a thought i had about the world

[Daipire]

This sounds like an awesome video game.
You find some (what we would call modern) weapons

You can go full post-apocolyptic Robin Hood or Mad Max, or Master Blaster or whatever you desire

 

[x EvilErmine x]

One thing we need to consider however is communalism. I've never experience this myself because I've never lived in a small village, but friends of mine have explained that in a small village where everyone knows each other, there is a sense of responsibility to everyone in the village. People contribute without asking for anything in return, just like a big family. The huge downside to this lifestyle would simply be the huge drop in health-related technology. Get ready to die from the common cold once again.

Good point but then that would eventually lead to the creation of city states....and they weren't the most secure and serene places you would think they would be (Hang on...is the next city state over them ways looking at our Oxen funny? Better keep an eye on them shifty bastards...and so and so forth on unto the end of time).

Oh and being a cold calculating bastard (Hey I am an EVIL ermine after all) maybe not dying of the common cold isn't such a good thing after all. By removing disease and starvation from the equation, for the most part, we have actually neutered natures natural mechanisms of population control...and that's not working out too well for us at the moment.

 

[sageoftruth]

One thing we need to consider however is communalism. I've never experience this myself because I've never lived in a small village, but friends of mine have explained that in a small village where everyone knows each other, there is a sense of responsibility to everyone in the village. People contribute without asking for anything in return, just like a big family. The huge downside to this lifestyle would simply be the huge drop in health-related technology. Get ready to die from the common cold once again.

Good point but then that would eventually lead to the creation of city states....and they weren't the most secure and serene places you would think they would be (Hang on...is the next city state over them ways looking at our Oxen funny? Better keep an eye on them shifty bastards...and so and so forth on unto the end of time).

Oh and being a cold calculating bastard (Hey I am an EVIL ermine after all) maybe not dying of the common cold isn't such a good thing after all. By removing disease and starvation from the equation, for the most part, we have actually neutered natures natural mechanisms of population control...and that's not working out too well for us at the moment.

Cold as that is, it is a good point. By regressing into a simpler existence, there will be fewer deterrents from having children (fewer expenses, less pressure from society to raise a child to be successful, and thanks to communalism, more help from neighbors in raising the child). It certainly makes it sound appealing.

Regarding the city states, it is possible for tension to stir between two of them. When everyone in a community is so unified, it is easy to lash out against others outside of the community. However, as someone else stated, our ability to make a habitat liveable will be smaller, so we'll all be spread out to wherever there are resources and manageable living conditions. On the plus side, it would make us more spread out and possibly oblivious to each other's existence. On the other hand, if two communities live close together, jeaslousy could erupt from the community with the poorer lands. It sounds like a give and take to me. You'd best hope you are born in a secluded village, away from jealous neighboring villages and blissfully ignorant of the ones who have more than you.

 

[Lyx]

No, seriously. How many people would agree with this kind of idea?

Depending on the circumstances (living standards, goals to pursue, overall cultural dogma) the majority?

Your question to me has something between the lines, that assums that this is mainly a matter of forbidding something. It isn't. The current cultural and economical environment is not "normal" - it's an amplified version. Remove the amplifications, and you'll get less childs on average, without even having started to think of other means. With this, i don't want to imply that this alone is enough. I'm saying that a large part of such a change, doesn't require "discouragements", but simply stopping "encouragement".

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.

Too fast and too dangerous, especially economically. "1,7 childs average" would be softer and still do the trick, unless one is overly impatient. Notice: About 2 childs average is already the case right now for most firstworld countries, even though those countries finacially support children and have a culture that tries to condition people to be sex-obsessed. Remove the financial benefits, and lower the cultural/social pressure, and for those countries, you'd probably already arrive at 1,7 childs average, without having introduced any prohibitions.

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.

Apparently, people in certain environments do not act according to your predictions. See above.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Yup, lets turn our back on all th comfort and technology we made for ourselves so we can all be happy flower children making a living by looking after cows.

Sounds like a fucking plan, Einstein.

 

[L4hlborg]

No, seriously. How many people would agree with this kind of idea?

Depending on the circumstances (living standards, goals to pursue, overall cultural dogma) the majority?

You do realize that you are talking about changing most of the western culture, right? This is not something you just do. Besides, isn't it just cheaper not to have children? I honestly don't know how much money you get per child in every country in the world, but here in Finland you don't exactly get enough to cover all the expenses.

Your question to me has something between the lines, that assums that this is mainly a matter of forbidding something. It isn't. The current cultural and economical environment is not "normal" - it's an amplified version. Remove the amplifications, and you'll get less childs on average, without even having started to think of other means. With this, i don't want to imply that this alone is enough. I'm saying that a large part of such a change, doesn't require "discouragements", but simply stopping "encouragement".

I don't really see what you are comparing your "normal" to. And I don't know if I'm being affected at a subconscious level or something, but I don't exactly see what encourages child birth in our society. Actually, it encourages it a lot less than pretty much any time in the history of mankind. The thing is, that the restraints are missing. Nothing is killing children any more (still talking in the first world countries).

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.

Too fast and too dangerous, especially economically. "1,7 childs average" would be softer and still do the trick, unless one is overly impatient. Notice: About 2 childs average is already the case right now for most firstworld countries, even though those countries finacially support children and have a culture that tries to condition people to be sex-obsessed. Remove the financial benefits, and lower the cultural/social pressure, and for those countries, you'd probably already arrive at 1,7 childs average, without having introduced any prohibitions.

And we are still talking about the first world countries. Now if you haven't noticed, there are other countries too. Also, they usually have pretty huge populations, so its not exactly just our problem. Now I don't do birth rate statistics, but I'd be guessing that they are higher in them than they are here.

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.

Apparently, people in certain environments do not act according to your predictions. See above.

Now if you manage to shape society all around the world so, that the child birth drops to 1,7 at average, without the restraining of any rights, then congrats, you really deserve something nice. Like a cookie. If you like cookies that is.

 

[Daffy F]

A nice idea, but unfortunately there are far too many people on the planet now to do this... A shame really, as if we went back to a bartering kind of system, with no fossil fuel usage, then we could save the Earth. As it is, we're doomed.

 

[Lyx]

You do realize that you are talking about changing most of the western culture, right? This is not something you just do.

True, and i never said that it could be done quickly. But then again, if humans want to fix their cultural behaviour on a global scale, they need sweeping cultural changes anyways. Cultural behaviour won't change unless it changes, and going from parasitary behaviour to mutual behaviour isn't a walk in a park - it's a full 90 degree orientation change. This "long walk" is just reflected here on the topic of population size.

I don't really see what you are comparing your "normal" to. And I don't know if I'm being affected at a subconscious level or something, but I don't exactly see what encourages child birth in our society.

You don't notice being screamed at "FUCKING!" at every corner in culture? You don't notice sexually-obsessive depiction of most areas of everyday life, even areas that have nothing to do with sex? Not? Oh, never mind then - i guess i must be imaginating all those things. It must be a lucky coincidence that a certain behaviouristic constellation repeats over and over all across culture, while the alternative constellations often don't even have words in language.

And we are still talking about the first world countries. Now if you haven't noticed, there are other countries too. Also, they usually have pretty huge populations, so its not exactly just our problem. Now I don't do birth rate statistics, but I'd be guessing that they are higher in them than they are here.

Yep, but the point was that you argued that humans just are obsessed with population expansion and that nothing can be done about it. I showed that in the right environment, they do not expand IN SPITE of a culture that conditions them to increase their sexdrive. In other words: It can work and its not complicated. It may not be doable quickly and cheaply, but if the intention and effort is there, it can work. The main roadblocks are:

A) Humans would like that things change, without much things changing. They think that if they can make a few more laws and invent more tech (you know, the tech that escalated the problem in the first place), everything will magically work out. Nope. The global behaviour comes from a bias inherent in current culture and society dogma. Current culture "ticks" parasitary, expansionist and greedy (negative ressource budget). If they don't want to behave that way, then that can only happen by NOT behaving that way -> sweeping cultural changes. This is not a matter of taste - its plain logic.

B) Global consensus. As i mentioned earlier, nations will not want to put themselves at a disadvantage compared to others. Thus, they will not be willing to reduce their population below a certain point, unless others follow them. It's basically the same dilemma as with the nuclear arms race and emissions into the atmosphere.

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

It would be nice, but almost impossible in the present world.
I'd certainly be content if it did revert to a mostly agricultural lifestyle though.

 

[eggy32]

If you somehow did manage to do that in the present world then it would suck. Eventually someone would realise why the human race stopped living like this years ago and remember the reasons that we came up with technological advances. Then people would go back to the way things were because modern life is easier than backbreaking farm labour and making everything with your own hands and having hardly any communication with people across the world.

 

[Irony's Acolyte]

I doubt it would work or be that great. There is a reason that humanity moved beyond that type of society thousands of years ago. Plus without any form of government, people would quickly start preying on each other for resources.

And I doubt it would last. Even if somehow society were to get reset to that point, after a few generations people would start trying to make it easier for themselves. And that would lead to a repeat of history as people began to congreate together into villages and town. Which would result in society turning back to the way it was before. And that is assuming that everyone wouldn't get tired of living the work-filled life that agriculture requires.

 

[Klaflefalumpf]

Well according to Battlestar Galactica we already tried that...

 

[L4hlborg]

You do realize that you are talking about changing most of the western culture, right? This is not something you just do.

True, and i never said that it could be done quickly. But then again, if humans want to fix their cultural behaviour on a global scale, they need sweeping cultural changes anyways. Cultural behaviour won't change unless it changes, and going from parasitary behaviour to mutual behaviour isn't a walk in a park - it's a full 90 degree orientation change. This "long walk" is just reflected here on the topic of population size.

You just mentioned the problem yourself: We are talking about a huge change in a relatively short time. Deliberately changing culture to a completely different direction doesn't sound like a difficult job to me. It sounds impossible. With the opposition you'll get, it'll most likely take more than your 150 year expectancy.

Yep, but the point was that you argued that humans just are obsessed with population expansion and that nothing can be done about it. I showed that in the right environment, they do not expand IN SPITE of a culture that conditions them to increase their sexdrive. In other words: It can work and its not complicated. It may not be doable quickly and cheaply, but if the intention and effort is there, it can work.

I don't remember saying that humans are obsessed with population expansion and there is nothing we can do about it. I said that people usually don't like change and will fight it in every way possible. The amount of opposition that you are up against will make things complicated.

I don't really see what you are comparing your "normal" to. And I don't know if I'm being affected at a subconscious level or something, but I don't exactly see what encourages child birth in our society.

You don't notice being screamed at "FUCKING!" at every corner in culture? You don't notice sexually-obsessive depiction of most areas of everyday life, even areas that have nothing to do with sex? Not? Oh, never mind then - i guess i must be imaginating all those things. It must be a lucky coincidence that a certain behaviouristic constellation repeats over and over all across culture, while the alternative constellations often don't even have words in language.

You still aren't giving me your definition of normal. That is kinda essential, considering that you are claiming that the current culture is not normal.

And if you haven't noticed, child birth ratios have dropped, even though are culture has become what some people call sex obsessed. More sex does not necessarily lead to more children. The reason for population growth is not sex obsession, it's the lack of limitation. Nothing is killing the children. I think the problem is lack of limitations, not with culture in general.

Humanity has always been expanding and quite efficiently. Instead of making a full turn, I think we should work what we have. Humanity is ambitious and expansive, so settling on other planets may not be a completely horrible idea. Sure it won't make the problems magically disappear, but it would give more time to slow down the expansion before every spot in the universe runs out of resources to keep humanity alive.

 

[twasdfzxcv]

Not a bad idea. But I also likes me tap, my indoor plumbing, fridge and a/c, my tv, computer, internet and games. So if something needs to be sacrifices, guess it'd have to be the the cows and sheeps.

 

[ottenni]

I fully support this notion. In fact i already have my wonderfully stylish barbarian axe and hat and i am all ready to pillage some villages. Bring it on i say.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

Sure, in theory it's a nice idea, but how does one control a landmass like that? Without some form of capitalism in place wealth distribution and economic freedom is almost impossible.

........ditto
but seriously, FargoDog brings up an excellent point. Besides, no matter what you do or how slow you do it, peoples needs and wants are limitless, its almost impossible to halt or satisfy the needs and wants of the public and capitalism is the system that does the best at controlling that.

 

[electric discordian]

For the record Communism is not de-humanising garbage, it's the implementation of it that leads to the problem. Like most things, anything on paper becomes ultimately ruined when implemented. What's that old adage "No plan survives contact with the enemy!" The enemy is human nature.

Someone actually likened me to Andrew Ryan yesterday I didn't know if I should be offended or complimented. For years I was a smash the state flag burning anarchist who hated law and order and the rule of government. Then I got a wife and a mortgage and all the other trappings of comfortable society.

Anarchism is great when you live with your parent's its easy to be a Marxist philosopher when you you don't have to pay for anything and are housed clothed and fed by those you supposedly hate for being conservatives!

Oh I am becoming that which I hated 16 years ago!

 

[Kurokami]

i was thinking about money, capitalism etc (i really should stop listening to john lennon)

and it got me thinking, what would happen if (over a long period of time) we slowly phased all the cities and all the buisnesses etc and instead exchanged it for a simple agricultural life with no tax, no financial worries etc. Of course we wouldnt have any modern luxuries but there would be so much more simple pleasures and no capitalist machine controlling everyone

obviously this is just a thought but its an interesting one, do you think this simpler way of life would be better or does the capitalist machine (arguably not a bad thing) have such a big hold on us?

Capitalism if freakin' great.