|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Mar 5, 2010 16:52:41 GMT -5
Do you realize that in 40 years, 1.5 billion Chinese are going to consume thus pollute like us? There are already resources shortages everywhere, food, oil, water... Also I think it's important not to elude the conflicts in developping countries, the overwhelming majority of them being linked or directly imputable to Western foreign policy in the case of Afghanistan and Irak.
It shouldn't be forgotten that industrialized nations themselves are plagued by many problems ethnic tensions or rising carceral population for instance etc. The trend of transparent government has yet to resolve corruption or even media censorship issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Mar 5, 2010 17:13:27 GMT -5
Do you realize that in 40 years, 1.5 billion Chinese are going to consume thus pollute like us?
Yes but I'm still optimistic. Those 1.5 billion Chinese, having reached our living standards, are also going to innovate and contribute to new technologies like the West does now. And the resource shortages are also going to spur them to innovate to find ways around the resource constraints. Imagine having 5 times the scientists and engineers that the US does now working on solutions to these problems.
Obviously we will have to move beyond oil. Food shortages, I'm not so convinced that food shortages will be the main bottleneck - I don't see a Malthusian mechanism with the way agricultural technology is advancing. Water, I worry about a little more though I confess to being relatively ignorant about how and where water shortages might manifest themselves and whether they are insurmountable technologically.
I don't have lots of evidence for my beliefs, other than being able to point to Malthusian type arguments made in the past that have all turned out to be wrong in the sense that population keeps growing and living standards improving on aggregate globally despite the resource constraitns that we face. Looking at actual data it's hard to see a growth slowdown anywhere, which is not to say that it won't happen - it's just that neither the optimists nor the pessimists know enough about the rate of technological innovation (and I pray some improvement in social organization and governance) to say we're all screwed or not. The fear of the pessimists is that the damage we do is irreversible or that it will be too late by the time we realize how screwed we are. I'm not convinced, though there is no doubt some people will suffer (and are already suffering) from the effects of environmental degradation and limited natural resources.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Mar 5, 2010 17:48:24 GMT -5
We are witnessing a demographic explosion unheard of all mankind History. I may sound pessimistic but given the current state of agriculture, I have a reason to be, rising use of GMO which we still ignore the potential long term risks, battery farming, feeding stressed livestock hormons or drugs. We could already feed the globe's population but we're not, what makes you think it will be anything different? No matter how fishy the food of the future will be, poor countries will take it but the problem is the following: Are our corporations/governments ready to give it to them?
You're probably right about the energy, it's the thing I worry the less about, the water shortages are mostly felt in the Near East and .................. the US, especially California which was a natural desert before sprinling it with enormous water reserves (which O Canada supplies), kind of the epitome of unsustainable lifestyle, the yearly droughts illustrating it!
I don't believe in the whole technological virtuous circle solving all our problems especially given the lowering number of engineers. Thus my belief that the Third-World will most certainly pay the price for us unless they become powerful (diplomatically or militarily) enough to coerce the West to share the planet's limited resources.
|
|
|
|
Post by purpletrapezoid on Mar 9, 2010 23:49:59 GMT -5
Isn't a world with 20 rich people and one poor person on net a better world than a world with just one rich person? If we had 20 rich people and one poor person, there would be a lot of inflation... everyone will try to have more money than everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by betahat on Mar 10, 2010 19:37:27 GMT -5
What I'm saying is that comparing welfare or progress is difficult enough across different people - now try calculating some kind of aggregate when the number of people is also changing. While we might all agree that having twenty rich people on earth is preferable to 20 poor starving people, it's not self-evident that a world with twenty rich people and twenty poor people is worse than a world with ten rich people (or just one).
Thus while I agree that there may be environmental limits to sustainable growth with a growing population (though I emphasize "may" since we really don't know if technology will beat out natural resource constraints) it isn't clear that having twice as many people with half the resources is necessarily worse than having half as many with twice the resources.
If you take the view that life, even at a low to moderate income, is better than non-life, the argument for higher living-standard through Malthusian population controls is not as clear cut.
|
|
palavore
Full Member
I put my pants on just like the rest of you -- one leg at a time. Except, once my pants are on, I make gold posts.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
Posts: 298
|
Post by palavore on Mar 10, 2010 19:39:59 GMT -5
Isn't a world with 20 rich people and one poor person on net a better world than a world with just one rich person? If we had 20 rich people and one poor person, there would be a lot of inflation... everyone will try to have more money than everyone else. They would probably work that one poor person to death--kill the cash cow. Money and wealth have no worth without the people desperate enough to do anything for it. If the world as it stands now were represented by 20 people: 1 - the rich man 3 - the rich man's eldest sons (those fighting to take his place) 16 - women and children (the world's poor) Because no matter how you look at it, the human race is just one large dysfunctional family. |
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Mar 12, 2010 18:33:38 GMT -5
I understand now why people are progressively sheltering themselves in entertainment or "their own concrete lives", the state of political, financial or judicial affairs is worsening. This feeling of powerlessness is reminiscent of how people in dictatorial states (USSR) abandoned public space in favor of the private sphere in fear of repression, the only difference is that it isn't supposed to happen in democratic countries because citizens should have powerful and "effortless" control over governments through vote.. The same thing cannot be said about authoritarian states requiring much more dangerous political actions such as a coup to bring change. (Anyone remember how the international community dumped the Iranians in their struggle against the election results manipulation?)  |
|
