Why humanity is fucked

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Civilization isn't a disease or a common mental illness. We're terrible at sustainability, sure, but how long has "sustainability" even been a word in that sense? With 200,000 years of Human evolution (and that's just the current version we're running on), I think we're gaining ecological savvy pretty quickly, all things considered.

Personally, being that I'm addicted to science fiction, I don't think the answer is going back to living in huts and dying from malaria. I also don't think the answer is population reduction to where we can live like we do now, "sustainably." I think the answer is better technology, better energy sources, better construction materials and techniques, and eventually technology for terraforming and colonizing other planets.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Civilization isn't a disease or a common mental illness. We're terrible at sustainability, sure, but how long has "sustainability" even been a word in that sense? With 200,000 years of Human evolution (and that's just the current version we're running on), I think we're gaining ecological savvy pretty quickly, all things considered.

Personally, being that I'm addicted to science fiction, I don't think the answer is going back to living in huts and dying from malaria. I also don't think the answer is population reduction to where we can live like we do now, "sustainably." I think the answer is better technology, better energy sources, better construction materials and techniques, and eventually technology for terraforming and colonizing other planets.

Couldn't agree more but with the caveat that one of the main things that needs addressed is a fundamental shift in basic human nature. Our brains are still too overloaded with the grabby-bananas meme.

Its the prevalence of this meme that makes me doubt we have the time to develop all the other stuff.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

For everyone to live as a middle class American (when such things existed) the carrying capacity is about 2 billion, yes.

If everyone only consumed enough to live on, the carrying capacity would be 40 billion.  Alternatively, if everyone lived as hunter-gatherers, the carrying capacity would be about 100 million.

There's a lot of flexibility, depending on the lifestyle one is willing to lead.

40 Bn sustainably?

Even if you COULD do it, I can't imagine the misery.  A behavioral sink the size of a planet.  Ugh.

2 billion is plenty, if you can get there with population control instead of population "reduction".

Anyone taking bets? 

Yes.  Everyone is, whether or not they know it.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Couldn't agree more but with the caveat that one of the main things that needs addressed is a fundamental shift in basic human nature. Our brains are still too overloaded with the grabby-bananas meme.

Its the prevalence of this meme that makes me doubt we have the time to develop all the other stuff.

That's why Communism doesn't work. It's trying to shortcut to Utopia. Besides the fact that Utopia is bullshit and will always be bullshit, Communism fails because it ignores the grabby-banana meme. Capitalism works better because it embraces it. Unfortunately Capitalism also means lots of people get fucked.

I think there's hope for the future, not because humans in general are smart enough to see past the next meal, but because we are capable of building institutions that force us to think farther ahead. Also, the rate of technological advance is still accelerating, so it might not take as much time as we think it will to get to where we need to be.

We fuck the environment and ecosystem of every area we inhabit, but not intentionally. It's just that we don't give any fucks about the consequences of what we do. The hope isn't that we will suddenly start giving a fuck (we won't, don't ever count on it) but that we will invent new tools and techniques that make not fucking the ecosystem easier than fucking it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm with ya 100% It's totally catch-22. Vaccines and hospitals save our lives. At the same time they are destroying our immune systems.

My immune system is totally compromised when it comes to small pox.  Good thing there isn't any smallpox.



TGRR,
Shots wore off long, long ago.

They're not destroying our immune systems, they're breeding grounds for super-strong bacteria, just as high-density, high-population centers are breeding grounds for epidemics.

I thought vaccines were for viruses. 

The problem with bacteria is over use and improper use of antibiotics (not taking the whole run, etc).  Also, those stupid anti-microbe hand soaps that "kill 99% of germs"...Meaning you get the buff fucking 1% that slap your face and call you Susan.  Regular soap washes the microbes off, it doesn't create superbugs.

Hospitals and medical tech = breeding ground for super-bacteria (MRSA, etc.) for the reasons you've stated

Civilization = breeding ground for epidemics (for which we have devised vaccines) some of which are bacterial.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Civilization isn't a disease or a common mental illness. We're terrible at sustainability, sure, but how long has "sustainability" even been a word in that sense? With 200,000 years of Human evolution (and that's just the current version we're running on), I think we're gaining ecological savvy pretty quickly, all things considered.

Personally, being that I'm addicted to science fiction, I don't think the answer is going back to living in huts and dying from malaria. I also don't think the answer is population reduction to where we can live like we do now, "sustainably." I think the answer is better technology, better energy sources, better construction materials and techniques, and eventually technology for terraforming and colonizing other planets.

It's not going to happen. We can choose expansion or we can choose a universal high standard of living, but we can't choose both, unless we also figure out immortality, or at least hyper-prolonged life spans. The reason for this is that when you give people a high standard of living, including access to birth control, it turns out that very few women actually WANT to churn out more than a couple of babies. In fact, it turns out that many women will choose to have zero babies. For expansionism to work, the birth rate has to be high, and the only way you're going to accomplish that at the same time as you establish a high standard of living is through the subjugation and control of women.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I was just reading about some of Robert Sapolsky's work with stress in baboon populations, and it was interesting how immediately and permanently culture shifts seem to be able to take place... in one case, a large troupe contracted tuberculosis, and all of the aggressive males died. The entire culture of the troupe shifted to become gentle and cooperative, and new males joining them adapt within six months. It's still like that, 20 years later.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Civilization isn't a disease or a common mental illness. We're terrible at sustainability, sure, but how long has "sustainability" even been a word in that sense? With 200,000 years of Human evolution (and that's just the current version we're running on), I think we're gaining ecological savvy pretty quickly, all things considered.

Personally, being that I'm addicted to science fiction, I don't think the answer is going back to living in huts and dying from malaria. I also don't think the answer is population reduction to where we can live like we do now, "sustainably." I think the answer is better technology, better energy sources, better construction materials and techniques, and eventually technology for terraforming and colonizing other planets.

It's not going to happen. We can choose expansion or we can choose a universal high standard of living, but we can't choose both, unless we also figure out immortality, or at least hyper-prolonged life spans. The reason for this is that when you give people a high standard of living, including access to birth control, it turns out that very few women actually WANT to churn out more than a couple of babies. In fact, it turns out that many women will choose to have zero babies. For expansionism to work, the birth rate has to be high, and the only way you're going to accomplish that at the same time as you establish a high standard of living is through the subjugation and control of women.

Technology can answer that dilemma with cloning or other "artificial" procreation. Though my objection wasn't to lower population numbers per se, but to maintaining current high living standards by lowering population numbers. I don't buy that it's "impossible" to have high living standards along with a large population because of resource consumption, though it may be unlikely for the reasons you mention (without artificial procreation).

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Civilization isn't a disease or a common mental illness. We're terrible at sustainability, sure, but how long has "sustainability" even been a word in that sense? With 200,000 years of Human evolution (and that's just the current version we're running on), I think we're gaining ecological savvy pretty quickly, all things considered.

Personally, being that I'm addicted to science fiction, I don't think the answer is going back to living in huts and dying from malaria. I also don't think the answer is population reduction to where we can live like we do now, "sustainably." I think the answer is better technology, better energy sources, better construction materials and techniques, and eventually technology for terraforming and colonizing other planets.

It's not going to happen. We can choose expansion or we can choose a universal high standard of living, but we can't choose both, unless we also figure out immortality, or at least hyper-prolonged life spans. The reason for this is that when you give people a high standard of living, including access to birth control, it turns out that very few women actually WANT to churn out more than a couple of babies. In fact, it turns out that many women will choose to have zero babies. For expansionism to work, the birth rate has to be high, and the only way you're going to accomplish that at the same time as you establish a high standard of living is through the subjugation and control of women.

Technology can answer that dilemma with cloning or other "artificial" procreation. Though my objection wasn't to lower population numbers per se, but to maintaining current high living standards by lowering population numbers. I don't buy that it's "impossible" to have high living standards along with a large population because of resource consumption, though it may be unlikely for the reasons you mention (without artificial procreation).

BAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAA

OK, so who's going to act as mother to all those clone babies? It's not the incubating, it's the PARENTING that women are not so keen to devote their entire lives to. You know what happens when babies aren't nurtured, right?

Also, we wouldn't simply be "maintaining high living standards by lowering population numbers". Most of the people on the Earth currently DON'T enjoy "current high living standards". I am talking about finding and stabilizing around a population low enough that everyone could, in fact, enjoy those high standards.

And, you are completely ignoring or misunderstanding what I said about expansion being incompatible with a high standard of living. You can't have expansion without an expanding population base, and women with a high standard of living are generally unwilling to spend their lives shitting out baby after baby, or even RAISING baby after baby if they're artificially gestated. You can bet your bottom dollar that the vast majority of men feel the same way. You can pick one or the other, but you won't get both. People like to have their own lives and endeavors, oddly enough, and a high standard of living offers them that option.

[Ben Shapiro]

I like the aggressive ape who likes carrying big sticks to smack other aggressive apes. Eventually one of the Beta apes makes a shield that can't be penetrated, and the aggressive ape dies off.

Also the fact we are able to feed 3/5 world's population instead of 2/5. Gives me hope. Eventually you're going to have to decide what's better? Bananas, or shiny rocks?

I like the fact most of the I hate science crowd will die off soon.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I like the fact most of the I hate science crowd will die off soon.

HAW HAW!  Their numbers are GROWING.

[Ben Shapiro]

I like the fact most of the I hate science crowd will die off soon.

HAW HAW!  Their numbers are GROWING.

World wide, or here in Merka?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I like the fact most of the I hate science crowd will die off soon.

HAW HAW!  Their numbers are GROWING.

World wide, or here in Merka?

Damn near everywhere except continental Europe.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Civilization isn't a disease or a common mental illness. We're terrible at sustainability, sure, but how long has "sustainability" even been a word in that sense? With 200,000 years of Human evolution (and that's just the current version we're running on), I think we're gaining ecological savvy pretty quickly, all things considered.

Personally, being that I'm addicted to science fiction, I don't think the answer is going back to living in huts and dying from malaria. I also don't think the answer is population reduction to where we can live like we do now, "sustainably." I think the answer is better technology, better energy sources, better construction materials and techniques, and eventually technology for terraforming and colonizing other planets.

It's not going to happen. We can choose expansion or we can choose a universal high standard of living, but we can't choose both, unless we also figure out immortality, or at least hyper-prolonged life spans. The reason for this is that when you give people a high standard of living, including access to birth control, it turns out that very few women actually WANT to churn out more than a couple of babies. In fact, it turns out that many women will choose to have zero babies. For expansionism to work, the birth rate has to be high, and the only way you're going to accomplish that at the same time as you establish a high standard of living is through the subjugation and control of women.

Technology can answer that dilemma with cloning or other "artificial" procreation. Though my objection wasn't to lower population numbers per se, but to maintaining current high living standards by lowering population numbers. I don't buy that it's "impossible" to have high living standards along with a large population because of resource consumption, though it may be unlikely for the reasons you mention (without artificial procreation).

BAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAAA

OK, so who's going to act as mother to all those clone babies? It's not the incubating, it's the PARENTING that women are not so keen to devote their entire lives to. You know what happens when babies aren't nurtured, right?

Also, we wouldn't simply be "maintaining high living standards by lowering population numbers". Most of the people on the Earth currently DON'T enjoy "current high living standards". I am talking about finding and stabilizing around a population low enough that everyone could, in fact, enjoy those high standards.

And, you are completely ignoring or misunderstanding what I said about expansion being incompatible with a high standard of living. You can't have expansion without an expanding population base, and women with a high standard of living are generally unwilling to spend their lives shitting out baby after baby, or even RAISING baby after baby if they're artificially gestated. You can bet your bottom dollar that the vast majority of men feel the same way. You can pick one or the other, but you won't get both. People like to have their own lives and endeavors, oddly enough, and a high standard of living offers them that option.

I'm not completely ignoring what you said about expanding population base being incompatible with a high standard of living. I'm just not convinced that the scenario you posit is the only possible one. I agree that natural population growth drops as living standards rise, for the reasons you mention. My only difference from your position was a theoretical one, where it could be possible to sustain population growth without "subjugation and control of women." As for parenting and nurturing, maybe you're right, or maybe there are ways to care for kids without the traditional "mother" and "father" roles we've used for a the past few hundred thousand years. Stranger things have happened, and as you point out societies can be flexible and adapt to new realities.

As this all relates to the OP, my only point is that humanity isn't necessarily fucked. Sure, we probably are, but that doesn't mean it would be impossible to survive long-term, even longer than the lifespan of Earth, if we really wanted to. Retreating to the forest certainly won't carry us that far, but technology could, if we embrace it and guide it with a little collective intelligence.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Technological civilizations are like skiing on ice.  You're FINE until you LOSE YOUR NERVE.  Then it's Sonny Bono time.