population reduction after ecnomic collapse
- Thread starter james blunt
- Start date
A few explanations (for the n-th time):
The people who can contribute to the "world after" are the people with expertise. Because expertise and the ability to conserve and expand it transgenerationally is what has allowed us to create a civilization and the single most important thing that actually distinguishes us from animals. When I say expertise, I don't mean scientific expertise only, I mean all kinds of expertise on things necessary for the maintenance of a civilized society; understandably, all scientists and most intellectuals, by definition are included.
The people who will be a problem are the people who insist on keeping the world view and the type of behavior associated with it that dominate the world today and that got us into this mess that we have a very slim chance of making it out of in a conditions different from stone-age (medieval at best) post-collapse barbarism. It should not be necessary to list what this includes, but I will still do it:
1. The primal impulse that we as original hunter-gatherers have to view everything around us as something for us to forage and not a part of a enormously complex system that will not be able to sustain us if we destroy its vital components. This is manifested today in the culture of growth (of the economy, of per capita consumption and of population) without giving a thought about the limits to it.
2. Irrational and superstitious thinking, of course best exemplified by religion (the major example of which, in turn, so nicely codifies point number 1 above, with its "Be fruitful, multiply and dominate the world" directive).
3. Anti-intellectualism and the general lack of interest in understanding the world around you. These make sure that 1 and 2 will very quickly lead to a catastrophe and they are, of course, themselves intimately connected with number 2.
There are a number of other problem with people that are abundant in the world today, but mostly it can be all boiled down to these 3 points I listed above.
The people who can contribute to the "world after" are the people with expertise. Because expertise and the ability to conserve and expand it transgenerationally is what has allowed us to create a civilization and the single most important thing that actually distinguishes us from animals. When I say expertise, I don't mean scientific expertise only, I mean all kinds of expertise on things necessary for the maintenance of a civilized society; understandably, all scientists and most intellectuals, by definition are included.
The people who will be a problem are the people who insist on keeping the world view and the type of behavior associated with it that dominate the world today and that got us into this mess that we have a very slim chance of making it out of in a conditions different from stone-age (medieval at best) post-collapse barbarism. It should not be necessary to list what this includes, but I will still do it:
1. The primal impulse that we as original hunter-gatherers have to view everything around us as something for us to forage and not a part of a enormously complex system that will not be able to sustain us if we destroy its vital components. This is manifested today in the culture of growth (of the economy, of per capita consumption and of population) without giving a thought about the limits to it.
2. Irrational and superstitious thinking, of course best exemplified by religion (the major example of which, in turn, so nicely codifies point number 1 above, with its "Be fruitful, multiply and dominate the world" directive).
3. Anti-intellectualism and the general lack of interest in understanding the world around you. These make sure that 1 and 2 will very quickly lead to a catastrophe and they are, of course, themselves intimately connected with number 2.
There are a number of other problem with people that are abundant in the world today, but mostly it can be all boiled down to these 3 points I listed above.
quote:The people who will be a problem are the people who insist on keeping the world view and the type of behavior associated with it that dominate the world today and that got us into this mess that we have a very slim chance of making it out of in a conditions different from stone-age (medieval at best) post-collapse barbarism. It should not be necessary to list what this includes, but I will still do it:
qustion who are the people that will be a problem?The people who are the problem is the bankrupt decadent elite who are so morally corrupt that they dont have any better solutions than to kill a large part off he world population.you might not know it but these are the people you are advocating should be kept alive and maby you think you are a part off some sort off elite but i can tell you right here and now that your not so you better get over your self and do some research on whose veiws you are posting here.
qustion who are the people that will be a problem?The people who are the problem is the bankrupt decadent elite who are so morally corrupt that they dont have any better solutions than to kill a large part off he world population.you might not know it but these are the people you are advocating should be kept alive and maby you think you are a part off some sort off elite but i can tell you right here and now that your not so you better get over your self and do some research on whose veiws you are posting here.
And how do we define or gauge a persons level of expertise? Do we do so by what college a person graduates from? Does a person have to have graduated from an Ivy league school or does an AA from a community college work? What about college graduates (or high school students) who dropped out, entered other fields and made a fortune doing whatever it was they found their niche in? Does one need to publish a work or have some type of accolade that distinguishes them (experts) from those who aren't?
I'll address this with your 1,2 and 3.
And who exactly created this situation? Do you blame the average joe or do you blame the people responsible for post industrialization, mcdonaldization and capitalism? What should happen to these people?
Not all religions hold the view of "Be fruitful, multiply and dominate the world" (and within christianity this is also hit and miss as many sects don't adhere to this.) Also, irrational and superstitious thinking is actually what helped us get to where we are now. Someone said something, people challanged it, did experiments, tested it, and things were proven. The problem is, we don't know everything about our universe, our world, ourselves, etc so it is impossible to eliminate irrational and superstitious thinking.
What exactly is intellectualism? What you may think is intellectualism may be totally different from someone else.
Ok, but back to the question I asked you in the previous post, "So do you think they'll shoot you a get out of jail free card? If so, is it due to your intellect? "
I'll address this with your 1,2 and 3.
And who exactly created this situation? Do you blame the average joe or do you blame the people responsible for post industrialization, mcdonaldization and capitalism? What should happen to these people?
Not all religions hold the view of "Be fruitful, multiply and dominate the world" (and within christianity this is also hit and miss as many sects don't adhere to this.) Also, irrational and superstitious thinking is actually what helped us get to where we are now. Someone said something, people challanged it, did experiments, tested it, and things were proven. The problem is, we don't know everything about our universe, our world, ourselves, etc so it is impossible to eliminate irrational and superstitious thinking.
What exactly is intellectualism? What you may think is intellectualism may be totally different from someone else.
Ok, but back to the question I asked you in the previous post, "So do you think they'll shoot you a get out of jail free card? If so, is it due to your intellect? "
The number of people who meet the criteria is much smaller than the minimal number of people who will have to stay alive for civilization to be preserved (because we have to cut number to a few hundred millions at most, but we don't want to end up with 500,000 people on the whole planet either because this will be too few). Therefore it will be much easier to pick those who need to go
Actually it is the Average Joe that is most responsible, with his ignorance and generally anti-intellectualist attitude. This allowed for the people on top to exploit the Average Joe, and don't even for a second think that the people on top are drastically different from him in terms of their world view. And BTW I personally have understood these problems for a long time, of course my awareness has only grown deeper with time, but I come from an Average Joe background and this means that is perfectly possible for the Average Joe not to be the dumb ass he is right now. Especially in the age of the Internet
The one that produced the industrial civilization says exactly that, and its major institution still insists on this passage. It is certainly true that religion per se does not prohibit birth control, the second most successful large scale birth control program is in theocratic Iran in case you don't know. However, there is a big difference between Iran with its thousands of years of culture and history and the rest of the Muslim world, and in general, religion is definitely a hindrance to population control.
That's what I am saying
We don't need irrationality, scientists' intuition may have suggested some experiment to be done here and there, but it was the experiment itself, performed by the rigorous standards of science that solved the problem. Irrational approaches have been historically shown to fail most of the time, that's why we have developed a systematic way of discovering objective truth about the world around us, called science, and it has a rich and history to back up its claim for superiority over everything else
Intellectualism as a term is very rarely used because it does not make much sense, however, anti-intellectualism is a very well established term and we all know what it means so there is no need to twist things around and avoid the actual argument.
I didn't answer the question because I didn't understand what you were getting at. Maybe I am not aware of the meaning of the metaphor you use but why should I go to jail to begin with?
Actually it is the Average Joe that is most responsible, with his ignorance and generally anti-intellectualist attitude. This allowed for the people on top to exploit the Average Joe, and don't even for a second think that the people on top are drastically different from him in terms of their world view. And BTW I personally have understood these problems for a long time, of course my awareness has only grown deeper with time, but I come from an Average Joe background and this means that is perfectly possible for the Average Joe not to be the dumb ass he is right now. Especially in the age of the Internet
The one that produced the industrial civilization says exactly that, and its major institution still insists on this passage. It is certainly true that religion per se does not prohibit birth control, the second most successful large scale birth control program is in theocratic Iran in case you don't know. However, there is a big difference between Iran with its thousands of years of culture and history and the rest of the Muslim world, and in general, religion is definitely a hindrance to population control.
That's what I am saying
We don't need irrationality, scientists' intuition may have suggested some experiment to be done here and there, but it was the experiment itself, performed by the rigorous standards of science that solved the problem. Irrational approaches have been historically shown to fail most of the time, that's why we have developed a systematic way of discovering objective truth about the world around us, called science, and it has a rich and history to back up its claim for superiority over everything else
Intellectualism as a term is very rarely used because it does not make much sense, however, anti-intellectualism is a very well established term and we all know what it means so there is no need to twist things around and avoid the actual argument.
I didn't answer the question because I didn't understand what you were getting at. Maybe I am not aware of the meaning of the metaphor you use but why should I go to jail to begin with?
The number of people who meet the criteria is much smaller than the minimal number of people who will have to stay alive for civilization to be preserved (because we have to cut number to a few hundred millions at most, but we don't want to end up with 500,000 people on the whole planet either because this will be too few). Therefore it will be much easier to pick those who need to go. haahahahaha!go and get your fucking head examined
Sorry mr g for not being contructive i was drunk and i hope you where to (even though i doubt it) when you wrote your insane genocidal post.Unlike you i dont blame the little man for the ills of the world i blame it's leadership.You can take the world of sports for instance if a team has bad coach and a management thats broke and corrupt if the team doesnt preform well who has the ultimate responibillity i would say the coach and the management.I know this may sound a little simplefied but in the world to day we have a leadership that doesnt do shit to benefit humanity insted they start wars rape third world nations leave them in poverty and when there is not enough dollars to go around they want to start killing people. the best way to control population is to raise the stanard of living for people and remember i write this out of the prespective that your little global warming religon is a hoax partially invented as an excuase to not indurialize the third world.You can call me crazy i really dont care i am not the one advocating genocide.
