Humanity's worst mistake

[donisaac]

But you do realise that we will never run out of resources right?

Wrong. Basic economics: resources are finite; human demand is infinite.

We will run out eventually.

populations will stabilise and we'll be able to feed everyone.

Until the non-renewable resources run out, and boy, we use a lot of those.

This isn't goddam rocket surgery people. It's basic maths. Your head is in the clouds if you think that the Earth can sustain any significant population forever.

What is Rocket Surgery? And no its not basic maths, there are just too many factors, all of Africa is a gold mine with raw resources, the uninhabitble areas of Russia are full of Natural Resources, the gulf of mexico has litres upon litres of petrolium, imagine a fully industrialized India, or China, theres too much to be exploited still.

Also, food is never ending, even if every single animal on this planet goes extinct, our crops are advanced enough that we never run out.

 

[NinjazInside]

i actually think Gunpowder and Guns were not one of our worst mistakes, no where near, not a particularly good thing but neither a mistake. But the one mistake i will definitely say is one, Religion in general i guess, maybe if i had to scale it back a bit Religious Wars.

 

[Hank Wants Pie]

Greed.

Why? Wars, crisis, robbery, murder, betrayal, conflict, madness... You name it.

 

[Darknacht]

I'd say religion.

I disagree. Organized religion is probably fairly close though.

 

[bastardman25]

I'm going to be controversial here, but I think one of (not the worst, but in the top ten) the worst things humanity has done, or rather failed to do, is the failure to institute population caps in the last century, with strict regulations and harsh punishments for breaking those rules. I even wouldn't be averse to (as a last resort) adding birth control to the water supply in countries with greater than 3% growth per year. The population is increasing out of control, and we're running out of room and food and resources. Unless we want WW3, over natural resources, within the next century, we need to do something now.

And i'll be the first one to disagree with your "controversial" opinion here.

Concerns about over-population frequently pop up on the Escapist, and indeed "over-population" is often used in science-fiction as a simple and easy catalyst to create dystopian, conflict riddled futures, which is probably where a lot of people get their concerns about population from.

"Over-Population" is a relative term, depending on how technologically advanced such a population is when it comes to acquiring it's own food resources. For instance, by 1340 England was over-populated, medieval farming technology could not sustain 5 million people and more and more people were slipping into poverty and serfdom until the plague happend. If England had a population of 5 million today, with modern technology, we would be massively under-populated, because our economy can sustain a population off around 60 million.

For these reasons, developed countries like the UK, America, Germany, Canada Japan are not over-populated because they can feed their respective populations- to the extent that obesity is a common public health problem. Plus, in a developed economy, there is little incentive to have more than 2 children (or any at all) which means that the fertility rates in countries like the UK, France and Italy say hover around at "replacement level". In fact the only reason why the population in countries such as the UK is rising is because of immigration- in Germany and Japan the population growth is almost negative- because there is not enough immigration.

Developing countries such as Sudan, Ethiopia, Congo, Bangladesh etc are however "over-populated" and this is because they don't have the technology to sustain their populations. If they did, like the developed world does, then these countries would not be over-populated. However, antagonising this problem is high-birth rates because in un-developed states, there are reasons to have lots of children- lack of contraception, some medicine which would lower infant mortality, but mainly because most people work in agriculture and children are a) cheap, free labour b) without an effective system of state welfare, parents need children to look after them when they are old. This means that the populations in the un-developed world are rising quickly, and the solution to this is not imposing birth control measures, but by helping them develop economically so they have the technology to sustain their populations. If the entire world becomes "developed", populations will stabilise and we'll be able to feed everyone.

Well argued, but many of the technologies & techniques we use in the more economically developed parts of the world are considered unsustainable or even harmful to the environment in the long term, monoculture farming and constant intercontinental transportation of fruit & veg for eg.

Also for some reason the media went WILD telling people to be shit scared of everything GM, as though scientists were deliberately engineering tomato plants to uproot themselves "day of the triffids" style, eat your kids and take over your house, even though it could potentially solve critical food shortages everywhere including places with poor infrastructure and less fertile soil.

Unfortunately the same luddites propagating the anti-GM sentiments meet in a venn diagram with the rampant anti abortionists in their desire to deny scientific development to the whole world for the sake of unprovable space people only they care about, so we cant have mandatory birth control or improved means of food production yet.
I'd vote for one, while the other catches up, given the option.

 

[Corporal Yakob]

Celebrity/pop vampire/pop werewolf/pop Wicca/pop whatever mythical beast culture, the sort that leads to Gothic themed Facebook groups for people to share blood, depressing poetry and life-views on the banality and inferioity of Man.

(Sound of magazine being loaded into a Broomhandle Mauser).

 

[Shycte]

And of course people answer religion, what else? Always as sad...

Anyway, I don't know really. It's hard to answer when I don'r know what kind of mistake I'm after.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

Religion. Mankind would've been much better off without it.

/thread

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

And of course people answer religion, what else? Always as sad...

Well the truth can be quite sad sometimes...

 

[RagnarokHybrid]

The invention/evolution of the firearm. Prior to this wars were more limited in scale and bloodshed as only strong men could fight them and once you were out of men you were pretty much compelled to sue for peace or be annihilated. Sure it was brutal but swords and bows didn't really allow for the protracted fighting we see today nor does it give the equalizing power that guns do. A child with a sword cannot stand much of a chance against a knight. A child with a gun stands a chance against even the most well trained soldier.

Just my bit.

Also inb4 nuke if it hasn't been called already.

Everything this person said. Nukes are truly scary and no one nation should have such power at the press of a button.

Guns are a huge runner up.

 

[Da Orky Man]

british comedy

How is British comedy one of the worst mistakes of humanity?

I can think of quite a few off of the top of my head, but I think the one I can probably back up the easiest would be the idea of a monarchy. To say that one person is better than all other people simply because they were born that way is beyond me entirely. To assign them as your leader either because they were born or because some god said so is even sillier.

Well, I think the idea was that the bloke who first conquered/founded said country was probably a decent ruler, simply because he managed to. His offspring would likely inherit genes suitable for rulership, and so it gets handed down. Until you get a better system, it works alright.

The invention/evolution of the firearm. Prior to this wars were more limited in scale and bloodshed as only strong men could fight them and once you were out of men you were pretty much compelled to sue for peace or be annihilated. Sure it was brutal but swords and bows didn't really allow for the protracted fighting we see today nor does it give the equalizing power that guns do.

Prior to the firearm, it was standard procedure to start retreating once you hit 1/3rd casualties. The entirety of WW1 had about 20% casualty rate. If anything, relative bloodiness of battles has drastically reduced.


Any why are so many people saying religion? Sure, it's not much valid now, but without it, I doubt we'd even have civilization. The first cities were based around places of worship.

 

[AmrasCalmacil]

The invention/evolution of the firearm. Prior to this wars were more limited in scale and bloodshed as only strong men could fight them and once you were out of men you were pretty much compelled to sue for peace or be annihilated. Sure it was brutal but swords and bows didn't really allow for the protracted fighting we see today nor does it give the equalizing power that guns do. A child with a sword cannot stand much of a chance against a knight. A child with a gun stands a chance against even the most well trained soldier.

Just my bit.

Also inb4 nuke if it hasn't been called already.

Seriously?
Warfare is a hell of a lot less bloody due to the ways it has been refined in modern times thanks to fire-arms.

Training and equipment matters today as much as it ever did, child soldiers cannot hope to compare with a well trained, well equipped and modern force. A single medieval battle would have casualties dwarfing those of any recent battle and many recent wars.

And on protracted fighting, does the hundred years war ring any bells? So far I'm fairly sure no war since guns were widely issued has lasted more than a century. Most armies in the medieval era were made up of levies drawn from a Knight's or Lord's peasants. Often these men would be armed with bows, or spears, even long handled farm tools. Anything that could be used to take out a far more experienced warrior.

Longbowmen and pikemen have a particularly good record at taking out knights.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Hello, and welcome to the Escapist's 104 Trillionth CYNICALYMPICS!!!

Where the Escapist community comes together to find out, through insufferable, and angst-filled, and often quite misinformed competition, just who is the most cynical fuck on the internet. So far, everyone is losing. Because if they won, they might actually have to be happy about something. Which would, of course, render their victory null.

Anyway, I'm gonna go with slavery.

 

[MetroidNut]

The invention/evolution of the firearm. Prior to this wars were more limited in scale and bloodshed as only strong men could fight them and once you were out of men you were pretty much compelled to sue for peace or be annihilated. Sure it was brutal but swords and bows didn't really allow for the protracted fighting we see today nor does it give the equalizing power that guns do. A child with a sword cannot stand much of a chance against a knight. A child with a gun stands a chance against even the most well trained soldier.

Just my bit.

Also inb4 nuke if it hasn't been called already.

I'm afraid I disagree with you on both of those points.

Firearms may have done their job better, but my understanding is earlier weapons were just as equalizing. For instance, according to wikipedia, a crossbow takes about a week of training (and very little strength) to operate. That seems pretty similar to the amount of training needed to operate a firearm.

And honestly, I don't think an equalizing weapon is a bad thing. In the age of difficult-to-learn weapons like swords and bows, the aristocracy - the people capable of hiring the few dedicated warriors trained in using those weapons - could lord over the general populace unopposed. Crossbows, guns, etc. resulted in large numbers of lower-class individuals being much more powerful than highly-trained individuals. As a result, the power of any society's aristocracy is limited by its army, which would generally turn on the aristocracy to protect the people.

Basically, I think equalizing weapons like the gun are one of the reasons we progressed from feudalism and monarchy to republicanism.

Furthermore, I would argue that your perception of pre-gunpowder wars is incorrect. I don't think they were limited in either scale or bloodshed - just look at the horrors and civilian casualties of the Crusades. And I'd argue Medieval warfare was quite protracted, too; the Hundred Years' War may have been a little off-and-on, but it still lasted 116 years.

And nukes? If you ask me, they prevented WWIII from breaking out sometime in the 50s.

 

[Shycte]

And of course people answer religion, what else? Always as sad...

Well the truth can be quite sad sometimes...

Indeed, but the issue at hand here is that religion is a way to broad answer. Seriously, religion has always been a part of mankind, in one way or another. Now, if you were to say something along the lines with "religious conflict" or "religios oppression" that'd be another thing, that be something that you could discuss. Just saying religion doesn't really work because it is such a fundamental part of our history and our civilization.

 

[Bebus]

Deciding that we were better off in massive cities than individual towns and villages.

Seriously, we are good at running local communities. Anything bigger, we kinda suck. Corruption, too much power in the hands of too few, poverty.

 

[TheDoctor455]

Any religious ceremony that involves inflicting bodily harm on oneself or others. Like fasting, self-flagellation, or exorcism. Also, the very deliberate creation of racism.

 

[theheroofaction]

The fact that, even after many people have pointed out that bigotry is the worlds largest problem, and that nobody can even possibly think of a counterpoint. That people stilltry to place the blame on everything but themselves.

Also, why is everybody saying religion, Last I checked that's the train of thought that led to WWII.

 

[Belethchamien]

Humanity's worst mistake is that the human species ever started to think instead of just following their instincts. It's reasonable thought that sets us apart from the rest of nature and makes us do stupid stuff that harms our environment and ourselves.

 

[Bebus]

And of course people answer religion, what else? Always as sad...

Well the truth can be quite sad sometimes...

Indeed, but the issue at hand here is that religion is a way to broad answer. Seriously, religion has always been a part of mankind, in one way or another. Now, if you were to say something along the lines with "religious conflict" or "religios oppression" that'd be another thing, that be something that you could discuss. Just saying religion doesn't really work because it is such a fundamental part of our history and our civilization.

I am of the very cynical view that people use religion as an excuse to hate and kill those they would anyway, not the other way around.

If it was not religion, it would be something else.

We are a particularly hateful species really...