Fate of the human race as it looks right now.

[too-open-minded]

Right now to me, our fate is looking very dim.

 

We have a population on 9 billion people with large parts of the world becoming industrialized.

 

It was only about 200 years ago the the estimated population reached one billion, It has been going up an an accelerating rate ever sense.

 

I don't know about you but the garbage I don't recycle gets thrown away and I do throw away a little bit every day.

 

Theirs pollution not only in what is being thrown away but also in what is byproducts of manufacturing the very things that are thrown away.

 

All the cars driving around may not be hurting the elements in our atmosphere but we are diluting the normal consistency of our atmosphere with carbon emissions.

 

Going green is hard, were so dependent on oil and all the jobs that go into making the world go around can't just stop because we want to go green.

 

 

 

Personally I don't think were going to make it off this planet. I don't think its going to be in my lifetime but I do think the human race is going to kill itself.

 

I see some correlations in economics that scare me. The food industry is bad for our health which makes money for the medical industry. Profit is privatized, most the money goes to a few select people. Its correlations in economics like this that make me think their could be an "Illuminati." If their is, their either living the time of their life with no regard towards the survival of our species. Or their making all the profit they can before stuff hits the fan.

 

It looks to me like stuff is going to hit the fan. Whether its intentional or not is what i'm wondering.

[Bignose]

And darn near every single generation has written very similar things.

 

The foil to all the above are the large number of really good things that are happening, too. The Internet is bringing information exchange to unprecedented levels -- and helping over turn dictatorships and pseudo-dictatorships all around the globe. I honestly believe that in about a generation, there won't be a single one left on the planet. Genetics allows us to grow plants with a drought and pest resistance that is almost unbelievable from a perspective of just a decade ago. Even with the drought in the Midwest, it actually won't be all that bad of a harvest; not as good as the farmers would have liked considering the early spring planting they got in, but all in all, it isn't going to be a disaster. Green alternative energy is still at just the beginning of its possibilities, and while it isn't a certainty that it will pan out, there are a great number of amazing things being done at this moment.

 

While there certainly are troubling things going on, losing perspective of all the good things going on as well doesn't really accomplish much. This certainly doesn't mean that I am saying we should ignore the troubling things. But, I am saying that in a wider perspective, mankind on the whole is progressing at a fairly incredible rate.

[Phi for All]

We have a population on 9 billion people with large parts of the world becoming industrialized.

You're off by almost 30%.

[Iota]

The world becoming industrialised should have a reducing effect on population growth, as typically seen. That's a possibility.

 

For recycling, nation wide schemes are being, and have been introduced, which is increasing recycling rates; although waste is still very high. The problems with waste are being confronted and improved by science, e.g. more readily biodegradable plastics.

 

Car exhaust fumes are being made cleaner all of the time, soon enough countries will be forced into alt. energy sources as crude oil/methane gas based fuels are rapidly depleted.

 

^Just some examples of the other end of the spectrum, looking less grim for the future.

 

 

Whether its intentional or not is what i'm wondering.

 

I think it's safe to assume the Illuminati, specifically, is officially defunct (I know, you didn't mean it that literally)... but there are powerful people controlling big things in the world, controversially. A lot of the stuff you're suggesting is in plain sight and not hidden. (I'm not saying you're a conspiracy 'you know what' but...) for example the 'new world order' does exist, and is an organised plan which is spoken about quite frequently by presidents etc. If you just ignore the wild conspiracy theories and have a look into it and have a think about it, you can usually see what's going on with more ease.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Iota

[Phi for All]

Going green is hard, were so dependent on oil and all the jobs that go into making the world go around can't just stop because we want to go green.

Going green would probably require more jobs, since the energy from green sources isn't equal to what we get from fossil fuels. The world still goes around, work doesn't stop.

 

 

Personally I don't think were going to make it off this planet. I don't think its going to be in my lifetime but I do think the human race is going to kill itself.

We've already made it off planet. And the human race is made up of individuals, billions of them as you pointed out. That means there's a great many of them who don't want to kill each other.

 

I see some correlations in economics that scare me. The food industry is bad for our health which makes money for the medical industry. Profit is privatized, most the money goes to a few select people. Its correlations in economics like this that make me think their could be an "Illuminati." If their is, their either living the time of their life with no regard towards the survival of our species. Or their making all the profit they can before stuff hits the fan.

 

It looks to me like stuff is going to hit the fan. Whether its intentional or not is what i'm wondering.

People smart enough to arrange so much, so they can be rich after the rest of us are dead? What good is being wealthy if there's no one else left to do the work?

[too-open-minded]

Okay the earths population is an estimated 7 billion, sorry. It's still going up at an accelerating rate.

 

Yeah once an area is industrialized its population tends to slow down, but theirs lots of areas that are still on their way to that point.

 

I mean I don't know much about the national economy let alone global.

Just it seems like the U.S dollar is the worlds reserve currency, with countries wanting to move away from that.

The U.S is the worlds consumer. Our own dollar has become inflated as it stands right now, what happens when the dollar loses global value?

 

Thats just in America.

 

How will the rest of the world work out if their used to being our consumer and we collapse and stop buying stuff. Their not deciding on one currency

 

Thats the problem in a whole then if you look at money you see a physical representation of wealth being downsized. Getting smaller and smaller. At the same time theirs interest rates stacking up on things that haven't yet been paid for. We can't even pay off these interest rates yet were still spending.

 

I mean.... Idk, I'm just so worried the human race isn't gonna make it. I don't want to contribute to our own demise. Living the average american lifestyle its hard to do that.

 

 

 

 

Sigh... I know i'm not the first person to worry this. I know for the ages their have been people talking about the end of us. It just really looks like were setting ourselves up for destruction.

I don't know if i'm better off being a hermit in the woods or trying to make steps for humanity along with society.

 

So they can be rich once were all dead.... see that's what I don't understand.

 

Its like people making money don't care about the individuals they are making money off of, they should. Its where their money is coming from. If they didn't plan on making money for very long, why would they care about the population?

 

I'm just trying to make sense of this all, it looks like too big of problems to be caused by just greed and negligence.

[iNow]

I mean I don't know much about the national economy let alone global.

Just it seems like the U.S dollar is the worlds reserve currency, with countries wanting to move away from that.

The U.S is the worlds consumer. Our own dollar has become inflated as it stands right now, what happens when the dollar loses global value?

As counterintuitive as it seems, right now a devalued dollar would be a good thing for the US. When the dollar loses value, it makes US goods much more attractive to people purchasing in other currencies. Our goods become slightly cheaper to them relative to their own dollar, so others are likely to purchase more US goods and stimulate manufacturing and exports.

 

It's basically the same reason why Chinese goods have been so attractive all these years, and why China has had such a powerful export economy... Their currency was valued less than the currency of their consumers/customers so those customers bought more. The logic extends to tourism, and vacations from other nations would be more inclined to schedule trips to the US and bring back trinkets and memorabilia to their families back home if they could get more bang for their local buck when converting to dollars. There is definitely a limit to when this stops being a good thing, but my main point is that a devalued dollar right now actually helps the US economy relative to what's happening with other nations.

 

On top of that, a devalued dollar makes it easier to pay off our debts. Each unit of debt we owe in real terms actually becomes worth significantly less. If we promise to pay $10, but the value of the dollar decreases by (let's say) half, then we satisfy the debt after paying only $5 in real terms. We cut our debt in half just due to devaluation. Inflation and devaluation are good for debtors and bad for creditors. Given that we're trying to pay down our debts right now, a bit of inflation and devaluation should logically be perceived as a very good thing for us. Unfortunately, our populace has been misinformed for far too long by propaganda and scare machines like Fox News, or instead people are blinded by ideology and immune to facts so see nothing but negative risk with the idea of devaluation.

 

Sigh... I know i'm not the first person to worry this. I know for the ages their have been people talking about the end of us. It just really looks like were setting ourselves up for destruction.

We definitely have some opportunities to do many things better. I don't disagree, but your doom and gloom mentality seems a bit too extreme for my taste. If I were to guess, you're probably depressed about something else and using the "world is falling apart" narrative to distract you from the true source of your sadness. I could be wrong. I don't know you, and I'm just guessing, it's just that I've seen this before many times with many people. We often distract ourselves from things like a breakup of death of a loved one by lamenting about the world as a whole. The human mind is a funny thing sometimes.

 

Also, think about the self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think the world is going to shit, it probably will. If you think we can do something to make it better, we probably will. It's all about where you place your focus.

 

Finally, try to think about each problem in small steps... Bite-sized solvable bits that aren't so overwhelming. When you try to boil the ocean all at once, it can be discouraging and disheartening. When you heat small batches at a time, however, the water will indeed boil bit by bit.

Edited September 9, 2012 by iNow

[too-open-minded]

Yeah I guess your right, personally I don't think theirs any outside source causing me to have no faith in the human race but their always could be a subconscious reason.

 

These things really do bother me on a personal level. I do think the human race has a set course for self destruction and not just the human race but individuals if it does happen, are going to suffer from it. It really does pain me.

 

I guess this thread has turned more into what I personally think and I do really appreciate everyone trying to reassure me that things are going to be okay. I see lots of problems but maybe in time with the problems I see in the future I could find ways to prevent these problems from happening (Not from cutting off peoples resources, I hate population control in that aspect.)

 

I just, I really do worry about this. Not just for the human race but every individual on the planet right now.

 

I am an optimist, I don't concentrate on the negative side of things. Although when dealing with something like this, I can't help but speak out about the negative side of things.

 

 

iNow, thankyou very much for your input about economics and inflated money helping pay things off. It makes sense and i've never heard this argument before.

I know the government is inflating the dollar, I just didn't know why. Your post truly has given me some faith and might help me sleep better at night.

 

At the same time, don't forget the things I said. It could happen and if we just keep pretending that everything will be ok in the future, their might not be a future. We need to hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

[proximity1]

And darn near every single generation has written very similar things.

 

The foil to all the above are the large number of really good things that are happening, too. The Internet is bringing information exchange to unprecedented levels -- and helping over turn dictatorships and pseudo-dictatorships all around the globe. I honestly believe that in about a generation, there won't be a single one left on the planet. Genetics allows us to grow plants with a drought and pest resistance that is almost unbelievable from a perspective of just a decade ago. Even with the drought in the Midwest, it actually won't be all that bad of a harvest; not as good as the farmers would have liked considering the early spring planting they got in, but all in all, it isn't going to be a disaster. Green alternative energy is still at just the beginning of its possibilities, and while it isn't a certainty that it will pan out, there are a great number of amazing things being done at this moment.

 

While there certainly are troubling things going on, losing perspective of all the good things going on as well doesn't really accomplish much. This certainly doesn't mean that I am saying we should ignore the troubling things. But, I am saying that in a wider perspective, mankind on the whole is progressing at a fairly incredible rate.

 

 

RE: "And darn near every single generation has written very similar things." That, of course, while true, is of no value as a premise for the assumed but unstated conclusion that, since X has been frequently predicted but has (supposedly) not been found to have occurred, the predictions of X are faulty." See, Taleb, N.N. (2007)

 

RE: "While there certainly are troubling things going on, losing perspective of all the good things going on as well doesn't really accomplish much. This certainly doesn't mean that I am saying we should ignore the troubling things. But, I am saying that in a wider perspective, mankind on the whole is progressing at a fairly incredible rate."

 

Thus my strong impression that, indeed, whatever you really mean, the upshot of your comments is that "Too-open-minded" 's concerns are exaggerated because they supposedly lack perspective---a perspective by which, we have on your authority, "that mankind on the whole is progressing at a fairly incredible rate."

 

On such a perspective, I cannot recommend strongly enough Daniel Kahneman's recent Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011). There, see his discussion of the common reasoning error which he describes as "WYSIATI", or "What You See Is All There Is". For Taleb (2007) this fallacy is that of the "drowned sailors,"--whose contrary evidence never reach us because the witnesses were lost at sea.

 

General optimism is a character trait that may be more due to our nature than to our nurture, though I do not deny that both are factors. Some people have optimism in abundance. Others, who don't, cannot simply adopt it, put it on like so much clothing. We need both clear-eyed optimism and clear-eyed pessimism when and where they are warranted by facts.

 

In sum, your replies amount to inviting Too-Open-Minded to join you in your optimism mainly, or solely, it seems, because for you, the picture is not as gloomy as T-O-M paints it.

 

I, too, see mankind progressing at a fairly incredible rate. But for me, more than not, the "progress" is toward mankind's self-inflicted destruction.

 

We could despair in that, or, we could take T-O-M 's concerns as spurs for greater, more coordinated, public action.

[Moontanman]

Right now to me, our fate is looking very dim.

 

We have a population on 9 billion people with large parts of the world becoming industrialized.

 

It was only about 200 years ago the the estimated population reached one billion, It has been going up an an accelerating rate ever sense.

 

I don't know about you but the garbage I don't recycle gets thrown away and I do throw away a little bit every day.

 

Theirs pollution not only in what is being thrown away but also in what is byproducts of manufacturing the very things that are thrown away.

 

All the cars driving around may not be hurting the elements in our atmosphere but we are diluting the normal consistency of our atmosphere with carbon emissions.

 

Going green is hard, were so dependent on oil and all the jobs that go into making the world go around can't just stop because we want to go green.

 

 

 

Personally I don't think were going to make it off this planet. I don't think its going to be in my lifetime but I do think the human race is going to kill itself.

 

I see some correlations in economics that scare me. The food industry is bad for our health which makes money for the medical industry. Profit is privatized, most the money goes to a few select people. Its correlations in economics like this that make me think their could be an "Illuminati." If their is, their either living the time of their life with no regard towards the survival of our species. Or their making all the profit they can before stuff hits the fan.

 

It looks to me like stuff is going to hit the fan. Whether its intentional or not is what i'm wondering.

 

 

I have to ask, what do you think the fate of the human race should be? Extinction is inevitable, all species become extinct over time, the real question is will we leave descendants or does the human linage end here?

 

I agree we need to establish our selves off world if for no other reason so that we can avoid the type of disasters that ended the reign of the dinosaurs but I think this is bad comparison, we have technology, as far as we know no species of dinosaur had technology.

 

I have been alive for 57 years, I grew up in the "sticks" of WVa, I go back now and the areas that were fields and forests are now housing developments and factories, it seems very sad but to the people who live there now it is home and looks the way it should look.

 

Doomsayers have been around along time, will things change, oh yes, drastically in some places, most of the people who predict gloom and doom seem to be trying to scare the 1st world nations but it will probably be the 3rd world that will suffer the most. That might seem harsh but it would seem to be true for the most part from what I've seen. The 3rd world will lack the technology and will suffer the most from over population. I honestly don't see the 1st world allowing their standard of living to drop drastically to raise up the standard of living in the 3rd world.

 

I honestly think technology will if not save us then help greatly in the struggle to keep humanity going, the real test will be when fossil fuels run out. it might force us to use renewable energy or to use nuclear energy more wisely but I think we will survive it.

 

I don't see us playing out some post apocalyptic novel in the foreseeable future but even if civilization does fall it doesn't mean humanity will become extinct, civilizations have fallen in the past but with a bit of luck ours will continue to evolve to meet the changing circumstances and instead of falling will adapt...

 

Adapting might mean mining what we call trash dumps for recyclable materials or even digging up septic systems for fertilizers but we can adapt.

 

I agree that population would seem to be a big problem now but that could and probably will change...

[iNow]

In the meantime, I'm going to queue up my DVR to record Blade Runner, Children of Men, Mad Max, Total Recall, 1984, Soylent Green, Omega Man, and Idiocracy.

[proximity1]

I have to ask, what do you think the fate of the human race should be? Extinction is inevitable, all species become extinct over time, the real question is will we leave descendants or does the human linage end here?

 

I agree we need to establish our selves off world if for no other reason so that we can avoid the type of disasters that ended the reign of the dinosaurs but I think this is bad comparison, we have technology, as far as we know no species of dinosaur had technology.

 

I have been alive for 57 years, I grew up in the "sticks" of WVa, I go back now and the areas that were fields and forests are now housing developments and factories, it seems very sad but to the people who live there now it is home and looks the way it should look.

 

Doomsayers have been around along time, will things change, oh yes, drastically in some places, most of the people who predict gloom and doom seem to be trying to scare the 1st world nations but it will probably be the 3rd world that will suffer the most. That might seem harsh but it would seem to be true for the most part from what I've seen. The 3rd world will lack the technology and will suffer the most from over population. I honestly don't see the 1st world allowing their standard of living to drop drastically to raise up the standard of living in the 3rd world.

 

I honestly think technology will if not save us then help greatly in the struggle to keep humanity going, the real test will be when fossil fuels run out. it might force us to use renewable energy or to use nuclear energy more wisely but I think we will survive it.

 

I don't see us playing out some post apocalyptic novel in the foreseeable future but even if civilization does fall it doesn't mean humanity will become extinct, civilizations have fallen in the past but with a bit of luck ours will continue to evolve to meet the changing circumstances and instead of falling will adapt...

 

Adapting might mean mining what we call trash dumps for recyclable materials or even digging up septic systems for fertilizers but we can adapt.

 

I agree that population would seem to be a big problem now but that could and probably will change...

 

 

I think extinction means, by definition, doesn't it?, "No descendants." If "we"--i.e. human-kind--leave descendants, then "we" haven't become extinct, have we?

 

RE: "I honestly think technology will if not save us then help greatly in the struggle to keep humanity going, the real test will be when fossil fuels run out. it might force us to use renewable energy or to use nuclear energy more wisely but I think we will survive it. "

 

I ask: Have you ever read Neil Postman's Technopoly ? If not, then I recommend that you try it for what it has to tell you about the effectiveness of trying to solve every technologically-based problem by resorting to still more technology---which is the current general manner of dealing with these things.

 

There are some citations from Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology which I patiently typed up and posted (though I no longer recommend or participate at the site for its social networking, discussion, purposes because I came to the conclusion that interesting discussions are out of the question there. Still, for the two links, it remains useful. Scroll down the page more than half way to find the book's excerpts.

 

and, at this link, I've compiled an entire reading list which I called, "A Reading Course in 'Technology and Society' - main text

[Moontanman]

In the meantime, I'm going to queue up my DVR to record Blade Runner, Children of Men, Mad Max, Total Recall, 1984, Soylent Green, Omega Man, and Idiocracy.

 

 

I love post apocalyptic novels..

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_Road_(novel)

 

My absolute favorite post apocalyptic is Hiero's Journey and the sequel The Unforsaken Hiero, sadly the author died before he could write the third novel and left me forever wondering what would happen next...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterling_E._Lanier

[Bignose]

On such a perspective, I cannot recommend strongly enough Daniel Kahneman's recent Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011). There, see his discussion of the common reasoning error which he describes as "WYSIATI", or "What You See Is All There Is". For Taleb (2007) this fallacy is that of the "drowned sailors,"--whose contrary evidence never reach us because the witnesses were lost at sea.

 

So, you assume I have no wider perspective? Isn't this ALSO the exact same error you are accusing me of, just the reverse? That is, you don't what I base my statement on, so you just assume that I don't have a wider perspective?

 

First and foremost, I backed up my statement with 3 wider-perspective statements. E.g. the information sharing age is finally bearing fruit, the amazing yields that crops have today relative to their yields of not that long ago, and the future of green energy.

 

Secondly, (and this is stuff you wouldn't know unless you asked) I try my best to be knowledgeable about a wider world, and try my best to keep a broad perspective. I am not going to say I am perfect at it -- I do have a full time job and other responsibilities -- but I do try.

 

And to that point, I will counter your citations with Gregg Easterbrook's book The Progress Paradox. In it, he makes an awfully compelling case as to how much better off people on the whole are. In particular, he focuses on America and why as a people we report being more unhappy than ever yet we have much, much more of the things that supposedly make us happy. He points out that we have more cars, larger homes, more college education, and overall (ooops, that's that word again) a much better life than any generation before us. Yet, we are more unhappy than ever. Easterbrook's main thesis of the book is that we as a people need to realize that there is much more than material goods needed to be happy and content with life -- i.e. you can't ignore the spiritual side of happiness. But, I can also use the book as a citation for evidence that in terms of living-well, the population as a whole is moving in the right direction.

 

And then every other financial report coming out of China seems like is mentions their "growing middle class". Those people aren't leaving the upper class to become middle class -- they are moving from the poor to the middle class. And while I guess I don't know the exact details of how many homes and cars their new middle class own, I'm guessing it more than it was. And the same thing is happening in the other BRIC countries, too. That's Brazil, Russia, and India. They are also creating new middle classes based upon the rapid development in their countries.

 

So, I don't know. Maybe I don't have enough perspective -- I will 100% agree that I could always use more.

 

But I also don't think I just threw my comments out there without any perspective of a drowning man.

 

If anything, I think that the pessimism shown demonstrates a lack of perspective of the average member of the 7 billion. Because while here in America I would agree that on average our middle and lower classes are stalled or maybe even slipping backward a little -- on a global perspective things are getting much better for the average member.

 

We could despair in that, or, we could take T-O-M 's concerns as spurs for greater, more coordinated, public action.

 

Ok, I'll bite. So far, there have only been cries about things going wrong.

 

What specific actions should we take? What should be rally around? All I see is a listing of his perceived problems, not actual solutions.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Bignose

[Moontanman]

I think extinction means, by definition, doesn't it?, "No descendants." If "we"--i.e. human-kind--leave descendants, then "we" haven't become extinct, have we?

 

In a very real sense we are the descendants of Homo erectus, it's unlikely that homo sapiens will be here 10 million years in the future but some other species with us as it's ancestor might be.

 

RE: "I honestly think technology will if not save us then help greatly in the struggle to keep humanity going, the real test will be when fossil fuels run out. it might force us to use renewable energy or to use nuclear energy more wisely but I think we will survive it. "

 

I ask: Have you ever read Neil Postman's Technopoly ? If not, then I recommend that you try it for what it has to tell you about the effectiveness of trying to solve every technologically-based problem by resorting to still more technology---which is the current general manner of dealing with these things.

 

There are some citations from Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology which I patiently typed up and posted (though I no longer recommend or participate at the site for its social networking, discussion, purposes because I came to the conclusion that interesting discussions are out of the question there. Still, for the two links, it remains useful. Scroll down the page more than half way to find the book's excerpts.

 

and, at this link, I've compiled an entire reading list which I called, "A Reading Course in 'Technology and Society' - main text

 

 

Could you discuss with out me having to join another site to read your text?

[proximity1]

In a very real sense we are the descendants of Homo erectus, it's unlikely that homo sapiens will be here 10 million years in the future but some other species with us as it's ancestor might be.

 

 

 

 

Could you discuss with out me having to join another site to read your text?

 

 

You don't have to join the site to see the content. And, of course, we can discuss anything. And if you aren't familiar with the background, how useful, interesting, is the discussion going to be?

 

Yes, of course, there's no argument about our ancestors--Homo erectus and others. But, I don't see the point then about "we": you're defining "we" as some present species and, anything succeeding "us" is "something else"--is that it?

[iNow]

The point is, please summarize it here.

[proximity1]

So, you assume I have no wider perspective? Isn't this ALSO the exact same error you are accusing me of, just the reverse? That is, you don't what I base my statement on, so you just assume that I don't have a wider perspective?

 

First and foremost, I backed up my statement with 3 wider-perspective statements. E.g. the information sharing age is finally bearing fruit, the amazing yields that crops have today relative to their yields of not that long ago, and the future of green energy.

 

Secondly, (and this is stuff you wouldn't know unless you asked) I try my best to be knowledgeable about a wider world, and try my best to keep a broad perspective. I am not going to say I am perfect at it -- I do have a full time job and other responsibilities -- but I do try.

 

If anything, I think that the pessimism shown demonstrates a lack of perspective of the average member of the 7 billion. Because while here in America I would agree that on average our middle and lower classes are stalled or maybe even slipping backward a little -- on a global perspective things are getting much better for the average member.

 

... ... ...

 

Ok, I'll bite. So far, there have only been cries about things going wrong.

 

What specific actions should we take? What should be rally around? All I see is a listing of his perceived problems, not actual solutions.

 

 

Whatever your perspective is, all I have to go on is the meager acquaintance I have with what is in your posts--in this case, the posts in this thread. I didn't see anyone apologize about making undue assumptions about Too-Open-Minded's perspective; on the other hand, instead, he was expressly invited to enlarge it.

 

I think it's easy to assume offense where none is intended. How about we re-boot without the "So, you assume I have no wider perspective?"

 

The reading suggestions are not necessarily intended to be adopted immediately, without further delay. They're for future reference; and that is how I (gratefully) accept yours, in the case of the Progress Paradox. I'm always interested in finding a new good source for information that I don't already have, and esp. when the topic interests me and this one does very much. No more than a tiny minority of the Chinese could ever know even a very modest level of the material wealth that has been common in the industrial West over the past 60 years. The population figures tell us that the Earth's resources won't ever even begin to stretch that far. So, as a beacon and a place to take spectator comfort in others' progress, while relatively, ours declines, some of the Chinese, yes, will "prosper" by the usual standards and measures of the West's privileged elite. But, the vast majority, whether they know it or not, simply cannot and will not. That's not necessarily a value judgement, though it could be that, too. It's a recognition of the planet's material limits being reached in our lifetimes.

 

Too-Open-Minded's not so very optimistic views on these points have received the usual reception that this sort of view gets.

 

Unless people, and lots of them, start to take a more open-minded view of the kinds of opinions that T-O-M has posted here, (and, please, that doesn't have to mean you, first, foremost and personally, Okay? You asked "What specific actions should we take? What should be rally around?" and this is addressed to that generally.) then prospects for change will remain far-fetched. But, the material constraints won't remain static. They'll worsen and force on people a recognition that current trends are not going to be able to be sustained and that, just as important, if not more so, that technology saving us through ever-more wonderful inventions is an illusion, too.

 

So I'd suggest that as a starting place: a change of attitudes, which, whether we like it or not, will be forced on us if we don't adopt them voluntarily.

Edited September 9, 2012 by proximity1

[iNow]

No more than a tiny minority of the Chinese could ever know even a very modest level of the material wealth that has been common in the industrial West over the past 60 years.

This is a fairly hollow assertion that serves as the foundation of your entire point. Can you please support it with anything more than hot air?

 

 

...some of the Chinese, yes, will "prosper" by the usual standards and measures of the West's privileged elite. But, the vast majority, whether they know it or not, simply cannot and will not.

Fascinating. While you continue to spout unfounded assertions, I'm going to put forward numbers that directly challenge your claims and show them to be bunk.

 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/09/05/within-a-generation-china-middle-class-four-times-larger-than-americas/

 

Within a generation, the middle class in China will be roughly four times the size of the American middle class population, according to the UN Population Division and Goldman Sachs. By 2030, China should have approximately 1.4 billion middle class consumers compared to 365 million in the U.S. and 414 million in Western Europe. India is next, with its citizens moving up the income ladder and reaching a sizeable 1.07 billion in a little under 20 years.

 

<...>

 

China’s entire population is expected to be middle class by World Bank standards in 2030.

 

 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/25/news/economy/china-middle-class/index.htm

 

[The Chinese middle class] is estimated that it's more than 300 million -- already larger than the entire population of the United States.

About 25% of the population is middle class. It's about 50% of the urban population.

 

<...>

 

The Chinese middle class may grow to 700 to 800 million, which is 50% to 60% of China's entire population. In the past, all the predictions have proven to be too conservative.

[too-open-minded]

moontanman, I think the fate of the human race shouldn't happen. I want to see our species survive forever although the best we could probably do is sustain life in our local cluster of galaxies until they burn out and dark energy has made it impossible to travel to another galaxy.

 

I really would like to see us sustain life in space, go about researching the cosmos and other planets. Looking for all the answers we don't have. Untill the day we just can't go anymore.

 

 

Whether or not the fate of our species looks gloomy right now, we need to keep a level head with a compromise on the subject.

 

The world does have many problems that don't need to be neglected. We can't pretend they aren't their and at the same time we need to stay positive because if we do lose hope, if we do start living for today instead of tomorrow. The problems i'm talking about could happen.

 

I'm not saying today, but if we don't try and change things up at a faster rate than we are right now, in the future we very well could be dealing with population control. Let's not put that on our children.

[John Cuthber]

[Bignose]

So I'd suggest that as a starting place: a change of attitudes, which, whether we like it or not, will be forced on us if we don't adopt them voluntarily.

 

Suggest some concrete, well-reasoned ideas and my bet is that attitudes will be swayed by those good ideas. So, do you have any?

[too-open-minded]

Yeah I got an idea, its called the theory of evolution. Lets try getting people to accept it. Hey nuclear fission is a pretty cool idea, lets try getting people to be more comfortable with it.

 

Things are changing but very slowly, if they don't happen faster stuff could hit the fan. That's my point. People get annoyed because I point out some very dark things. I get annoyed because most pretend like they could never happen.

 

 

 

 

If the world was in the palm of my hand, if I was making decisions. I would turn the educational system on its head, investing the most into the education and mental development of our youth. I would open new departments of research and labor so when we tried to make the transition to cleaner energy, people wouldn't go without a job. I would find the best field in science for me and pursue it to the fullest so I could make steps for humanity.

 

Although this is why I feel like I might be better off just moving to Sweden, like iNow said about the self fulfilling prophecy. I don't want my ideals to screw up and put us in a worse position than we are now. I don't really know what to do, I have some ideas that might work but maybe's don't work well when dealing with something this big. It's not really worth it.

 

 

What about you bignose? Do you have any ideas on how the world could be a better place?

[proximity1]

Suggest some concrete, well-reasoned ideas and my bet is that attitudes will be swayed by those good ideas. So, do you have any?

 

If I recall your profile correctly, you are a mathematician. Very well : If "well-reasoned ideas" -------> "attitudes will be (positively) swayed by those" ?

 

Here's one, for example: Please reconsider the premise-conclusion just above for its validity in the real world.

 

Now, we have an actual experimental test of this assertion of yours.

 

Let's observe the results---i.e. the "swaying" that should soon occur.

[Bignose]

proximity1, I apologize if I've offended you in any way. But I don't quite understand the response above. My point is that while it is easy to point out problems and cry "woe is us", it is much harder to actually think of solutions to fix problems. That is, it is easy to point out things that are wrong, but much more meaningful to point out good solutions. I am sorry to say, but in the work force, we call those people "howler monkeys" because they like to sit there an hoot and howl and make a lot of noise, but don't actually help solve anything.

 

So, let's start over, start clean:

 

I agree that there are some possibilities for some very negative consequences in the future. While I don't quite agree with how negative some of the posts have been, again, I do agree that there are distinct possibilities of negative consequences.

 

I, of course, would prefer to minimize these possibilities as much as possible. What concrete suggestions do you have for minimizing these possibilities?