Someone finally managed to sum up how I feel about our great race of
retarded apes human civilisation, a lot more eloquently than I ever could. Admittedly pointing and laughing my ass off probably doesn't count as a serious attempt to state my position but, fuck it, that's my position anyway.
QuoteWe're Ice Age hunters with a shave and a suit. We are not good long-term thinkers. We would much rather gorge ourselves on dead mammoths by driving a herd over a cliff than figure out how to conserve the herd so it can feed us and our children forever. That is the transition our civilization has to make. And we're not doing that.
QuoteIf we fail in this great experiment, this experiment of apes becoming intelligent enough to take charge of their own destiny, nature will shrug and say it was fun for a while to let the apes run the laboratory, but in the end it was a bad idea
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_myth_of_human_progress_20130113// (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_myth_of_human_progress_20130113//)
As far as I'm concerned, as a species, that destiny is signed, sealed, and delivered. Our proliferation is solely linked to our birth rate. Within our life spans, it can be easy to be deluded into thinking we are progressing as a species, simply because we've managed to tack on a few years to our life span. But then, you have to consider that those bonus years tend to be rife with cancers and other ailments.
We've always been a "here and now" species, like every other warm and cold blooded beast that has lived on this rock, We think we transcend because our tools are made of plastic and metal instead of rock and wood.
Yes, in the end Earth will consume us without batting an eye when it is time, and we don't have the wherewithal to avert that fate.
It would be easier to list the reasons why we wouldn't be fucked because the list is empty.
Quote from: Sano on February 13, 2013, 01:07:55 PM
It would be easier to list the reasons why we wouldn't be fucked because the list is empty.
Balls. Utter rubbish.
There are those who theorize that rejecting "civilization" is actually the most civilized thing human beings can do for their long-term survival as a species.
There are certain benefits of civilization that I would be reluctant to leave behind, like vaccines and hospitals, but then again, I am also aware that for the most part they are designed to treat symptoms of civilization, like epidemics and cancer.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 13, 2013, 02:36:39 PM
There are those who theorize that rejecting "civilization" is actually the most civilized thing human beings can do for their long-term survival as a species.
There are certain benefits of civilization that I would be reluctant to leave behind, like vaccines and hospitals, but then again, I am also aware that for the most part they are designed to treat symptoms of civilization, like epidemics and cancer.
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. I love the trappings of civilisation as much as the next guy but part of those trappings are a petrochemical addiction that's destroying the planet we live in, almost as fast as it's poisoning us directly and rendering us incapable of actually living as a basic animal, due to the fact that hardly any of us are possessed of rudimentary survival skills.
This last is ultra-ironic considering that fact that it looks a pretty surefire bet that our economic capitalist democratic pie in the sky utopia is going to come crashing down around us pretty soon and a return to hunter-gatherer lifestyle the only viable alternative after the interim cannibal apocalypse runs its course.
It's kinda depressing, if only because, to me, the solution is as simple as it is impossible for billions who seem to be something other than me. Maybe that's an illusion. Maybe most of humanity is like me and it's a minority who are perpetuating the self destructive insanity but I find that hard to believe.
I refuse to get depressed about it. Part of dealing with clinical depression is to not get upset over things you can't change and I'm fucked if I can think of a way to deliver a simple message to a race of creatures who can't seem to work that simple message out for themselves. So depression is out and laughing at them wiping themselves out as a species is in, along with trying to avoid that same fate for myself as long as I can.
I don't reject civilisation but I'm trying my best not to become too attached.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 13, 2013, 02:36:39 PM
There are those who theorize that rejecting "civilization" is actually the most civilized thing human beings can do for their long-term survival as a species.
There are certain benefits of civilization that I would be reluctant to leave behind, like vaccines and hospitals, but then again, I am also aware that for the most part they are designed to treat symptoms of civilization, like epidemics and cancer.
Primitive societies select for intelligence, urban societies select for disease resistance.
Thing is, we're a tool-using species. Technology got us into this mess, it will have to get us out...And it has, to some degree. Compare air pollution today, for example, with pre-Nixon era levels. Or, hell, with the days of coal burning. Hunter's Point in New York was so poisonous at the turn of the last century that people would get off the train there and just drop dead.
Pollution control technology works, it just has to be enforced.
On the other hand, going back to the woods is impossible on account of two things:
1. The woods aren't there, and
2. There's WAY too many people for that. Primitive fuel, for example, is far more polluting and in short supply (in Central Africa, there's a constant haze from wood burning, and all their topsoil is going away). We'd ba back to the Bhode argument, where 11/12 people have to die, so that the other 1/12 can live in primitive conditions for which they are not trained.
Civilization isn't a bad thing. It's what we DO, and if you tore it all down, people would immediately start rebuilding it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 13, 2013, 03:48:08 PM
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.
:lulz:
TGRR,
Shots wore off long, long ago.
"Rejecting civilization" would have to be a slow, centuries-long proposition, not something we could do overnight. In my ideal fantasy world that doesn't exist, we would gradually restructure society to function economically with a declining population, and we would settle out at maybe a billion people, living low-impact lives that are a combination of pastoral and technological. High standard of living for everyone.
Probably not going to happen. Probably, what's going to happen is environmental catastrophe, mass die-offs, massive loss of technology and knowledge, and eventually, rebuilding. Maybe they'll get it right next time.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 13, 2013, 03:51:58 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 13, 2013, 03:48:08 PM
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.
:lulz:
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.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 13, 2013, 04:34:17 PM
"Rejecting civilization" would have to be a slow, centuries-long proposition, not something we could do overnight. In my ideal fantasy world that doesn't exist, we would gradually restructure society to function economically with a declining population, and we would settle out at maybe a billion people, living low-impact lives that are a combination of pastoral and technological. High standard of living for everyone.
Probably not going to happen. Probably, what's going to happen is environmental catastrophe, mass die-offs, massive loss of technology and knowledge, and eventually, rebuilding. Maybe they'll get it right next time.
The way I understand it, the sustainable carrying capacity of our planet is 2 billion humans.
We'll get there one way or another. "Another" is pretty grim, though.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 13, 2013, 04:35:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 13, 2013, 03:51:58 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 13, 2013, 03:48:08 PM
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.
:lulz:
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.
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.
Quote from: Cain on February 13, 2013, 05:18:27 PM
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".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 13, 2013, 05:22:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 13, 2013, 05:18:27 PM
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? :evil:
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.
Quote from: V3X on February 13, 2013, 05:43:50 PM
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.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 13, 2013, 05:40:55 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 13, 2013, 05:22:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on February 13, 2013, 05:18:27 PM
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? :evil:
Yes. Everyone is, whether or not they know it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 13, 2013, 05:48:04 PM
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.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 13, 2013, 05:15:29 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 13, 2013, 04:35:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 13, 2013, 03:51:58 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 13, 2013, 03:48:08 PM
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.
:lulz:
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.
Quote from: V3X on February 13, 2013, 05:43:50 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 13, 2013, 09:32:39 PM
Quote from: V3X on February 13, 2013, 05:43:50 PM
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).
Quote from: V3X on February 13, 2013, 09:39:44 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 13, 2013, 09:32:39 PM
Quote from: V3X on February 13, 2013, 05:43:50 PM
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 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.
Quote from: /b/earman on February 14, 2013, 02:05:44 AM
I like the fact most of the I hate science crowd will die off soon.
HAW HAW! Their numbers are GROWING.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2013, 02:26:58 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on February 14, 2013, 02:05:44 AM
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?
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 14, 2013, 01:07:19 AM
Quote from: V3X on February 13, 2013, 09:39:44 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 13, 2013, 09:32:39 PM
Quote from: V3X on February 13, 2013, 05:43:50 PM
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.
Technological civilizations are like skiing on ice. You're FINE until you LOSE YOUR NERVE. Then it's Sonny Bono time.
We're fucked because of Dunbar's number. Though I suppose if we exploit that concept somehow we could fix it. Though I guess the other idea is to expand our brains to make Dunbar's number larger. But then we'd have people upset over earthquakes on the other side of the world and with communication technology we'll be sad all the damn time.
Though I guess we can control that too since you're tinkering with people's heads to begin with.
It's not Dunbar's number that causes the problem. It's how we interact with the ones outside the monkeysphere. Laws and politics goes some way to addressing this but there's still that whole us and them bullshit that fucks everything up. You don't have to recognise every human by name for it to work, you just have to recognise them as allies, rather than opposition to be fucked over and exploited.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 14, 2013, 09:54:41 AM
It's not Dunbar's number that causes the problem. It's how we interact with the ones outside the monkeysphere. Laws and politics goes some way to addressing this but there's still that whole us and them bullshit that fucks everything up. You don't have to recognise every human by name for it to work, you just have to recognise them as allies, rather than opposition to be fucked over and exploited.
That's some serious truth, there. Wasn't expecting that, for some reason.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on February 14, 2013, 01:30:39 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 14, 2013, 09:54:41 AM
It's not Dunbar's number that causes the problem. It's how we interact with the ones outside the monkeysphere. Laws and politics goes some way to addressing this but there's still that whole us and them bullshit that fucks everything up. You don't have to recognise every human by name for it to work, you just have to recognise them as allies, rather than opposition to be fucked over and exploited.
That's some serious truth, there. Wasn't expecting that, for some reason.
It's nothing profound. It's just a logically, intellectually and tactically superior method. The reason humanity is pretty much fucked, as per my OP, is that none of them seem capable of understanding this. A species so utterly incapable of the most rudimentary strategic thinking really don't have a hope in hell of surviving long term.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2013, 02:30:35 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on February 14, 2013, 02:28:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on February 14, 2013, 02:26:58 AM
Quote from: /b/earman on February 14, 2013, 02:05:44 AM
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.
... where they seem, MAYBE, to my moving toward the high-living-standard, low-birthrate society I think would give us the best long-term shot at success.
As the country best equipped and most mentally predisposed to exterminating everyone else, I'd give you guys the best short-term shot at success, too :lulz:
Quote from: V3X on February 14, 2013, 03:27:26 AM
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.
Vex, it doesn't matter how you slice it; human babies need a stable nurturer in order to grow up healthy, physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no technological way around this. This is one of those uncircumventable facts about human existence, like being made out of meat, that we just can't ignore through wishful thinking or hopeful future technological fixes. This means that someone has to nurture those babies, regardless of how, or whether, they are biologically related to them. Babies need to form at least one stable attachment, and the more stable that attachment, the better their outcome.
You can't simply ignore or wish away this fact when you're discussing the long-term fate of the species. If you don't take it into account, anything you say on the subject is dismissable as being poorly-thought-through. And, while it turns out that most women do want to have babies, it also turns out that most women don't want to be brood mares, and most people, in general, don't feel called to raise more than one or two babies. Even if science could replicate gestation and breastmilk, it can't replicate nurturing human bonds... and if we get to a point where it can, we don't really need to keep making biological replacements, do we?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 14, 2013, 09:54:41 AM
It's not Dunbar's number that causes the problem. It's how we interact with the ones outside the monkeysphere. Laws and politics goes some way to addressing this but there's still that whole us and them bullshit that fucks everything up. You don't have to recognise every human by name for it to work, you just have to recognise them as allies, rather than opposition to be fucked over and exploited.
Truth.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 14, 2013, 03:34:29 PM
Quote from: V3X on February 14, 2013, 03:27:26 AM
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.
Vex, it doesn't matter how you slice it; human babies need a stable nurturer in order to grow up healthy, physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no technological way around this. This is one of those uncircumventable facts about human existence, like being made out of meat, that we just can't ignore through wishful thinking or hopeful future technological fixes. This means that someone has to nurture those babies, regardless of how, or whether, they are biologically related to them. Babies need to form at least one stable attachment, and the more stable that attachment, the better their outcome.
You can't simply ignore or wish away this fact when you're discussing the long-term fate of the species. If you don't take it into account, anything you say on the subject is dismissable as being poorly-thought-through. And, while it turns out that most women do want to have babies, it also turns out that most women don't want to be brood mares, and most people, in general, don't feel called to raise more than one or two babies. Even if science could replicate gestation and breastmilk, it can't replicate nurturing human bonds... and if we get to a point where it can, we don't really need to keep making biological replacements, do we?
Sounds like a real unshakable belief you have yourself there. I'm convinced that, right now there's no alternative but wait until they have a neural implant that has newborn babies coming out the womb able to read, write and play the banjo and all bets are off.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 14, 2013, 03:38:59 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 14, 2013, 03:34:29 PM
Quote from: V3X on February 14, 2013, 03:27:26 AM
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.
Vex, it doesn't matter how you slice it; human babies need a stable nurturer in order to grow up healthy, physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no technological way around this. This is one of those uncircumventable facts about human existence, like being made out of meat, that we just can't ignore through wishful thinking or hopeful future technological fixes. This means that someone has to nurture those babies, regardless of how, or whether, they are biologically related to them. Babies need to form at least one stable attachment, and the more stable that attachment, the better their outcome.
You can't simply ignore or wish away this fact when you're discussing the long-term fate of the species. If you don't take it into account, anything you say on the subject is dismissable as being poorly-thought-through. And, while it turns out that most women do want to have babies, it also turns out that most women don't want to be brood mares, and most people, in general, don't feel called to raise more than one or two babies. Even if science could replicate gestation and breastmilk, it can't replicate nurturing human bonds... and if we get to a point where it can, we don't really need to keep making biological replacements, do we?
Sounds like a real unshakable belief you have yourself there. I'm convinced that, right now there's no alternative but wait until they have a neural implant that has newborn babies coming out the womb able to read, write and play the banjo and all bets are off.
Yeah, I can't help it; I kind of have this "science" thing that I look to for clues about reality.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 14, 2013, 03:38:59 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 14, 2013, 03:34:29 PM
Quote from: V3X on February 14, 2013, 03:27:26 AM
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.
Vex, it doesn't matter how you slice it; human babies need a stable nurturer in order to grow up healthy, physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no technological way around this. This is one of those uncircumventable facts about human existence, like being made out of meat, that we just can't ignore through wishful thinking or hopeful future technological fixes. This means that someone has to nurture those babies, regardless of how, or whether, they are biologically related to them. Babies need to form at least one stable attachment, and the more stable that attachment, the better their outcome.
You can't simply ignore or wish away this fact when you're discussing the long-term fate of the species. If you don't take it into account, anything you say on the subject is dismissable as being poorly-thought-through. And, while it turns out that most women do want to have babies, it also turns out that most women don't want to be brood mares, and most people, in general, don't feel called to raise more than one or two babies. Even if science could replicate gestation and breastmilk, it can't replicate nurturing human bonds... and if we get to a point where it can, we don't really need to keep making biological replacements, do we?
Sounds like a real unshakable belief you have yourself there. I'm convinced that, right now there's no alternative but wait until they have a neural implant that has newborn babies coming out the womb able to read, write and play the banjo and all bets are off.
YOU WATCH WHAT YOU SAY 'BOUT BANJOS, BOY.
\
(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1715856/aredneck.jpg)
Otherwise, we're basically talking about magic water and quantums, and then we're in Holist Country. :lol:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 14, 2013, 04:32:06 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 14, 2013, 03:38:59 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 14, 2013, 03:34:29 PM
Quote from: V3X on February 14, 2013, 03:27:26 AM
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.
Vex, it doesn't matter how you slice it; human babies need a stable nurturer in order to grow up healthy, physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no technological way around this. This is one of those uncircumventable facts about human existence, like being made out of meat, that we just can't ignore through wishful thinking or hopeful future technological fixes. This means that someone has to nurture those babies, regardless of how, or whether, they are biologically related to them. Babies need to form at least one stable attachment, and the more stable that attachment, the better their outcome.
You can't simply ignore or wish away this fact when you're discussing the long-term fate of the species. If you don't take it into account, anything you say on the subject is dismissable as being poorly-thought-through. And, while it turns out that most women do want to have babies, it also turns out that most women don't want to be brood mares, and most people, in general, don't feel called to raise more than one or two babies. Even if science could replicate gestation and breastmilk, it can't replicate nurturing human bonds... and if we get to a point where it can, we don't really need to keep making biological replacements, do we?
Sounds like a real unshakable belief you have yourself there. I'm convinced that, right now there's no alternative but wait until they have a neural implant that has newborn babies coming out the womb able to read, write and play the banjo and all bets are off.
Yeah, I can't help it; I kind of have this "science" thing that I look to for clues about reality.
It's true, and you're right, and yes I'm kind of off in lala science fiction land. So given what we know now about relationships and social dynamics there's no reason to argue with you. I just like daydreaming, but I'm not sure that what we know now will necessarily mean anything by the time the question of long-term human survival is really an immediate question.
Thanks for the dialogue; I had to write a short essay this morning and I only had a couple minutes so I used this conversation as a launchpad.
Quote from: V3X on February 14, 2013, 04:35:26 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 14, 2013, 04:32:06 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 14, 2013, 03:38:59 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on February 14, 2013, 03:34:29 PM
Quote from: V3X on February 14, 2013, 03:27:26 AM
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.
Vex, it doesn't matter how you slice it; human babies need a stable nurturer in order to grow up healthy, physically, mentally, and emotionally. There is no technological way around this. This is one of those uncircumventable facts about human existence, like being made out of meat, that we just can't ignore through wishful thinking or hopeful future technological fixes. This means that someone has to nurture those babies, regardless of how, or whether, they are biologically related to them. Babies need to form at least one stable attachment, and the more stable that attachment, the better their outcome.
You can't simply ignore or wish away this fact when you're discussing the long-term fate of the species. If you don't take it into account, anything you say on the subject is dismissable as being poorly-thought-through. And, while it turns out that most women do want to have babies, it also turns out that most women don't want to be brood mares, and most people, in general, don't feel called to raise more than one or two babies. Even if science could replicate gestation and breastmilk, it can't replicate nurturing human bonds... and if we get to a point where it can, we don't really need to keep making biological replacements, do we?
Sounds like a real unshakable belief you have yourself there. I'm convinced that, right now there's no alternative but wait until they have a neural implant that has newborn babies coming out the womb able to read, write and play the banjo and all bets are off.
Yeah, I can't help it; I kind of have this "science" thing that I look to for clues about reality.
It's true, and you're right, and yes I'm kind of off in lala science fiction land. So given what we know now about relationships and social dynamics there's no reason to argue with you. I just like daydreaming, but I'm not sure that what we know now will necessarily mean anything by the time the question of long-term human survival is really an immediate question.
I love sci-fi, and I like to daydream too.
However, long-term human survival is an immediate question right now.
It is an immediate question I suppose. I support the notion that humanity can unfuck itself and survive long-term, but it'll require heavy investment in the next few technological revolutions and a re-examination of character traits that are now universally assumed to be an inseparable part of our humanity.
Quote from: V3X on February 14, 2013, 05:15:38 PM
It is an immediate question I suppose. I support the notion that humanity can unfuck itself and survive long-term, but it'll require heavy investment in the next few technological revolutions and a re-examination of character traits that are now universally assumed to be an inseparable part of our humanity.
Only quantumz can save us now :horrormirth:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on February 14, 2013, 05:47:09 PM
Quote from: V3X on February 14, 2013, 05:15:38 PM
It is an immediate question I suppose. I support the notion that humanity can unfuck itself and survive long-term, but it'll require heavy investment in the next few technological revolutions and a re-examination of character traits that are now universally assumed to be an inseparable part of our humanity.
Only quantumz can save us now :horrormirth:
Luckily I have it on good authority that an alliance of benevolent extraterrestrial and interdimensional races known as the Star League is planning an invasion of Earth, in order to establish an enlightened form of government based on love and chocolate mousse.
Certainly sounds a lot more plausible than humans ever taking responsibility for it