Thoughts on standard of living, population, and the future of humankind.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Alternatively, we could go with option 3, where we do something on fucking purpose for a change, and stop allowing the top 0.05% of the world's population to hoard enough resources and wealth to raise the standard of living for all 7.3 billion of us to an average of somewhere between Brazil and China.

Been thinking about this a lot. Still no idea how it'd work, tho. I'm pretty certain the greedy parasitic fucks who have all the shit are not going to give it up willingly. Legislating it off them is bullshit since they own all the legislators hell, most of the fucking laws we have are there to protect their interests.

So it comes down to taking it by force or stealing it and redistributing it a'la Robin Hood or (more likely to me) a mixture of both. Can this be done by hacking? I don't know enough about how this economy-farce works. Is there actual physical stuff, lying somewhere that you'd need to get your hands on or are all those billions of imaginary gobshite just ones and zeros floating about in cyberspace?

Do people need to be killed, like in a traditional revolutionary uprising or can it be done peacefully? What would happen if you could, somehow delete all the debt in the world, mortgages, loans, third world slavery-enablers?

What lines were you thinking along?

[Junkenstein]

Say wealth distribution occurs tomorrow and we all have exactly the same cash, the problem remains that infrastructure in some areas in vastly superior to others. Displacing huge numbers of people is unlikely, as is the huge collective investment in the poorer regions to create comparable standards.

Nothing helpful, I've just never really thought the idea of a wealth distribution via hacking idea through. I'd guess it would end badly but I'm unsure why.

[Cainad (dec.)]

Say wealth distribution occurs tomorrow and we all have exactly the same cash, the problem remains that infrastructure in some areas in vastly superior to others. Displacing huge numbers of people is unlikely, as is the huge collective investment in the poorer regions to create comparable standards.

Nothing helpful, I've just never really thought the idea of a wealth distribution via hacking idea through. I'd guess it would end badly but I'm unsure why.

Straight-up equalizing everyone's wealth would probably cause a level of hilarious fuckery too great for mere mortals to comprehend.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Alternatively, we could go with option 3, where we do something on fucking purpose for a change, and stop allowing the top 0.05% of the world's population to hoard enough resources and wealth to raise the standard of living for all 7.3 billion of us to an average of somewhere between Brazil and China.

Been thinking about this a lot. Still no idea how it'd work, tho. I'm pretty certain the greedy parasitic fucks who have all the shit are not going to give it up willingly. Legislating it off them is bullshit since they own all the legislators hell, most of the fucking laws we have are there to protect their interests.

So it comes down to taking it by force or stealing it and redistributing it a'la Robin Hood or (more likely to me) a mixture of both. Can this be done by hacking? I don't know enough about how this economy-farce works. Is there actual physical stuff, lying somewhere that you'd need to get your hands on or are all those billions of imaginary gobshite just ones and zeros floating about in cyberspace?

Do people need to be killed, like in a traditional revolutionary uprising or can it be done peacefully? What would happen if you could, somehow delete all the debt in the world, mortgages, loans, third world slavery-enablers?

What lines were you thinking along?

Well, what might get us from here to there is probably a drawn out thread unto itself. I just don't want to look at all of human history and the things we've managed to accomplish so far and be so absolutely pessimistic about the future. Rough times? Sure. Utopia? That sure as shit isn't going to happen. But complete species annihilation because of nothing but some genetic inability to exercise the right of self-determination? I can't really see that as a "most likely" scenario.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Say wealth distribution occurs tomorrow and we all have exactly the same cash, the problem remains that infrastructure in some areas in vastly superior to others. Displacing huge numbers of people is unlikely, as is the huge collective investment in the poorer regions to create comparable standards.

Nothing helpful, I've just never really thought the idea of a wealth distribution via hacking idea through. I'd guess it would end badly but I'm unsure why.

Straight-up equalizing everyone's wealth would probably cause a level of hilarious fuckery too great for mere mortals to comprehend.

If you equalized wealth, you wouldn't have to organize investment in less developed areas. People there would invest their own wealth. Albeit, only after a bunch of killing each other to un-equalize wealth.

Also, the means to equalize production and infrastructure is already being developed with portable large-scale 3D printers and automated fabrication machines.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Here's the dilemma

Any restriction on population growth is an horrific infringement on the personal liberty of everyone to shit out enough screaming brats to wipe out all life on earth.

The choice is between mass sterilization (a fascist overfiend ripping the band aid off) or nature taking care of it for us (the way that makes option 1 look like an episode of the care bears)

The irony is, our complete resistance to the horrors of option one will lead us to option 2 as a default.

That's not the dilemma at all.

There is no need to try to restrict population growth; it restricts itself naturally when one condition is changed. That's what the OP is about.

[Junkenstein]

Say wealth distribution occurs tomorrow and we all have exactly the same cash, the problem remains that infrastructure in some areas in vastly superior to others. Displacing huge numbers of people is unlikely, as is the huge collective investment in the poorer regions to create comparable standards.

Nothing helpful, I've just never really thought the idea of a wealth distribution via hacking idea through. I'd guess it would end badly but I'm unsure why.

Straight-up equalizing everyone's wealth would probably cause a level of hilarious fuckery too great for mere mortals to comprehend.

That's what I'm thinking. As a doomsday scenario it's potentially a comic masterpiece. I wonder what it'd work out to? Anyone got any ideas what that could be? Global GDP 2012 was UDS 69,110 Trillion, approx population ?

I'm not good with Zero's.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Here's the dilemma

Any restriction on population growth is an horrific infringement on the personal liberty of everyone to shit out enough screaming brats to wipe out all life on earth.

The choice is between mass sterilization (a fascist overfiend ripping the band aid off) or nature taking care of it for us (the way that makes option 1 look like an episode of the care bears)

The irony is, our complete resistance to the horrors of option one will lead us to option 2 as a default.

That's not the dilemma at all.

There is no need to try to restrict population growth; it restricts itself naturally when one condition is changed. That's what the OP is about.

Truth, and thanks for steering back on course...

I don't think universal high living standards is impossible, but if it is achieved then population growth will decline. If population grown declines, there won't be enough humans to adequately populate other planets, unless you knock the colonists' standards of living down and defeat the whole proposition of universal high living standards.

[Junkenstein]

Say wealth distribution occurs tomorrow and we all have exactly the same cash, the problem remains that infrastructure in some areas in vastly superior to others. Displacing huge numbers of people is unlikely, as is the huge collective investment in the poorer regions to create comparable standards.

Nothing helpful, I've just never really thought the idea of a wealth distribution via hacking idea through. I'd guess it would end badly but I'm unsure why.

Straight-up equalizing everyone's wealth would probably cause a level of hilarious fuckery too great for mere mortals to comprehend.

If you equalized wealth, you wouldn't have to organize investment in less developed areas. People there would invest their own wealth. Albeit, only after a bunch of killing each other to un-equalize wealth.

Also, the means to equalize production and infrastructure is already being developed with portable large-scale 3D printers and automated fabrication machines.

That sounds like it would create a huge number of warlords that can create whatever they want on demand and destabilise a lot of shit.

I have no idea whether to endorse this. I kind of want to.

[Cain]

The main barrier to a high universal living standard is, and I feel obligated to point this out, obscenely rich fucks who like the power that comes from a large wealth gap.

It's easier and cheaper to extract wealth from a population than it is to create wealth via production.  It has the added benefit of creating a zero-sum political and financial relationship between the extractors of wealth and everyone else.  It's win-win for them.

I'm sure Nigel is aware of this, but I wanted to point it out for the benefit of everyone else.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Here's the dilemma

Any restriction on population growth is an horrific infringement on the personal liberty of everyone to shit out enough screaming brats to wipe out all life on earth.

The choice is between mass sterilization (a fascist overfiend ripping the band aid off) or nature taking care of it for us (the way that makes option 1 look like an episode of the care bears)

The irony is, our complete resistance to the horrors of option one will lead us to option 2 as a default.

That's not the dilemma at all.

There is no need to try to restrict population growth; it restricts itself naturally when one condition is changed. That's what the OP is about.

Truth, and thanks for steering back on course...

I don't think universal high living standards is impossible, but if it is achieved then population growth will decline. If population grown declines, there won't be enough humans to adequately populate other planets, unless you knock the colonists' standards of living down and defeat the whole proposition of universal high living standards.

I've always seen the other planets thing as an emergency measure to buffer overpopulation. if you've sorted overpopulation whay would you need to go to other planets? If you didn't need to then it'd be a case of the odd fanatic doing it for shits and giggles.

The main barrier to a high universal living standard is, and I feel obligated to point this out, obscenely rich fucks who like the power that comes from a large wealth gap.

It's easier and cheaper to extract wealth from a population than it is to create wealth via production.  It has the added benefit of creating a zero-sum political and financial relationship between the extractors of wealth and everyone else.  It's win-win for them.

I'm sure Nigel is aware of this, but I wanted to point it out for the benefit of everyone else.

I was going on the assumption that this was pretty much the only real barrier. dunno about everyone else

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I get the feeling that a few people posting ITT just sort of pre-assumed what the OP was about and then skimmed it, rather than actually reading it.

But yes, those of you talking about resource redistribution (such as minimum and maximum wage, socialized healthcare, guaranteed shelter, and education accessibility) are on the right track; it would be a crucial move toward establishing a minimum standard of living that would lead to population decrease and eventual stabilization.

When I say that we can't have BOTH population expansion AND a high standard of living, what I mean, what I spelled out in the OP... please read this carefully and don't assume I'm saying something I'm not... is that when you give people a high, modern standard of living with opportunities and choices, they stop having very many children.

People with a high standard of living, and opportunities and choices, typically don't need or want very many children. Some do. But not enough do to tip the balance.

So, you can pick one: expansion, or a global high standard of living. You cannot have both.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The main barrier to a high universal living standard is, and I feel obligated to point this out, obscenely rich fucks who like the power that comes from a large wealth gap.

It's easier and cheaper to extract wealth from a population than it is to create wealth via production.  It has the added benefit of creating a zero-sum political and financial relationship between the extractors of wealth and everyone else.  It's win-win for them.

I'm sure Nigel is aware of this, but I wanted to point it out for the benefit of everyone else.

Yes, exactly... and it's one of the reasons they put so much money and effort into keeping us at each other's throats, so that it doesn't occur to us to go for theirs.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I might be having problems due to sleep deprivation so ill come back to this when im fresher

[Junkenstein]

More on topic, Nigel/Cain what would you think is a possible achievable worldwide living standard? Education and basic literacy is key so I would guess that would be the main area to funnel resources to in the short/medium future.