a thought i had about the world

[Lyx]

Stop smokin yer frickin peacepipe hippie. You cant put two men in the same room without one trying to rule over the other. (I find) Star Trek is silly on every level and veeeeery naive. And anarchy is never the answer, wich is what happens without centralized leadership. I'd like to live in a world where all this hippie happyland shit actually works. But it wont ever work.

You forgot to mention that "your camp" also doesn't work. You also forgot to mention that the association between "controling others" and "coordination" was purely a choice made by you, dictator (the need for coordination doesn't necessarily need to involve domination).

(I'm in neither camp and consider your both ideas utterly naive and full of wishful thinking)

 

[mkg]

I pray this never happens, if solely for the advancement of the human race.

 

[Lyx]

I pray this never happens, if solely for the advancement of the human race.

Define "advancement"

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

That'd be a hindrance to humanity's progress. A nation of farmers wouldn't be too instrumental in colonizing other planets or discovering the farthest reaches of our universe.

 

[Something Amyss]

That you have one specific wish does not automatically make wishes of others impossible.

Not that it matters in this case. The scaling back you're talking about would require universal consent or authoritarian control. The former won't happen, the latter basically violates the ideals the topic espouses.

 

[Lyx]

That you have one specific wish does not automatically make wishes of others impossible.

Not that it matters in this case. The scaling back you're talking about would require universal consent or authoritarian control. The former won't happen, the latter basically violates the ideals the topic espouses.

Here's the full quote of what i originally wrote:

Others already pointed out pitfalls. IMO for the current state of human culture, something "in-between" would probably be optimal. Basically turning time back 100 years, but keeping knowledge about some technology - in principle just scaling back population and production.

Unfortunatelly, thats not gonna happen unless the basic parameters are changed globally, and that is because if a single country would do it alone, it would become a nice little target for everyone else.

Being nice isn't enough - you also need to be able to defend yourself from not-so-nice people.

What are you argueing with again?

 

[Lyx]

That'd be a hindrance to humanity's progress expansion. A nation of farmers wouldn't be too instrumental in colonizing other planets or discovering the farthest reaches of our universe.

There, I fixed that for you.

 

[tahrey]

quick interjection as a direct reply to OP:

You'd have to kill about 90% of the population first, otherwise there just wouldn't be the room. Earth simply couldn't support the present level of human habitation without urbanised cities and intensive farming.

Oh and enjoy your lack of electronic/mechanical labour savers and healthcare. Dying at 40 after an uncomfortable, illness-blighted 6- or 7-day-a-week grind since you were old enough to stand, carry tools and understand & obey instructions... great fun.

The world's a bit fucked up at the moment but I'll happily take the way it is over the way it was or could have been. The "simple pleasures" thing is a dangerous illusion. The simple pleasures of struggling to survive in anything less than perfect environmental conditions, and exquisite boredom otherwise. Right.

I'll give you one parting example: Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. They tried it, and it worked just OH so well.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

So demolish society as we know it for a life of farming and anarchy in which we live at the mercy of nature and hope that the world doesn't sink into lawlessness and chaos? Yeah let's do that.

 

[Gunsang]

Have you been chatting with the Una-bomber lately?

There is a reason for urbanization and it's not because an agrarian society is the greatest thing ever.

No taxes? Have you been chatting... I'll stop now. That sounds kinda like what Ayn Rand talked about. She says that the only thing that the Government should do is protect it's citizens through police, military and a justice system. I think many of us can agree that we as humans need these stabilizing forces, but how can we have them without taxes. Unfortunately Ayn Rand does not address this issue(I guess she missed that huge glaring flaw in her logic). Yeah, I don't think your kind of society could work.

 

[Valkyrie101]

1- Sounds dreadful. Life would be crap for all sorts of varied reasons.

2- Earth cannot sustain life forever. At best, we've got a couple of billion years before being engulfed by the sun and destroyed. Reverting to a simple life is species suicide.

 

[L4hlborg]

Others already pointed out pitfalls. IMO for the current state of human culture, something "in-between" would probably be optimal. Basically turning time back 100 years, but keeping knowledge about some technology - in principle just scaling back population and production.

Scaling back population in a sense that doesn't involve gassing people to death (most people find this morally questionable) is pretty impossible. Getting rid of a few billion people isn't very easy.

Maybe, instead of dreaming a world achievable only by mass murder, we should look forward. As all totally realistic scifi has pointed out, we need to unite our species into one nation, build space ships and and settle around places and meet cool aliens and shit. I'm not exactly a very good salesman, but you get the point.

*spikes bubble*

That you have one specific wish does not automatically make wishes of others impossible.

And by the way: Scaling population back - if you give it 100-150 years - is easy. You could start with no longer conditioning people on all communication channels to become sexually obsessive. There's more that can be done purely on a cultural level. Then, there's the fact that people currently are paid benefits for making childs. Then theres the fact that to keep population steady, every pair needs to make TWO children. The list goes on. No, scaling back population isn't "impossible" - its not even "difficult", unless you're impatient and uncreative - or want to keep up a certain "way of life" and cultural dogma.

No, seriously. How many people would agree with this kind of idea? I mean sure, I'd be ok with having one child. If everyone did, it would theoretically drop the population in half in just one generation. But there are the people who want freedom. And then there are the people who don't believe in birth control. And then there are the people who just don't give a shit. It just doesn't work. I think it does require some imagination that you could get all the people in the world to love each other, but in a way that produces only one baby per couple.

My alternative wouldn't really work either, it was just another extreme I could think of quickly. Uniting nations into one happy pile would require someone to actually conquer the whole world and that would be bloody as hell. As you said, someone has to basically break cultural dogmas for us to survive, since this planet can only hold a certain amount of people. And whoever this someone will be, he/she will have to be ready to do some pretty extreme things, that most of us will find morally questionable.

 

[Daipire]

This sounds like an awesome video game.
You find some (what we would call modern) weapons

You can go full post-apocolyptic Robin Hood or Mad Max, or Master Blaster or whatever you desire

 

[x EvilErmine x]

One thing we need to consider however is communalism. I've never experience this myself because I've never lived in a small village, but friends of mine have explained that in a small village where everyone knows each other, there is a sense of responsibility to everyone in the village. People contribute without asking for anything in return, just like a big family. The huge downside to this lifestyle would simply be the huge drop in health-related technology. Get ready to die from the common cold once again.

Good point but then that would eventually lead to the creation of city states....and they weren't the most secure and serene places you would think they would be (Hang on...is the next city state over them ways looking at our Oxen funny? Better keep an eye on them shifty bastards...and so and so forth on unto the end of time).

Oh and being a cold calculating bastard (Hey I am an EVIL ermine after all) maybe not dying of the common cold isn't such a good thing after all. By removing disease and starvation from the equation, for the most part, we have actually neutered natures natural mechanisms of population control...and that's not working out too well for us at the moment.

 

[sageoftruth]

One thing we need to consider however is communalism. I've never experience this myself because I've never lived in a small village, but friends of mine have explained that in a small village where everyone knows each other, there is a sense of responsibility to everyone in the village. People contribute without asking for anything in return, just like a big family. The huge downside to this lifestyle would simply be the huge drop in health-related technology. Get ready to die from the common cold once again.

Good point but then that would eventually lead to the creation of city states....and they weren't the most secure and serene places you would think they would be (Hang on...is the next city state over them ways looking at our Oxen funny? Better keep an eye on them shifty bastards...and so and so forth on unto the end of time).

Oh and being a cold calculating bastard (Hey I am an EVIL ermine after all) maybe not dying of the common cold isn't such a good thing after all. By removing disease and starvation from the equation, for the most part, we have actually neutered natures natural mechanisms of population control...and that's not working out too well for us at the moment.

Cold as that is, it is a good point. By regressing into a simpler existence, there will be fewer deterrents from having children (fewer expenses, less pressure from society to raise a child to be successful, and thanks to communalism, more help from neighbors in raising the child). It certainly makes it sound appealing.

Regarding the city states, it is possible for tension to stir between two of them. When everyone in a community is so unified, it is easy to lash out against others outside of the community. However, as someone else stated, our ability to make a habitat liveable will be smaller, so we'll all be spread out to wherever there are resources and manageable living conditions. On the plus side, it would make us more spread out and possibly oblivious to each other's existence. On the other hand, if two communities live close together, jeaslousy could erupt from the community with the poorer lands. It sounds like a give and take to me. You'd best hope you are born in a secluded village, away from jealous neighboring villages and blissfully ignorant of the ones who have more than you.

 

[Lyx]

No, seriously. How many people would agree with this kind of idea?

Depending on the circumstances (living standards, goals to pursue, overall cultural dogma) the majority?

Your question to me has something between the lines, that assums that this is mainly a matter of forbidding something. It isn't. The current cultural and economical environment is not "normal" - it's an amplified version. Remove the amplifications, and you'll get less childs on average, without even having started to think of other means. With this, i don't want to imply that this alone is enough. I'm saying that a large part of such a change, doesn't require "discouragements", but simply stopping "encouragement".

I mean sure, I'd be ok with having one child. If everyone did, it would theoretically drop the population in half in just one generation.

Too fast and too dangerous, especially economically. "1,7 childs average" would be softer and still do the trick, unless one is overly impatient. Notice: About 2 childs average is already the case right now for most firstworld countries, even though those countries finacially support children and have a culture that tries to condition people to be sex-obsessed. Remove the financial benefits, and lower the cultural/social pressure, and for those countries, you'd probably already arrive at 1,7 childs average, without having introduced any prohibitions.

But there are the people who want freedom. And then there are the people who don't believe in birth control. And then there are the people who just don't give a shit. It just doesn't work.

Apparently, people in certain environments do not act according to your predictions. See above.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Yup, lets turn our back on all th comfort and technology we made for ourselves so we can all be happy flower children making a living by looking after cows.

Sounds like a fucking plan, Einstein.

 

[L4hlborg]

No, seriously. How many people would agree with this kind of idea?

Depending on the circumstances (living standards, goals to pursue, overall cultural dogma) the majority?

You do realize that you are talking about changing most of the western culture, right? This is not something you just do. Besides, isn't it just cheaper not to have children? I honestly don't know how much money you get per child in every country in the world, but here in Finland you don't exactly get enough to cover all the expenses.

Your question to me has something between the lines, that assums that this is mainly a matter of forbidding something. It isn't. The current cultural and economical environment is not "normal" - it's an amplified version. Remove the amplifications, and you'll get less childs on average, without even having started to think of other means. With this, i don't want to imply that this alone is enough. I'm saying that a large part of such a change, doesn't require "discouragements", but simply stopping "encouragement".

I don't really see what you are comparing your "normal" to. And I don't know if I'm being affected at a subconscious level or something, but I don't exactly see what encourages child birth in our society. Actually, it encourages it a lot less than pretty much any time in the history of mankind. The thing is, that the restraints are missing. Nothing is killing children any more (still talking in the first world countries).

I mean sure, I'd be ok with having one child. If everyone did, it would theoretically drop the population in half in just one generation.

Too fast and too dangerous, especially economically. "1,7 childs average" would be softer and still do the trick, unless one is overly impatient. Notice: About 2 childs average is already the case right now for most firstworld countries, even though those countries finacially support children and have a culture that tries to condition people to be sex-obsessed. Remove the financial benefits, and lower the cultural/social pressure, and for those countries, you'd probably already arrive at 1,7 childs average, without having introduced any prohibitions.

And we are still talking about the first world countries. Now if you haven't noticed, there are other countries too. Also, they usually have pretty huge populations, so its not exactly just our problem. Now I don't do birth rate statistics, but I'd be guessing that they are higher in them than they are here.

But there are the people who want freedom. And then there are the people who don't believe in birth control. And then there are the people who just don't give a shit. It just doesn't work.

Apparently, people in certain environments do not act according to your predictions. See above.

Now if you manage to shape society all around the world so, that the child birth drops to 1,7 at average, without the restraining of any rights, then congrats, you really deserve something nice. Like a cookie. If you like cookies that is.

 

[Daffy F]

A nice idea, but unfortunately there are far too many people on the planet now to do this... A shame really, as if we went back to a bartering kind of system, with no fossil fuel usage, then we could save the Earth. As it is, we're doomed.

 

[Lyx]

You do realize that you are talking about changing most of the western culture, right? This is not something you just do.

True, and i never said that it could be done quickly. But then again, if humans want to fix their cultural behaviour on a global scale, they need sweeping cultural changes anyways. Cultural behaviour won't change unless it changes, and going from parasitary behaviour to mutual behaviour isn't a walk in a park - it's a full 90 degree orientation change. This "long walk" is just reflected here on the topic of population size.

I don't really see what you are comparing your "normal" to. And I don't know if I'm being affected at a subconscious level or something, but I don't exactly see what encourages child birth in our society.

You don't notice being screamed at "FUCKING!" at every corner in culture? You don't notice sexually-obsessive depiction of most areas of everyday life, even areas that have nothing to do with sex? Not? Oh, never mind then - i guess i must be imaginating all those things. It must be a lucky coincidence that a certain behaviouristic constellation repeats over and over all across culture, while the alternative constellations often don't even have words in language.

And we are still talking about the first world countries. Now if you haven't noticed, there are other countries too. Also, they usually have pretty huge populations, so its not exactly just our problem. Now I don't do birth rate statistics, but I'd be guessing that they are higher in them than they are here.

Yep, but the point was that you argued that humans just are obsessed with population expansion and that nothing can be done about it. I showed that in the right environment, they do not expand IN SPITE of a culture that conditions them to increase their sexdrive. In other words: It can work and its not complicated. It may not be doable quickly and cheaply, but if the intention and effort is there, it can work. The main roadblocks are:

A) Humans would like that things change, without much things changing. They think that if they can make a few more laws and invent more tech (you know, the tech that escalated the problem in the first place), everything will magically work out. Nope. The global behaviour comes from a bias inherent in current culture and society dogma. Current culture "ticks" parasitary, expansionist and greedy (negative ressource budget). If they don't want to behave that way, then that can only happen by NOT behaving that way -> sweeping cultural changes. This is not a matter of taste - its plain logic.

B) Global consensus. As i mentioned earlier, nations will not want to put themselves at a disadvantage compared to others. Thus, they will not be willing to reduce their population below a certain point, unless others follow them. It's basically the same dilemma as with the nuclear arms race and emissions into the atmosphere.