The hard-to-face truths
-
Originally posted by crimson soldier:
true, technology can save us. but it might kill us along the way too.
are you living or dying as each seconds roll by?
some things cannot be escaped; a benefit here will always be a cost there.
-
Originally posted by vulpes macrotis mutica:
your problem of depletion of resources ->> the same way thomas malthus predicted that since food increases at an arithmetic rate and population growth increases at a geometric rate, the world will starve itself to death (n.b this was in the 18th century)
your problem of world hungry ->> maybe you haven't heard of the green revolution, but it's introduction to developing countries have help elevated part of the problem
your problem of climate change ->> climate change remains a very dismal science and there's a lot of conflicting evidences. as such it wouldn't validate your statement as it being a very very serious problem at least until it can be proven without a doubt that climate change is really really a bad thing
the underlying point is that technology is, and can be improved, to solve, if not elevate, these major problems that worries you. at the end of the day, a benefit here is a cost there so think about what you'd be willing to give up if you really want to save the world.
like i said in the first post, scientific advancement should be a pillar of humankind. I agree with you that technology is key.
depletion of resources obviously refers to things like oil and gas and coal. as for climate change and if you dont believe that regardless of the green revolution 750 million go to bed malnourished or starving, then we are obviously not using the same platform
thanks for bringing up the malthusian theory. do you suggest that some problems are thus "self-correcting"?
-
Originally posted by vulpes macrotis mutica:
are you living or dying as each seconds roll by?
some things cannot be escaped; a benefit here will always be a cost there.
was referring to the double edge of technology -_-"
invent the ship and the battleship comes along. the wrights build a plane and now we have bombers that can take out entire small countries like ourselves
as for nuclear power...lets not go into thatso we are on the same page lah. isn't ur point the same as mine, that technology is useful but has a 'cost'?
-
Originally posted by crimson soldier:
like i said in the first post, scientific advancement should be a pillar of humankind. I agree with you that technology is key.
depletion of resources obviously refers to things like oil and gas and coal. as for climate change and if you dont believe that regardless of the green revolution 750 million go to bed malnourished or starving, then we are obviously not using the same platform
thanks for bringing up the malthusian theory. do you suggest that some problems are thus "self-correcting"?
which is exactly the point; technology can overcome diminishing marginal returns of natural resources; like you said in your previous post, cold fusion tech.
starvation to death in itself is self-correcting isn't it?
people bitched over exporting pollution creating industries to 3rd world countries; why should they when the exporters are willing to pay the possible price of unemployment and importers are willing to pay the price of having bad air? with these industries the 3rd world countries will experience growth and wouldn't that push your stated amount of people nearer to, or above the poverty line?
i frankly don't see any problems in terms of efficiency, but clearly a problem with equity since everything thinks their views are morally superior; however since "morals" are debatable, that leaves the argument open for endless streams of points of view with which i frankly am not interested in.
-
Originally posted by crimson soldier:
was referring to the double edge of technology -_-"
invent the ship and the battleship comes along. the wrights build a plane and now we have bombers that can take out entire small countries like ourselves
as for nuclear power...lets not go into
thatso we are on the same page lah. isn't ur point the same as mine, that technology is useful but has a 'cost'?
perhaps we are on the same page, but somehow i don't see the problems as being major problems the way you see it.
let's just leave it at that
-
Originally posted by vulpes macrotis mutica:
which is exactly the point; technology can overcome diminishing marginal returns of natural resources; like you said in your previous post, cold fusion tech.
starvation to death in itself is self-correcting isn't it?
people bitched over exporting pollution creating industries to 3rd world countries; why should they when the exporters are willing to pay the possible price of unemployment and importers are willing to pay the price of having bad air? with these industries the 3rd world countries will experience growth and wouldn't that push your stated amount of people nearer to, or above the poverty line?
i frankly don't see any problems in terms of efficiency, but clearly a problem with equity since everything thinks their views are morally superior; however since "morals" are debatable, that leaves the argument open for endless streams of points of view with which i frankly am not interested in.
Nature is self-correcting and resilient. like bikini atoll which was the test site for many american nuclear bombs has regained 70% of its coral reefs and marine life which were initially wiped out.
you may suggest that one of the problems i suggested (hunger) totally corrects another (population explosion). but hey, not that simple. damage already done. let me explain:
You may not believe in climate change, so pardon me. It did not happen overnight. was the result of two centuries of industrial revolution. by the time we decide to do something about it ( which is not even now cos some people dont believe that its bad or believe its a myth), it will be strong enough to cause a "runaway" effect.
other examples are, like u mentioned, exporting pollution to 3rd world countries where they aren't handled properly ( bad air??). the benefit to the exporter and importer seems obvious for the moment, but quid pro quo, life will bite our children back where it hurts
back to the context of population, we dont say that overfishing cures itself (overfishing -> less fish -> less fishing -> overfishing cures itself? no! extinction!).
by the time hunger actually kicks in on the global scale to actually regulate or reduce the overall growth rate to negative, earth and humankind will be on breaking point already.
quote you something from my mathematical modelling notes:
"so the mere fact that fish numbers are declining is not a danger signal in itself. In fact, until you get to the point of inflection, the graph might fool you into thinking that the population will settle down eventually to some non-zero asymptotic value! ......paradoxically at first overfishing may seem to benefit the fish!! But not for long!"
ok a long winded path to say that self correction isn't simple haha
-
Originally posted by crimson soldier:
Nature is self-correcting and resilient. like bikini atoll which was the test site for many american nuclear bombs has regained 70% of its coral reefs and marine life which were initially wiped out.
you may suggest that one of the problems i suggested (hunger) totally corrects another (population explosion). but hey, not that simple. damage already done. let me explain:
You may not believe in climate change, so pardon me. It did not happen overnight. was the result of two centuries of industrial revolution. by the time we decide to do something about it ( which is not even now cos some people dont believe that its bad or believe its a myth), it will be strong enough to cause a "runaway" effect.
other examples are, like u mentioned, exporting pollution to 3rd world countries where they aren't handled properly ( bad air??). the benefit to the exporter and importer seems obvious for the moment, but quid pro quo, life will bite our children back where it hurts
back to the context of population, we dont say that overfishing cures itself (overfishing -> less fish -> less fishing -> overfishing cures itself? no! extinction!).
by the time hunger actually kicks in on the global scale to actually regulate or reduce the overall growth rate to negative, earth and humankind will be on breaking point already.
quote you something from my mathematical modelling notes:
"so the mere fact that fish numbers are declining is not a danger signal in itself. In fact, until you get to the point of inflection, the graph might fool you into thinking that the population will settle down eventually to some non-zero asymptotic value! ......paradoxically at first overfishing may seem to benefit the fish!! But not for long!"
ok a long winded path to say that self correction isn't simple haha
and neither does it say that self-correction isn't happening q:
unless of course you're talking about public goods (like fishing) then we have market failure all together.
actually, when i said starvation is in itself self-correcting, i was referring to hunger, not population explosion; if the hungry starve to death then wouldn't there be less, if not none, world hunger?
with reference of exporting pollution causing industries, i think it's evident that the benefits more than make up for the costs. but once you start going into the long run with "life will bite our children back where it hurts", everything starts to go sideways; assuming things don't change then yes perhaps that could happen. but it would be erroneous to assume that any one variable can remain constant in the long run.
in terms of population explosion, we can turn to technology again for answers; sure it doesn't solve all the problems but it'll elevate some of it.
as always a benefit here is a cost there and it all boils down to how much people are willing to pay to have less benefit (for less cost).
it's starting to look like a textbook war now that you quote from your math notes.
haha
-
Originally posted by vulpes macrotis mutica:
your problem of depletion of resources ->> the same way thomas malthus predicted that since food increases at an arithmetic rate and population growth increases at a geometric rate, the world will starve itself to death (n.b this was in the 18th century)
your problem of world hungry ->> maybe you haven't heard of the green revolution, but it's introduction to developing countries have help elevated part of the problem
your problem of climate change ->> climate change remains a very dismal science and there's a lot of conflicting evidences. as such it wouldn't validate your statement as it being a very very serious problem at least until it can be proven without a doubt that climate change is really really a bad thing
the underlying point is that technology is, and can be improved, to solve, if not elevate, these major problems that worries you. at the end of the day, a benefit here is a cost there so think about what you'd be willing to give up if you really want to save the world.
The problem is not whether 9 billion is the real threshold for population growth, the question is when are we going to realise the moment we hit the threshold ? Should we even wait for that threshold to be reached before we do anything about it?The Green Revolution can be viewed in two ways, yes it saved us and allowed us to expand our population twice fold (by 3billion+) or it could actually set us up for a much harder fall (7-8 billion starving compared to 3.5 billion starving)
Population growth can only be sustained through infrastructure building supported by increasing resource production. That means when we finally hit that peak resource production the progressing years are going to be filled with more and more suffering as the system struggles to support the population on even less resources.
We are NOT running out of resource per say but we are hitting a production plateau, where each new discoveries is going to cost more manpower and energy to extract.
Instead of digging 100 feet in the barren desert and oil will gush out on its own we need to build gigantic rigs to tow over to established oil reserves in the deep sea to extract. Instead of digging on exposed coal seams we have to dig gigantic holes in the ground to get it.
THAT is the problem. Energy is only a small factor in the whole equation of the human population problem. We still need mineral resources/wood to build our infrastructures, petroleum is still needed for chemical processes even if we don't use it for energy.
There's a very good reason why countries like China have to resort to draconian population control, even India and Pakistan is already trying to curb their population growth and Bagladash is already having a lot of social problems with their population growth.
Any new technology we developed now to delay the core problem would be harder and harder to implement because of the huge population involved and the increasingly shrinking pool of technicans capable of implement the complex infrastructure capable of supporting that technology.
The point is when we DO hit the limit, immense suffering would follow almost immediately. Are we going to wait till then before we start regretting it or start doing something now?
-
Nice point stevenson...the higher it goes the harder and steeper its fall.
I think I have lost my train of thought somewhere already...
-
THis day and age we are burdened with so many problems never before dreamed of that i'm convinced that we are doomed!! DOOMED!!!
Might as well just enjoy life while it lasts
-
Originally posted by ulquiorra87:
THis day and age we are burdened with so many problems never before dreamed of that i'm convinced that we are doomed!! DOOMED!!!
Might as well just enjoy life while it lasts
true. hedonism, anybody?
-
Originally posted by crimson soldier:
true. hedonism, anybody?
Problem is our brains are never built to be satisfied. Each "high" we obtain from getting something diminished as we obtain the same reward from the same task. Someone who wons the lottery will rarely be able to go back to the once per month salary lifestyle.I would argue that hedonism lays at the core of the problem.
-
FOr all guys above, dun worry so much, the world works naturally to adjust itself, be it another ice age, sandstorm, big floods or earthquake, evolution still goes on, and living things will go on seeking pleasure in life, and to do that, they will try their best to taper off the saddness. So, in the meantime, forget about those sad things, kick off those worries, put a smile on your face truthfully and life will be better. For who knows what the next second bring, be kind to your mind.
-
Yep angel concluded the discussion well
-
huh ?? Such a big topic and to be concluded within 2 pages post.
That is hard to face for me .... hahaha
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
FOr all guys above, dun worry so much, the world works naturally to adjust itself, be it another ice age, sandstorm, big floods or earthquake, evolution still goes on, and living things will go on seeking pleasure in life, and to do that, they will try their best to taper off the saddness. So, in the meantime, forget about those sad things, kick off those worries, put a smile on your face truthfully and life will be better. For who knows what the next second bring, be kind to your mind.
What a fatalistic mindset which totally deludes my mind .... I guess its because you do not care thats all .....
-
Originally posted by Ice Dive:
What a fatalistic mindset which totally deludes my mind .... I guess its because you do not care thats all .....
I do like what she said..
Sometime succumbing to fate isn't a bad thing. Acceptance brings strength that in turn effect some changes life but of course, one has to ascertain whether can something good be done or not before one surrender?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
The problem is not whether 9 billion is the real threshold for population growth, the question is when are we going to realise the moment we hit the threshold ? Should we even wait for that threshold to be reached before we do anything about it?The Green Revolution can be viewed in two ways, yes it saved us and allowed us to expand our population twice fold (by 3billion+) or it could actually set us up for a much harder fall (7-8 billion starving compared to 3.5 billion starving)
Population growth can only be sustained through infrastructure building supported by increasing resource production. That means when we finally hit that peak resource production the progressing years are going to be filled with more and more suffering as the system struggles to support the population on even less resources.
We are NOT running out of resource per say but we are hitting a production plateau, where each new discoveries is going to cost more manpower and energy to extract.
Instead of digging 100 feet in the barren desert and oil will gush out on its own we need to build gigantic rigs to tow over to established oil reserves in the deep sea to extract. Instead of digging on exposed coal seams we have to dig gigantic holes in the ground to get it.
THAT is the problem. Energy is only a small factor in the whole equation of the human population problem. We still need mineral resources/wood to build our infrastructures, petroleum is still needed for chemical processes even if we don't use it for energy.
There's a very good reason why countries like China have to resort to draconian population control, even India and Pakistan is already trying to curb their population growth and Bagladash is already having a lot of social problems with their population growth.
Any new technology we developed now to delay the core problem would be harder and harder to implement because of the huge population involved and the increasingly shrinking pool of technicans capable of implement the complex infrastructure capable of supporting that technology.
The point is when we DO hit the limit, immense suffering would follow almost immediately. Are we going to wait till then before we start regretting it or start doing something now?
Resources are limited while world population are bulging. Technology can help recycle resources for human usage for instances but technology still has limitation. The over-population can be solved through implementing policies and using technology such as allocation of human population to other planet's settlement and implementing world-wide population control.
The majority of the population issues are largely concentrated in certain parts of world. I do think one can adminstrate population control in certain parts of the world properly.
In other developing and war-torn countries, i'm not too sure if they are currently facing a major over-population issues.
-
Originally posted by crimson soldier:
In the history of humankind, man has always been divided along 3 major lines.
1) Wealth and Status
2) Political systems and States
3) Race and Religion
1) Wealth and Status.
Clear examples would be caste systems ( aristocrats > clergy > commoners etc), exclusive institutions (private health care, expensive schools, clubs), social groups (millionaires, socialites, car-owners, elites in SG etc).
2) Political Systems and States
This is easy to see. We have communists, socialists, republicans, democrats, libertarians, etc. We have Russians, Chinese, Iraqis, Armenians, New Zealands, etc. Results in things like Cold War, Vietnam War, Korean War; where opposing parties are socially, culturally and historically similar but separated by "countries" or "political systems"
I'm looking at the most prevailing system of our era -- the economy system which is also inherently flaw. Most people are driven and stressed up by the economy system. People can be bombarded by suggestive advertisment on TV/radio/magazine to buy a certain product on the TVs that promise youth, happiness, beauty and statue. The more one consume, the more one has to earn an up keep or look for another sources of income to uphold their living.
-
Originally posted by Ice Dive:
What a fatalistic mindset which totally deludes my mind .... I guess its because you do not care thats all .....
It's hardly a mindset that's limited to just her. We all wish the world can keep changing but never affect Singapore in anyway that we can see and feel. As long as the status quo is maintained, the world can burn.I'd say LKY did too good a job that Singaporeans never had to face any major crisis(SARS don't really count, frankly) and really i doubt most of us (including me) could really handle any major changes in our immediate environment (maybe men can do it better, considering we experienced NS).
I wonder how many citizens in other countries would find the ERP a major issue.
I really find the things we worry about in Singapore laughable compared to the problems that would face the world if there are no mindset changes.
-
Originally posted by Vaum:
Resources are limited while world population are bulging. Technology can help recycle resources for human usage for instances but technology still has limitation. The over-population can be solved through implementing policies and using technology such as allocation of human population to other planet's settlement and implementing world-wide population control.
The majority of the population issues are largely concentrated in certain parts of world. I do think one can adminstrate population control in certain parts of the world properly.
In other developing and war-torn countries, i'm not too sure if they are currently facing a major over-population issues.
Problem is recycling is hardly a 100% exchange. I won't get the 100% of metal/paper/rubber back from recycling. So it just delays the problem, but not really a world changing one.
The problem i think is increased consumption. We blame the media/PAP/Satan for always being unsatisfied with what we have but it is a biological need rather than a spiritual one. Happiness is how the brain rewards us when we fulfill the evolutionary imperative to breed and multiply (By getting better physical assets, better clothes, cash, plastic surgery to attract mates).
The solution to the resource constraint problem is a multi faceted one. There is no single magical solution. Population control alone is too slow and negliable if the 1st World does not learn to reduce our consumption rate. America alone consumes 4 times the energy, 3 times the water, twice the rubbish than the worldwide average.
The problem is how much the 1st World is consuming, not how much the growing population in the 3rd World is consuming. But as the 3rd world population increases, their governments would have no choice but to either
1)starve their population
2) keep the products to feed their own
Now we know why the Americans favour corrupted regimes and overthrow nationalist/socialist ones. But we, even in Singapore support this indirectly through our love for cheap products.
Even space colonization to obtain resources is going to be impossible considering the amount you need to put into keep a huge population happy enough not to attempt any uprising.
Building an infrastructure on Earth to support one million is easy but supporting one in orbit or on the moon is going to harder due to water and air constraints (And in direct relation - food)
-
Originally posted by Ice Dive:
What a fatalistic mindset which totally deludes my mind .... I guess its because you do not care thats all .....
Ice Dive, the issues that i pointed out in the first page require either all of men to work together to solve...or can never be solved. The first option is out obviously.
So therefore..
-
Originally posted by Ice Dive:
What a fatalistic mindset which totally deludes my mind .... I guess its because you do not care thats all .....
who said i dun care, sure i care, i joined care and share programme to take care of older peoples and orphanage and even Aids patients. I care for my town, my family, my country and of course my looks, body and way of life.The problem with you is all you care is your postings and your winning and whining mentality, but then, what hv you won so far, nothing, and if think that industrial exporting is polluting our eniviroment, please switch off yr computer, lights and even cut of those water, you are simply knocking yourself.
If you really want to care, Let do something that achieveable, i will support you. By argueing here till the cow come home is not going to move a single atom.
-
Originally posted by Vaum:
I'm looking at the most prevailing system of our era -- the economy system which is also inherently flaw. Most people are driven and stressed up by the economy system. People can be bombarded by suggestive advertisment on TV/radio/magazine to buy a certain product on the TVs that promise youth, happiness, beauty and statue. The more one consume, the more one has to earn an up keep or look for another sources of income to uphold their living.
Well, that is how the economy get churned, you want stagnatisation, migrate to North Korea. Spend and earn is the way the world had evolved since early men times, for them is hungry and hunt, the more they are able to hunt, the more the women like him and the more he will be the chief. Same here, the more your earning power, the more women will come to you, including me, and the more powerful you are, and most importantly, when you talks, thousands if not millions listen. People like you talks, only I listen.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
who said i dun care, sure i care, i joined care and share programme to take care of older peoples and orphanage and even Aids patients. I care for my town, my family, my country and of course my looks, body and way of life.The problem with you is all you care is your postings and your winning and whining mentality, but then, what hv you won so far, nothing, and if think that industrial exporting is polluting our eniviroment, please switch off yr computer, lights and even cut of those water, you are simply knocking yourself.
If you really want to care, Let do something that achieveable, i will support you. By argueing here till the cow come home is not going to move a single atom.
Actually yes, switching off your electrical appliances and running water sources as much as you can is always good. Even if you dont believe in conservation the reduced utilities bill would be a plus.
Other things I do are stick to a vegetarian diet as much as I can (got sold on this in army when the vegetarian food at the cookhouse beats the normal chinese : p) and cut down on my driving about 90% from the period that I just got the license. probably only once a month now.
But I pretty much cut the line there. Not gonna form some green awareness group or whatever. But sometimes fantasize about joining greenpeace and doing dumb things like sneaking onboard whalers and shark hunters ships and sabotaging them in my wild dreams.
Ice Dive isn't whining anyway. No need to be hard on him