only actually seeing the effects of 1997s c02 output today, since 1997 c02 emissions have skyrocketed of course. Methane a smallish by product of human activity is 100 times more powerful than c02, luckily it lasts in the atmosphere alot less than c02 only about 20 years but it of course degenerates INTO c02 itself after 20 years so that 20 year figure is immaterial. The earth has trillions of tonnes of frozen (methane clathrates) all over the northern hemisphere left over from that warm period in history 200 million years ago, release a small percentage of them and the c02 we release is immaterial!. Now let's talk temperatures, were 1.2 degrees above the mean already, what they actually say is going above 1.5 degrees will be bad.. Really bad, above 2 it's a disaster, 3 don't even think about and 4 apocalyptic, add those 3 degrees of cooling from the sulphate aerosols I was talking about before and where are we! we're at 4.2 degrees above the mean, 6 degrees and all complex life on earth ends and it ends really fucking quickly.. Anyhow, its not impossible to stop sure.. Yellow stone going up tomorrow might give you another 80 years of global cooling maybe? Of course it would wipe North America instantly and 80% of humans as well in the following decade of no crops but its NOT a solution as civilisations are HEAT engines by nature, there ALWAYS going to create heat which will be trapped and change climate, the life that evolved in that climate was designed by evolution for that climate and requires 1000s of years to evolve to another climate, complex life (zoo life) requires habitat (lesser life) to live off.. Hey it's a biosphere yer know! .. No lesser life, no complex life. Its a predicament not a problem, problems are things we can find solutions to predicaments are things that don't have Solutions! | |||
"Anyone heard the news from Norway? The doomsday seed bank that was built into the permafrost on Spitsbergen because it was guaranteed to remain frozen all year in 1984. HAS FLOODED DUE to the melting of the (not so) permafrost.. Unfortunately it's happening globally, theres hundreds of square miles of ocean thats been recorded bubbling away with methane clathrates thawing from sea bed permafrost! Like I said at the start, its highly unlikely that anybody will be here in 2050! Still lets argue about how more wealthy we can get in the remaining 33 years hey. You see no solution on the horizon.Only extinction? .
Firstly let me say c02 is the main driver for anthropological climate change, increasing c02 levels increases the amount of solar energy captured by the earth(they've already looked at soar output, its been down itself over the last 100 years) but
Civilisations ARE heat engines, this has been widely proven be serval papers for years.
Sulphate aerosols (that's fine particulates caused by industrialization) actually lower the amount of solar energy getting through in the first place (if you crunch the numbers its about 3 degrees c). It takes about 3-5 days for them to fall out of the atmosphere.. That means 3-5 days after human activity of burning fossil fuels stops you'd get a 3 degree increase in global temperature!...3 days.
C02 stays in the atmosphere for nearly 500 years, theres a twenty lag on its effect as well, so we're only actually seeing the effects of 1997s c02 output today, since 1997 c02 emissions have skyrocketed of course.
Methane a smallish by product of human activity is 100 times more powerful than c02, luckily it lasts in the atmosphere alot less than c02 only about 20 years but it of course degenerates INTO c02 itself after 20 years so that 20 year figure is immaterial.
The earth has trillions of tonnes of frozen (methane clathrates) all over the northern hemisphere left over from that warm period in history 200 million years ago, release a small percentage of them and the c02 we release is immaterial!.
Now let's talk temperatures, were 1.2 degrees above the mean already, what they actually say is going above 1.5 degrees will be bad.. Really bad, above 2 it's a disaster, 3 don't even think about and 4 apocalyptic, add those 3 degrees of cooling from the sulphate aerosols I was talking about before and where are we! we're at 4.2 degrees above the mean, 6 degrees and all complex life on earth ends and it ends really fucking quickly..
Anyhow, its not impossible to stop sure.. Yellow stone going up tomorrow might give you another 80 years of global cooling maybe? Of course it would wipe North America instantly and 80% of humans as well in the following decade of no crops but its NOT a solution as civilisations are HEAT engines by nature, there ALWAYS going to create heat which will be trapped and change climate, the life that evolved in that climate was designed by evolution for that climate and requires 1000s of years to evolve to another climate, complex life (zoo life) requires habitat (lesser life) to live off.. Hey it's a biosphere yer know! .. No lesser life, no complex life.
Its a predicament not a problem, problems are things we can find solutions to predicaments are things that don't have Solutions!
"You worry too much. | |||
"Anyone heard the news from Norway? The doomsday seed bank that was built into the permafrost on Spitsbergen because it was guaranteed to remain frozen all year in 1984. HAS FLOODED DUE to the melting of the (not so) permafrost.. Unfortunately it's happening globally, theres hundreds of square miles of ocean thats been recorded bubbling away with methane clathrates thawing from sea bed permafrost! Like I said at the start, its highly unlikely that anybody will be here in 2050! Still lets argue about how more wealthy we can get in the remaining 33 years hey. You see no solution on the horizon.Only extinction? .
Firstly let me say c02 is the main driver for anthropological climate change, increasing c02 levels increases the amount of solar energy captured by the earth(they've already looked at soar output, its been down itself over the last 100 years) but
Civilisations ARE heat engines, this has been widely proven be serval papers for years.
Sulphate aerosols (that's fine particulates caused by industrialization) actually lower the amount of solar energy getting through in the first place (if you crunch the numbers its about 3 degrees c). It takes about 3-5 days for them to fall out of the atmosphere.. That means 3-5 days after human activity of burning fossil fuels stops you'd get a 3 degree increase in global temperature!...3 days.
C02 stays in the atmosphere for nearly 500 years, theres a twenty lag on its effect as well, so we're only actually seeing the effects of 1997s c02 output today, since 1997 c02 emissions have skyrocketed of course.
Methane a smallish by product of human activity is 100 times more powerful than c02, luckily it lasts in the atmosphere alot less than c02 only about 20 years but it of course degenerates INTO c02 itself after 20 years so that 20 year figure is immaterial.
The earth has trillions of tonnes of frozen (methane clathrates) all over the northern hemisphere left over from that warm period in history 200 million years ago, release a small percentage of them and the c02 we release is immaterial!.
Now let's talk temperatures, were 1.2 degrees above the mean already, what they actually say is going above 1.5 degrees will be bad.. Really bad, above 2 it's a disaster, 3 don't even think about and 4 apocalyptic, add those 3 degrees of cooling from the sulphate aerosols I was talking about before and where are we! we're at 4.2 degrees above the mean, 6 degrees and all complex life on earth ends and it ends really fucking quickly..
Anyhow, its not impossible to stop sure.. Yellow stone going up tomorrow might give you another 80 years of global cooling maybe? Of course it would wipe North America instantly and 80% of humans as well in the following decade of no crops but its NOT a solution as civilisations are HEAT engines by nature, there ALWAYS going to create heat which will be trapped and change climate, the life that evolved in that climate was designed by evolution for that climate and requires 1000s of years to evolve to another climate, complex life (zoo life) requires habitat (lesser life) to live off.. Hey it's a biosphere yer know! .. No lesser life, no complex life.
Its a predicament not a problem, problems are things we can find solutions to predicaments are things that don't have Solutions!
You worry too much.
". No your confusing me with somebody who says they can save you! Hope and fear are the same two future projections,I hope it will be better but I fear it won't! Once you realise there one and the same you stop worrying | |||
"Ok thread over.. as the OP and self appointed final say on this thread alone... I judge the top five issues we need to sort out are, in no particular order. - Climate change. - Leadership. - Automation. - Population. - Genetic modification and medical science. I added the last one myself as per OP prerogative, I believe it covers antibiotic resistance and the more controversial genetic experiments and will have a huge impact alongside population. I am now going to start a thread "Solving the problem of Climate Change OP" Please feel free to follow that thread and suggest your global wide plans to protect our planet from climate change. Broken Brilliance.. would you care to be the judge.. listen to people's concerns and call time when you feel a good solution has been agreed upon? I intend to come to leadership last.. as I think during the process of solving the other issues.. we may come to some sort of solution to leadership." That's very flattering but why me? I know very little about this sciency stuff, I'm all about the humanities really. Not sure i could do it justice! | |||
"Ok thread over.. as the OP and self appointed final say on this thread alone... I judge the top five issues we need to sort out are, in no particular order. - Climate change. - Leadership. - Automation. - Population. - Genetic modification and medical science. I added the last one myself as per OP prerogative, I believe it covers antibiotic resistance and the more controversial genetic experiments and will have a huge impact alongside population. I am now going to start a thread "Solving the problem of Climate Change OP" Please feel free to follow that thread and suggest your global wide plans to protect our planet from climate change. Broken Brilliance.. would you care to be the judge.. listen to people's concerns and call time when you feel a good solution has been agreed upon? I intend to come to leadership last.. as I think during the process of solving the other issues.. we may come to some sort of solution to leadership. That's very flattering but why me? I know very little about this sciency stuff, I'm all about the humanities really. Not sure i could do it justice! " You like logic and efficiency.Good choice by the OP. | |||
"Ok thread over.. as the OP and self appointed final say on this thread alone... I judge the top five issues we need to sort out are, in no particular order. - Climate change. - Leadership. - Automation. - Population. - Genetic modification and medical science. I added the last one myself as per OP prerogative, I believe it covers antibiotic resistance and the more controversial genetic experiments and will have a huge impact alongside population. I am now going to start a thread "Solving the problem of Climate Change OP" Please feel free to follow that thread and suggest your global wide plans to protect our planet from climate change. Broken Brilliance.. would you care to be the judge.. listen to people's concerns and call time when you feel a good solution has been agreed upon? I intend to come to leadership last.. as I think during the process of solving the other issues.. we may come to some sort of solution to leadership. That's very flattering but why me? I know very little about this sciency stuff, I'm all about the humanities really. Not sure i could do it justice! " because you got a hot wife, global warming and all that | |||
)
That and the pre big bang really does melt my head thinking about it.
But when you think of it were trying to communicate with aliens and we cant have a conversation with any other animal on this planet.
But the odds are to great for there not to be more advanced species out there the old time dilation and speed of light messes things up.
What about that star to they are all looking at it now | |||
