From: IanIveson.home@blueyonder.co.uk
"flipper" wrote in message
news:7ab826t9598tttkp175h3g19dbjs2pdbpb@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 00:12:01 +0100, "Ian Iveson"
> wrote:
>
>>Patrick Turner wrote:
>>
>>> >The Chinese really do like doing business with us.
>>>
>>> >You see, 3 billion ppl want to have lifestyles like us,
>>> >all those
>>> >Chinese and Indians and Indonesians et all.
>>>
>>> >When do they want it? within 25 years. It took 250
>>> >years
>>> >for 1 billion
>>> >to get as rich as we are.
>>>
>>> That's a straw man. One does not have to reinvent the
>>> wheel, or the
>>> bow and arrow, or the steam engine, and so on.
>>
>>Yes, I see that straw man you refer to due my roundabout
>>way
>>of
>>speaking about world progress on abolition of povety.
>>AFAIK,
>>the
>>Chinese are trying to become as inventive as possible with
>>their ideas
>>about nuclear steam engines for the future.
>>
>>In 100 years time the people may look back to 2010 and our
>>very
>>primitive lifestyle. Or perhaps they'll be looking for a
>>yew
>>tree from
>>which they can make a decent bow and arrows to defend
>>themselves
>>against each other.
>>
>>>
>>> >So there is HUGE DEMAND for every fuckin thing you can
>>> >think of. The
>>> >matter of price is a minor concern.
>>>
>>> Price is always a concern because you can't have what
>>> can't be paid
>>> for.
>>
>>The GFC is a sample of very many ppl thinking they can
>>have
>>what they
>>can't pay for. Despite the limitations to the financial
>>system
>>operation or its honesty record, life will proceed apace
>>even while so
>>may grumble about being so poor while trying to pay for a
>>huge house
>>and a huge car and funding an absurdly unsustainable
>>lifestyle.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> >I don't think there is anywhere near enough Earth
>>> >resources for
>>> >several more billion ppl all living *better* than we
>>> >do.
>>>
>>> Malthus has been proved wrong over and over again but
>>> that
>>> never seems
>>> to stop anti-humanists from spitting it back up.
>>
>>Maybe Malthus saved the world. Who can tell? Society
>>adapts:
>>Malthus, eco-warriors, et al, have been driving forces in
>>that process. Whether they were right or wrong, in your
>>narrow literal sense, is not really the point. Complex
>>entities aren't like Newton's apple: you need to find a
>>more
>>sophisticated conception of science, or you'll keep
>>looking
>>silly.
>>
>>> History shows that as societies become more affluent the
>>> birth rate
>>> drops and, in some cases, goes negative so you wailing
>>> about the
>>> 'billions' wanting to be prosperous is counter
>>> productive
>>> to the very
>>> problem you complain about.
>>
>>Yes, but if the population stabilises at say 9 billion,
>>and
>>all of
>>them have our present lifestyle for 80 years each then
>>they
>>will
>>consume about 5 times current levels of almost everything.
>>We have
>>only one Planet.
>>
>>*** Don't be drawn into accepting flipper's idea of
>>science.
>
> My 'idea' of science it observation and experimentation.
> What's your
> fantasy?
Something rather more sophisticated than Newton, and more
enlightened than naive realism. Wide enough to embrace the
very big, the very small, and the very complex. Your small
science has left you ill-equipped for modern scientific
debate, but you don't seem to have realised your pique is so
puny.
>
> Btw, where did I even mention 'science'?
Ad nauseam, below and elsewhere. I don't have to read much
to know where your head is.
>>History hasn't shown that at all. Where more affluent
>>societies do have lower birth rates they also have higher
>>survival rates
>
> True. Population growth is lower even with the better
> survival rate.
>
>> and, in cases where population growth is
>>lower, it's hard to say which, affluence or low rate of
>>population growth, is cause, and which is effect.
>
> Feel free to make a proposition but just claiming you find
> it
> difficult to say which isn't 'science'.
Bar-room rhetoric. I didn't say hard for me, I said it's
hard. It's hard for science, and impossible for your "RISC"
version, to establish cause and effect in very complex
systems. Your tiny science is useless for applying to
society, a fact you are fond of celebrating. Save yourself
from future embarrassment and conduct a total rethink.
>> There is a
>>closer and apparently valid correlation between education
>>and birth rate,
>
> Education generally breeds affluence.
Sometimes it might. Sometimes not. Sometimes affluence
breeds education, sometimes not. Sometimes education,
through affluence or by other means, breeds itself, but
sometimes it doesn't. Affluence, through education, might
breed affluence, but not always.
>> but even then it's hard to establish a
>>causal relationship between the two...could be a babies
>>and
>>storks type of coincidence.
>
> "Could be" isn't 'science' either.
"Could be otherwise" is absolutely crucial to science. You
know that really. I guess you're just feeling bitchy.
>> Over a long period of history,
>>including all parts of the world at all times we know
>>about,
>>these relationships are not simple even if they exist.
>
> The World population growth rate peaked in 1962-1963 and
> has been
> declining since. It remains highest in the underdeveloped
> countries,
> notably the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa,South Asia,
> Southeast
> Asia, and Latin America.
A convenient snapshot in the context of history. One minute
you're bleating and foot-stamping about scientific rigour,
and the next you're making wild generalisations on the basis
of a few points of data picked for your own purpose.
>>Doom and gloom pedictions could always be laughed at if
>>you
>>lived in
>>Rome while Augustus was around. World population was small
>>and the
>>anthropogenic effects on nature were negligible. But not
>>now. Things
>>are becoming quite different.
>>>
>>> >If I am right there may be wars in future over
>>> >resources,
>>>
>>> There have always been 'wars' over resources from the
>>> first hominids
>>> fighting over a water hole. Of course, humans didn't
>>> 'invent' that.
>>> Just watch two stray dogs with one bone between them.
>>
>>Agreed. Many species just like a fight for a fight's sake.
>>Species
>>which fight to improve their chance at survival tend to
>>survive well
>>compared to those who lose the fight so fight genes get
>>passed on. Our
>>human history is blood soaked. And when resources are
>>short,
>>expect
>>big fights.
>>
>>*** We're different. We have a conscious social history
>>and
>>it learns. Human nature, through civilisation, makes
>>progress.
>
> Quite right.
>
>>
>>> > but its
>>> >cheaper to buy your way than bomb your way to wealth
>>> >and
>>> >control.
>>>
>>> You cannot 'buy' your way to 'wealth'. Or, put simply,
>>> you
>>> can't 'buy'
>>> a million dollars with a penny.
>>
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
