a thought i had about the world
- Thread starter shootthebandit
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I forsee many riots, pure chaos etc.
And "any modern luxuries" <= Like a hospital or a properly trained doctor?
Easy solution for you to check if you like this; move to Africa. There's tons of "a simple agricultural life with no tax, no financial worries etc".
Anyway, please stop using the Internet and anything else that uses electricity!
That's another modern luxury.
And "any modern luxuries" <= Like a hospital or a properly trained doctor?
Easy solution for you to check if you like this; move to Africa. There's tons of "a simple agricultural life with no tax, no financial worries etc".
Anyway, please stop using the Internet and anything else that uses electricity!
That's another modern luxury.
Besides all the things about population caps, illness, anarchy etc. There is one more point you would have absolutly no free time. You work 15 hours, eat and drink 55 maybe have 5 mins of sex now and again the rest is sleep and when your about 30 you have a body like an eigthy year old because of that. Yeah farming was so great....
Sounds like "News From Nowhere". William Morris already beat you to it Mr. OP.
Anyways, I don't really like that sort of lifestyle. Neither do I like rampant capitalism (rampant though, not capitalism itself). Meh, not sure where I stand.
It is also, unless we managed to blow ourselves up as a species, very unlikely to happen.
Anyways, I don't really like that sort of lifestyle. Neither do I like rampant capitalism (rampant though, not capitalism itself). Meh, not sure where I stand.
It is also, unless we managed to blow ourselves up as a species, very unlikely to happen.
You forgot to mention that "your camp" also doesn't work. You also forgot to mention that the association between "controling others" and "coordination" was purely a choice made by you, dictator (the need for coordination doesn't necessarily need to involve domination).Kenko said:
(I'm in neither camp and consider your both ideas utterly naive and full of wishful thinking)
That'd be a hindrance to humanity's progress. A nation of farmers wouldn't be too instrumental in colonizing other planets or discovering the farthest reaches of our universe.
Not that it matters in this case. The scaling back you're talking about would require universal consent or authoritarian control. The former won't happen, the latter basically violates the ideals the topic espouses.Lyx said:
quick interjection as a direct reply to OP:
You'd have to kill about 90% of the population first, otherwise there just wouldn't be the room. Earth simply couldn't support the present level of human habitation without urbanised cities and intensive farming.
Oh and enjoy your lack of electronic/mechanical labour savers and healthcare. Dying at 40 after an uncomfortable, illness-blighted 6- or 7-day-a-week grind since you were old enough to stand, carry tools and understand & obey instructions... great fun.
The world's a bit fucked up at the moment but I'll happily take the way it is over the way it was or could have been. The "simple pleasures" thing is a dangerous illusion. The simple pleasures of struggling to survive in anything less than perfect environmental conditions, and exquisite boredom otherwise. Right.
I'll give you one parting example: Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. They tried it, and it worked just OH so well.
You'd have to kill about 90% of the population first, otherwise there just wouldn't be the room. Earth simply couldn't support the present level of human habitation without urbanised cities and intensive farming.
Oh and enjoy your lack of electronic/mechanical labour savers and healthcare. Dying at 40 after an uncomfortable, illness-blighted 6- or 7-day-a-week grind since you were old enough to stand, carry tools and understand & obey instructions... great fun.
The world's a bit fucked up at the moment but I'll happily take the way it is over the way it was or could have been. The "simple pleasures" thing is a dangerous illusion. The simple pleasures of struggling to survive in anything less than perfect environmental conditions, and exquisite boredom otherwise. Right.
I'll give you one parting example: Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. They tried it, and it worked just OH so well.
So demolish society as we know it for a life of farming and anarchy in which we live at the mercy of nature and hope that the world doesn't sink into lawlessness and chaos? Yeah let's do that.
Have you been chatting with the Una-bomber lately?
There is a reason for urbanization and it's not because an agrarian society is the greatest thing ever.
No taxes? Have you been chatting... I'll stop now. That sounds kinda like what Ayn Rand talked about. She says that the only thing that the Government should do is protect it's citizens through police, military and a justice system. I think many of us can agree that we as humans need these stabilizing forces, but how can we have them without taxes. Unfortunately Ayn Rand does not address this issue(I guess she missed that huge glaring flaw in her logic). Yeah, I don't think your kind of society could work.
There is a reason for urbanization and it's not because an agrarian society is the greatest thing ever.
No taxes? Have you been chatting... I'll stop now. That sounds kinda like what Ayn Rand talked about. She says that the only thing that the Government should do is protect it's citizens through police, military and a justice system. I think many of us can agree that we as humans need these stabilizing forces, but how can we have them without taxes. Unfortunately Ayn Rand does not address this issue(I guess she missed that huge glaring flaw in her logic). Yeah, I don't think your kind of society could work.
1- Sounds dreadful. Life would be crap for all sorts of varied reasons.
2- Earth cannot sustain life forever. At best, we've got a couple of billion years before being engulfed by the sun and destroyed. Reverting to a simple life is species suicide.
2- Earth cannot sustain life forever. At best, we've got a couple of billion years before being engulfed by the sun and destroyed. Reverting to a simple life is species suicide.
No, seriously. How many people would agree with this kind of idea? I mean sure, I'd be ok with having one child. If everyone did, it would theoretically drop the population in half in just one generation. But there are the people who want freedom. And then there are the people who don't believe in birth control. And then there are the people who just don't give a shit. It just doesn't work. I think it does require some imagination that you could get all the people in the world to love each other, but in a way that produces only one baby per couple.Lyx said:
My alternative wouldn't really work either, it was just another extreme I could think of quickly. Uniting nations into one happy pile would require someone to actually conquer the whole world and that would be bloody as hell. As you said, someone has to basically break cultural dogmas for us to survive, since this planet can only hold a certain amount of people. And whoever this someone will be, he/she will have to be ready to do some pretty extreme things, that most of us will find morally questionable.