So, I'm on a day shift again so I thought I'd do one of those thread.
Where do you see humanity going? Are we doing ok? Are we getting better? Will capitalism destroy itself as predicted by marx or will it not matter because technology will make the notion of scarcity irrelevant (see Star Trek)? Will an ecological disaster destroy us? Will a new global war erupt as china makes a grab for russia's resources?
What are your predictions for the next 50-100 years?
I don't think anything will change much in the next century. Global warming just won't have an effect, ecosystems evolve and there's nothing anyone can do. Running out of natural resources doesn't seem very probable for a long time. Ehhhhhhhh
In 100 years time we will have major political changes in the world.
There's no room for small countries and their independence as their dept are never to be paid.
Territory occupation (non-military in Europe, I believe) will happen again. This doesn't have to be dramatic (WWII) and cultural absorption would likely start with economical regional federations.
I think that in the next 50 years we'll see southern European countries (Portugal,Spain,Italy and Greece) forging a political and economic space. The same will happen with countries that were former soviet regions.
And yes, capitalism will eventually collapse again, and again, and again. Enforcing rules to keep markets from collapsing may delay future crisis but not for long.
Again, this doesn't have to be bad, people will adapt. At least the ones living in the safe zone.
Quote from: Armageddon on Mon 21/01/2013 08:44:50
I don't think anything will change much in the next century.
Because soooo little changed in the past century, or the one before that... ???
Why I don't see anything for USA in this thread? Unfortunately, the future depends upon USA too much.
Actually I think the US will become much less relevant in the future. In fact I think we are just about now beginning to see the beginning of the end of US domination.
They certainly wont be able to maintain their economic domination of the world in the next 50 years without something catastrophic happening. China's growth rate is something like 9% a year and India's is also very high. The same thing happens to any empire really.
QuoteUnfortunately, the future depends upon USA too much.
And China, India, Russia, Middle East, EU,...everybody will constantly "battle" for market dominance and resource monopoly.
EDIT: What Calin said
In one of his speeches Bill Gates said something like: "Life is not fair - get used to it!". For me future is not bright. The distance between the rich and the poor is increasing. This is a timebomb.
Your posts are always a little like an acid trip.
Judging by the class I took on cyber warfare and cyber terrorism, I'd say we're screwed once China decides they don't need the USA anymore. >:(
We'll all feed on soylent green. :-X
I have absolutely no idea where this capitalism thing will lead to, and I know way too little about politics to come up with anything that wouldn't be a shot in the dark.
But I do sort of believe, for instance, that the internet will become increasingly policed and regulated, and it will get harder/more expensive to access all the mainstream stuff we can get for free today. I think all in all, the internet is just too radical to survive in its current form in years to come. :P
That's all about (more or less) wild guesses from me, the rest is just hoping for a better future. For example, I'd like to see more scientists and engineers, in the time of economic decline, to take a break from developing all that fancy high-tech stuff that is already way beyond our needs and focus instead on turning what we already have into something more accessible, environment-friendly and perhaps lasting longer. But - oh noes! Where's the money in that! :O
One thing I do like, and see a bright future in (Germans out there, correct me if I'm wrong) are metropolises such as Berlin, and perhaps Munich. From what I've seen on my visits to those places, it all seems a lot less... erm, zombified than, say, Slovenia. It's nice to see for a change some friendly and well-mannered people who don't look so fed up with their jobs and their lives in general, and don't buy all the possible media crap and go along with all their political provocations (I'm sorry, I'm just bitching about the Slovenes here, I don't actually know the situation in Germany :embarrassed:). Anyway, I've always been really impressed by Berlin in particular. It seems so culturally diverse, and so well-balanced in every way - modernised and well-structured (with things like public transport, for example), but still giving plenty of room to all the alternative stuff. I did see/hear about squats and things like that getting shut recently, but even so, I still think the situation there is a lot better than in practically any other city I've been to, as far as alternative life goes. I do hope more cities start to recognise Berlin as a sort of exemplary city of the 21st century and learn something from the way stuff works there. So yeah, my point is that Germany, with urban centres like that, could play an important role in political changes that are to come. I hope it will, at least. Maybe I'm just being naive.
Okay, I got a bit carried away, I'll stop now. I apologise in advance for all the ignorant bullshit I might have written, even if it was unintentional. :P
While it's easy to cry "Idiocracy", a lot things are in fact getting better, especially in the areas of technology and medicine. Making specific predictions is a fool's game.
One great trend is the increased transparency of whats going in other countries, which can help topple dictator(s) and allow folks from different parts of the World to come together. The downside of course is that misinformation also gets spread around, and people seem to not be fact checking these days.
My main concern is overpopulation, which exacerbates many other problems facing the human race.
The main thing that's wrong with my part of the world is the so called "Energiewende" (energy turnaround), which means they're shutting down all nuclear power plants because that Fukushima thing happened nobody talks about anymore.
I'd be all for it if there were an actual alternative to NPPs but there isn't (currently).
So once again, hippies/conservatives/idiots spreading panic have won against rationality, and politics follow suit.
Then there's two Catholic hospitals in Cologne who refused treating a rape victim because treatment includes talking about the morning after pill. Which is of course against the rules, the only problem here is that the hospitals are 98% state-funded.
Stuff is going to get better though, because contrary to popular opinion, everything gets better everywhere, even in extremely underdeveloped countries. The only thing we need to be wary of is a religiously inspired global war and of course climate change (not "Global Warming", which is an inaccurate word only used by the media).
Quote from: ddq on Tue 22/01/2013 03:51:46
While it's easy to cry "Idiocracy", a lot things are in fact getting better, especially in the areas of technology and medicine.
I'm sorry, could you be a bit more specific?
Quotethe increased transparency of whats going in other countries, which can help topple dictator(s)
I'm afraid that we don't have a clue of what is really happening on the "Arabian Spring" countries. It looks to me that they are replacing dictators for...dictators?
Quotebecause contrary to popular opinion, everything gets better everywhere, even in extremely underdeveloped countries
I think so, humans everywhere struggle to get better. Although, I believe that most 3rd world countries will not have the "chance" to become developed. In 100 years we'll see African nations disappear under bigger neighbour countries. Some African nations exist solely for their resources and black market weapon trade. Once a democracy is set up on those countries, they will have to deal with half of the population being related to crime and corruption - making new politicians tied to strong characters in order to win elections. It takes generations to lower corruption levels IF they ever accomplish it.
Then there's overpopulation, of course. There's simply no way Europe can maintain their "open borders" policy. This sounds right-wing I know, but I've seen the damage done to Portugal in the past 10 years. Today, not even half of foreign people are still in the country. And we're left with social security debts to our necks, low pay checks related to foreign work and thousands of blond, blue-eyed children who don't have a clue of what Portugal or being Portuguese is.
This said, if I can still name the US as a free country for all, even with their border policy, then I hope you understand that I can talk about a European border policy without being called fascist.
What Khris said.
It's a statistical fact that things get better (in a long term perspective), and the only thing that might go against that trend is the global warming.
I think that life will probably get better in material ways. My concern is that we engineer away our failings as a society before we understand the need for social conscience. A Brave New World like scenario seems *painfully* close to reality.
Quote from: miguel on Tue 22/01/2013 10:47:37
Quotethe increased transparency of whats going in other countries, which can help topple dictator(s)
I'm afraid that we don't have a clue of what is really happening on the "Arabian Spring" countries. It looks to me that they are replacing dictators for...dictators?
In some cases, yes. Hopefully the dictator-for-dictator swap is short-term. And of course the World isn't going to know everything thats going on exactly, but I think its good for countries to learn that you can't fully hide atrocities (Syria currently), suppress information (China during Sars), etc...and there is at least some degree of transparency.
Quote from: Radiant on Mon 21/01/2013 11:47:06
Quote from: Armageddon on Mon 21/01/2013 08:44:50
I don't think anything will change much in the next century.
Because soooo little changed in the past century, or the one before that... ???
The biggest thing to happen in the last century was the abolishment of slavery. Yes there were a lot of technological advances but that's how it's always been. The world will be here long after we are gone, that's how I view global warming. I agree USA won't be a super power at all after this century. I think capitalism is the best economical system to have if the US government wasn't messing it up.
Yes kconan, I do hope that dictators understand that with internet/smartphones the world can see human rights violations in real time.
But that's one thing. The civilized World will condemn and maybe even send troops to take out the regime but they can't stay there forever as the population will claim the territory again and eventually consider their saviours as the oppressive regime.
Democracy is something as natural to us as going to the supermarket and find stuff that we can buy. But for those countries, democracy has to be learned and that takes generations and culture changes most of the time. Many countries still have clans and leaders as region rulers, while we have mayors and don't carry AK47's around in a 4x4 van...
Armageddon: it's not the US fault that capitalism fails from time to time. In 2008 everybody had their fingers in the honey pot, the clever ones took them away before the pot blew.
Quote from: Armageddon on Tue 22/01/2013 14:52:43
The biggest thing to happen in the last century was the abolishment of slavery. Yes there were a lot of technological advances but that's how it's always been. The world will be here long after we are gone, that's how I view global warming. I agree USA won't be a super power at all after this century. I think capitalism is the best economical system to have if the US government wasn't messing it up.
Exactly where on Earth was slavery abolished in the last century? In western Europe slavery has been illegal since the end of the middle ages or something, whereas in some parts of the world there is still slavery, so that statement is only almost correct if you mean the USA, in which case you should probably avoid having a purely American perspective in an international forum.
Also, the 20th century has seen a
gazillion improvements all over the world. Penicillin, refrigeration, sanitation, decline in global poverty, etc.
Sure, there will always be ups and downs. We seem to be in a bad spiral of regimes that turn increasingly undemocratic, and in some countries (at least in Scandinavia) we seem to stubbornly destroy our welfare system and become less egalitarian. But in larger perspective I'm pretty optimistic. Save perhaps for the global warming.
The future is not Orange anymore (it's EE), but I think it is still bright.
There will always be problems in the Middle-East, at least for the next 50-100 years.
I can't envisage another war on the scale of WWI and WWII, certainly not in Europe, but I am looking somewhat curiously towards Asia, where China seems to be flexing her muscles more and more recently. But these are all disputes about tiny useless islands... No one is going to invade poland or anything like that. I'm actually kind of excited for North Korea at the moment. Kim Jong-un really seems to be doing things differently to his father and grandfather and while he's unlikely to suddenly open the country up any time soon, he does seem to be taking steps in the right direction (although his insistence on firing rockets is a little provocative).
Economically... I haven't got a clue about global economics, but we've obviously hit a low point in the past few years, so things should start getting noticeably better soon. Hopefully we'll all be enjoying a bit of prosperity sooner rather than later. I'm hopeful that will be the case, anyway.
Btw, saying capitalism has failed is a bit like saying democracy has failed. Thankfully, nobody has said it yet. :)
Quote from: Armageddon on Tue 22/01/2013 14:52:43The world will be here long after we are gone, that's how I view global warming.
That's a really bad attitude. You can use that same logic to justify almost any atrocity. I'm not saying "go protest the industry right now" (I do nothing of the sort myself), all I'm saying is "don't propagate using such stupid hand-waving when talking about a serious issue".
Also, it's "climate change". There are (small) parts of the world who are in fact cooling as a result of it.
What I don't like how our market and financial systems are based on constant growth. This seems like a really bad idea. It can't always get better and bigger. there's also a more or less inbuilt currency devaluation. Another thing is outsourcing - we have stuff made where it's cheap but pay no attention HOW these things are made, and under what conditions people have to work in some countries.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned a human population boom. It just makes sense that less people would solve countless problems, and I can't think of a single reason why having a smaller population is a bad thing. Can anybody else? (I'm not talking about a microcosmic population obviously, so no risk of a population bottleneck or restricted gene pool).
Quote from: Atelier on Tue 22/01/2013 21:50:49
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned a human population boom. It just makes sense that less people would solve countless problems, and I can't think of a single reason why having a smaller population is a bad thing. Can anybody else? (I'm not talking about a microcosmic population obviously, so no risk of a population bottleneck or restricted gene pool).
There is a global trend of more people (women) getting education. Together with better healthcare this is moving us towards population decline. However, rather than population it's consumption that has the bigger effects on the environment. ( And backwards wastefull means of production. ) And in general the educated have more money to be wastefull. So it's not all positive.
If the population of China would eat meat like the people in the "west" this globe would be too small many times over.
Here is a clip I found insightful:
Hans Rosling: New insights on poverty (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpKbO6O3O3M)As for my part of the world. (Apart from supporting wasteful means of production.) I think there are some big problems concerning the patent system, privacy and engaged citizenship. And indeed with how economist seem to have stopped the sane tradition that would include questions of morality and ethics in their thesis.
And although I feel very privileged being born in Europe, there seem to be a growing inequality in access to things like education and the justice system. I think that is a harmfull direction. Perhaps a sign of the traumatized border between private and public.
But I also noticed the older I get the less of a pessimist I became. I think technological developments and the growing emancipation of more and more people make me hopefull somewhere.
And then of course there's wolves in minecraft, while everyone knows it makes more sense to have slime pets.
I just want to add this comments from David Attenborough. Not saying I agree, but actually it goes towards my opinion on 3rd world countries not having a chance becoming prosperous. Ever.
Humans are plague on Earth (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9815862/Humans-are-plague-on-Earth-Attenborough.html)
This statements are fresh and started a polemic debate among scientists. To us, I believe is something more to feed our debate.
Quote from: Khris on Tue 22/01/2013 19:44:41
Btw, saying capitalism has failed is a bit like saying democracy has failed. Thankfully, nobody has said it yet. :)
Quote from: Armageddon on Tue 22/01/2013 14:52:43The world will be here long after we are gone, that's how I view global warming.
That's a really bad attitude. You can use that same logic to justify almost any atrocity. I'm not saying "go protest the industry right now" (I do nothing of the sort myself), all I'm saying is "don't propagate using such stupid hand-waving when talking about a serious issue".
Also, it's "climate change". There are (small) parts of the world who are in fact cooling as a result of it.
I don't think 'climate change' will have any effect upon humans in the far future, might kill one species of mountain beetles, I don't know. And by far future I mean by the time the sun becomes a red dwarf and kills us all.
And thus concludes my participation in this thread, everyone will hate everyone after a few posts. Also I was quoting George Carlin about the whole 'The earth will be here long after we're gone.' thing. :)
Sorry, I didn't notice that kconan had already mentioned population growth.
Quote from: tamatic on Wed 23/01/2013 10:04:09
Together with better healthcare this is moving us towards population decline.
Naturally it's the complete opposite. Less people are contracting or dying from diseases, more babies are being born healthy, and people are living much longer.
Quote from: tamatic on Wed 23/01/2013 10:04:09
However, rather than population it's consumption that has the bigger effects on the environment.
They are related because population is the limiting factor here - if the population increases then consumption increases even further. So curbing population growth as well as getting people to consume less is equally as important.
Basically, with regards to the cause of many of the problems we have and how to deal with them, I agree with David Attenborough.
Quote from: Atelier on Wed 23/01/2013 12:39:05
Sorry, I didn't notice that kconan had already mentioned population growth.
Quote from: tamatic on Wed 23/01/2013 10:04:09
Together with better healthcare this is moving us towards population decline.
Naturally it's the complete opposite. Less people are contracting or dying from diseases, more babies are being born healthy, and people are living much longer.
Quote from: tamatic on Wed 23/01/2013 10:04:09
However, rather than population it's consumption that has the bigger effects on the environment.
They are related because population is the limiting factor here - if the population increases then consumption increases even further. So curbing population growth as well as getting people to consume less is equally as important.
Basically, with regards to the cause of many of the problems we have and how to deal with them, I agree with David Attenborough.
But yeah, you make presumptions that better education and healthcare make the population grow. This is clearly not the case, just look at developed countries where emancipation thrives.
A privileged person, however, uses more than tenfold the resources a poor uneducated (breed like poor uneducated) person does. The primary problem isn't population: thats just one of the lazy answers cooked up by people like D Attenborough.
Quote from: tamatic on Wed 23/01/2013 13:27:50
But yeah, you make presumptions that better education and healthcare make the population grow. This is clearly not the case, just look at developed countries where emancipation thrives.
It's not a presumption... if there are less people dying and more people being born, the population will increase. I can't think of any situation where better healthcare would cause a population decrease, it's completely antithetical. I'm not sure what you mean by emancipation here.
In the article Attenborough is saying that there are too many people in
underdeveloped countries: "We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; that's what's happening. Too many people there. They can't support themselves â€" and it's not an inhuman thing to say. It's the case."
So yes the primary problem isn't overpopulation in Western countries (where food and water seem practically infinite), but I'm saying there's not enough resources to go around in underdeveloped countries. The quality of life if so low partly because the fertility rate is ridiculously high, for reasons other than healthcare (I would say culture but I'm no sociologist). Also overpopulation doesn't only cause depletion of resources. Problems more relevant to the Western world include more unemployment, lack of housing, more crime, overcrowded schools/prisons/hospitals, more pollution, and a greater strain on public services.
Quote from: Armageddon on Wed 23/01/2013 11:45:22I don't think 'climate change' will have any effect upon humans in the far future, might kill one species of mountain beetles, I don't know. And by far future I mean by the time the sun becomes a red dwarf and kills us all.
"The world will survive, so let's ignore it" is how I read your previous post. This didn't really do anything to alleviate that. If that's what you think, fine. I'm not going to argue with utter ignorance.
Atelier: less children dying etc. will lead to more people, but living in the developed world, where women are empowered as opposed to being baby factories, is a bigger factor here. The average age in Germany is rising for instance (and has been since at least a decade), and the work force can no longer pay adequate pensions for seniors.
It's a fact that fertility rates go down all over the world. (Fertility rate = number of children per woman, source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_rate#Parameter_characteristics))
Quote from: Atelier on Wed 23/01/2013 14:50:42I can't think of any situation where better healthcare would cause a population decrease, it's completely antithetical.
I can, and no, it isn't. Better healthcare usually correlates with better education, and that means access to contraceptives and less unwanted pregnancies, family planning, older parents, no kids at all.
In developing countries, for lots of people, getting lots of kids is still the only way to secure a halfway decent living. If we change that (and we're doing it), fertility rates goes down (they do).
Some suggest the world population will stabilize in 2050.
Quote from: Atelier on Wed 23/01/2013 14:50:42
It's not a presumption... if there are less people dying and more people being born, the population will increase. I can't think of any situation where better healthcare would cause a population decrease, it's completely antithetical. I'm not sure what you mean by emancipation here.
It is a presumption. History shows if you have a save environment and know how to prevent having kids you don't get as many, it's not a miracle.
Quote
In the article Attenborough is saying that there are too many people in underdeveloped countries: "We keep putting on programmes about famine in Ethiopia; that's what's happening. Too many people there. They can't support themselves â€" and it's not an inhuman thing to say. It's the case."
He is simply skipping a few steps. I don't call him lazy for nothing.
Quote
So yes the primary problem isn't overpopulation in Western countries (where food and water seem practically infinite), but I'm saying there's not enough resources to go around in underdeveloped countries. The quality of life if so low partly because the fertility rate is ridiculously high, for reasons other than healthcare (I would say culture but I'm no sociologist). Also overpopulation doesn't only cause depletion of resources. Problems more relevant to the Western world include more unemployment, lack of housing, more crime, overcrowded schools/prisons/hospitals, more pollution, and a greater strain on public services.
You don't show to have any idea where most of the food and goods in the west come from I think.
Also, apart from a minority of western countries, there been less crime, less lack off housing, less crowded prisons and less polution, even just taking these last 10, 20 years. So I don't think I will be convinced by what you are trying to say here.
Quote from: Khris on Wed 23/01/2013 15:14:58
Quote from: Atelier on Wed 23/01/2013 14:50:42I can't think of any situation where better healthcare would cause a population decrease, it's completely antithetical.
I can, and no, it isn't. Better healthcare usually correlates with better education
I was referring to tamatic seeming to suggest that better healthcare was part of the cause of a population decrease, "together with better healthcare" (as in, a stand-alone factor), and was talking about healthcare on its own; but you're right of course.
Quote from: tamatic on Wed 23/01/2013 15:25:07
Also, apart from a minority of western countries, there been less crime, less lack off housing, less crowded prisons and less polution, even just taking these last 10, 20 years. So I don't think I will be convinced by what you are trying to say here.
Those are some good stats but they're irrelevant. They can only be applied in context if the population of Europe was increasing exponentially, but it is not. I was talking about a hypothetical human population boom as it's a prediction thread, I didn't mean the population is spiraling out of control as we speak, but it is in some places...
I'm no 'demographist' and I clearly need to do some reading before getting into all the causatives :wink: My original question still stands though, why would having a smaller global population be a bad thing? I genuinely want to think of some reasons.
Quote from: Atelier on Wed 23/01/2013 17:56:54
Those are some good stats but they're irrelevant. They can only be applied in context if the population of Europe was increasing exponentially, but it is not. I was talking about a hypothetical human population boom as it's a prediction thread, I didn't mean the population is spiraling out of control as we speak, but it is in some places...
Well we had us breeding like rabbits in the west just 3 generations ago. And you are right to say it's culture. But how did the culture switch? I dare say general education and healthcare are the biggest factors. And they sure not stand on themselves. You need the means to lift people from porverty, emancipating women as well as others. And most "poor" countries have been doing just that. Like Hans Rosling said Africa had more progress than any others. Climbing from our middle ages to the last century in just a few decades.
Quote
I'm no 'demographist' and I clearly need to do some reading before getting into all the causatives :wink: My original question still stands though, why would having a smaller global population be a bad thing? I genuinely want to think of some reasons.
Well thats a legitimate question. But Attenborough is just wrong. :P
And I can't see hurt in few less people either. But it's not the real problem.
Hehe, made me think, in my take of things earlier I forgot cheap oil running out. But yeah I am stil not pessimistic.
This will make me sound like a monster, but in my opinion, one of the problems in developed countries is not so much overpopulation itself as is the combination of low birth rate and ever-growing life expectancy (at least that's what the case around here is). That can't be very good in terms of economy, as old people usually aren't part of the workforce anymore, but they do get their pensions (which I'm not saying are not well-deserved). I know this will sound unreasonably harsh, but let's face it, they often do represent a burden for other people. They need to be taken care of, they need a lot of medical attention and other aid. Yeah, it's all fine, they've done their share in life, they've been where we are now, they do deserve all that, but what I'm saying is, I simply don't get the point of trying to live as long as you can at all costs. Isn't that just prolonging the pain? (Based on the assumption that old people are generally not very content with their lives, and always suffering from some disease or another) When you see someone taking at least 10 different medicines, some of them just for lessening side effects, or lessening side effects of medicines used for lessening other side effects, and when you see them doing nothing but struggle, you kinda wish they'd just say "to hell with this", and.. you know. But some people have a hard time accepting the ways of the nature, and just want to live forever. I don't know. I don't want to derail the topic too much, but I'm kinda curious as to what other people think about all that.
QuoteLike Hans Rosling said Africa had more progress than any others. Climbing from our middle ages to the last century in just a few decades.
Now this is simply not true. Some countries in Africa do manage to give the rest of the world the idea that they have all the facilities developed countries do. Things as basic as clean tap water or electricity can only be found in capitol cities, while the rest of the country is pretty much still in the dark ages. This is a fact (even in South Africa) all over the continent. And then there's corruption. Mr. Rosling probably had his pockets full when he decided to tell that huge lie.
In my opinion, Mr. Attenborough is telling us to take care of our problems because nobody can save Ethiopia and the likes. It is very sad, but it can't be done. In 2010 there were 925 million hungry people and while it would be possible to feed them all, the gap from being fed and becoming productive nations is too big that nobody will take the effort. And the fact is that they are being left to die. All the support and charity they receive is funded by "laundry" money and most of it never reaches the starving populations. In fact, most of it sponsors militia groups and weapon trade.
We sure are lucky people.
Quote from: miguel on Wed 23/01/2013 22:11:36
QuoteLike Hans Rosling said Africa had more progress than any others. Climbing from our middle ages to the last century in just a few decades.
Now this is simply not true. Some countries in Africa do manage to give the rest of the world the idea that they have all the facilities developed countries do. Things as basic as clean tap water or electricity can only be found in capitol cities, while the rest of the country is pretty much still in the dark ages. This is a fact (even in South Africa) all over the continent. And then there's corruption. Mr. Rosling probably had his pockets full when he decided to tell that huge lie.
I don't think there is this lie you are talking about. Rosling is clearly speaking about the rate of progress here.
Also you seem to have the idea that these utilities were for the common people back in the last century? Don't forget that the common people here would initially still be using waterpumps, washboards and warm their houses with coal till only later into the century. Todays infrastructures only just came to be, and indeed also had kicked off first in the cities.
Quote
In my opinion, Mr. Attenborough is telling us to take care of our problems because nobody can save Ethiopia and the likes. It is very sad, but it can't be done. In 2010 there were 925 million hungry people and while it would be possible to feed them all, the gap from being fed and becoming productive nations is too big that nobody will take the effort. And the fact is that they are being left to die. All the support and charity they receive is funded by "laundry" money and most of it never reaches the starving populations. In fact, most of it sponsors militia groups and weapon trade.
We sure are lucky people.
It all sounds nice reading it in his pleasant voice. But that doesn't mean he is right.
The food problem is a primary a problem of distribution and artificial scarcity. And indeed corruption and carelessness do feed into those. But, for example, to claim there is just to many mouths is a lazy fallacy and ignores the real problems.
You mention fed nations VS productive nations, ironically the countries that are richest in resources (being extracted from) often are those with the biggest development/inequality problems. The truth often seems that we eat from their fields, drive on their oil and call/email eachother using their metals. So who is being fed?
To then just, more or less, claim there are to many mouths -while we trow away more than half the food and stil live in abundance- just shows grotesque ignorance.
And even still things are moving forward. Global poverty is on a historical low and declining. Hell, only this day and age it's widely seen as something that is unnecessary, unjust and unnatural. The old cultural narratives that would blame the victims are making place for enlightened views. More and more people get watered and emancipated. As living standards and life expectancy go up birthrates do go down.
That doesn't mean we will run out of problems now does it? So Attenborough imo should have made way more clear that it's about our habits and not feed this myth about food and overpopulation.
While it's true that with current method and, more generally, our wastefull habits we won't last long. There are enormous technological developments happening. As they say
"the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones." Production methodes ect are getting more and more economical each day and can't do much else than liberating even more people. -not in any hollow retorical way-
And the same with our habits. Be it by law or by educated "choice".
So yes, I am convinced in the broad sense the best is yet to come. Maybe with some birth complications, can't totally let go of doom scenarios. :P
You have a very romantic view of things tamatic. We failed and keep failing on how to solve 3rd world country problems. What some people say is that there's no way for those countries to skip the crucial stages that led developed countries where they are. And the differences are simply huge. Political because we've came from monarchies to democratic republics and this path was bloody and ideologically insane with all the notions of socialism taken to extremes and finally discarded. Socially because we reinvented ourselves in just a century and at supersonic pace, imagine placing someone from the 20's with another from the 60's? And technologically because we are indeed far beyond water pumps and steam engines.
Now, all this can't be exported to another country and expect it to work just like that. It takes generations if all goes well.
I'm not even considering populations with extreme poverty, they may be doomed.
Stats saying that global poverty are lower are fine, but there are still 1 Billion people starving.
Should we let them starve and die of disease? No. But can we save them from a already written fate? I'm afraid the answer is No as well.
Thinking that something is inevitable can easily turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy, while at the same time clearing our conscience for not doing anything about it. But the Asian Miracle demonstrates that present misery is not doomed to perpetuate itself forever. Of course, Africa is not China, and we can't magically turn all of sub-Saharan Africa into somewhere like Switzerland overnight, but we can help influence the direction of the trends.
Africa has in fact been getting better in the last decade or so, after a low point in the 1980s-90s, and we can see that much of the misery it became infamous for has had specific historical causes, including misrule under colonialism and the dictatorial regimes that replaced it (and which were often propped up by Western powers or the Soviets under the Cold War), war (as a consequence of the last point), and badly designed aid and loan programs that ended up wrecking many economies. And then AIDS on top of that.
But now most of the dictators are gone or at least tamed (with about two thirds of African countries holding elections, though not always free and fair ones); there are fewer wars; debt relief, sounder economic policies (both by the countries themselves and the IMF/World Bank) and foreign investment mean that economic growth is solid; the AIDS epidemic appears more or less under control; foreign aid is more results-focused (and, for the US' part, greatly increased under President Bush); and modern technology (cell phones in particular) is bringing life-changing benefits to many millions.
That's not to say all the problems are overcome, or that life isn't still pretty grim for many Africans. There will no doubt be ups and downs in the road ahead, and there are no guarantees of a better tomorrow. If things are to get better, it will be because people worked to make it happen, and pushed leaders to make the right choices. That goes for Africa, but just as much for the rest of the world.
Quote from: miguel on Thu 24/01/2013 14:41:26
You have a very romantic view of things tamatic.
Counting virtues isn't romantic. Neither is sticking to the numbers. All I tried is pointing out that physical lack of food is just a lazy myth. And how we seemingly already are moving in the right direction when it comes to reducing proverty and population growth.
I don't deny this comes with problems but I also refuse to bagatalize those with buzz words like overpopulation. Myths like that seem to have rose from old cultural naratives that embrase the idea of the human being sinful -and more such romantic notions. I refuse to join that side of things and yet then someone calls my views romantic? Seems a bit weird to me.
If you meant my hopes for technology, you just have to look at history to see it's not some romantic utopian dream. Ever since civilisation started with the plough tools have liberated us. Made us reach further, freeing our hands and minds.
And it sure cuts both ways but should that make us deny our legacy one way or the other? What stops us from projecting it into the future? Just how easy is it to be a pessimist? Just stop thinking and doing, blame the others/world, everything doomed to failure anyway.
Quote
We failed and keep failing on how to solve 3rd world country problems. What some people say is that there's no way for those countries to skip the crucial stages that led developed countries where they are. And the differences are simply huge. Political because we've came from monarchies to democratic republics and this path was bloody and ideologically insane with all the notions of socialism taken to extremes and finally discarded. Socially because we reinvented ourselves in just a century and at supersonic pace, imagine placing someone from the 20's with another from the 60's? And technologically because we are indeed far beyond water pumps and steam engines.
Now, all this can't be exported to another country and expect it to work just like that. It takes generations if all goes well.
I'm not even considering populations with extreme poverty, they may be doomed.
The thing is that this is already happening. And indeed it's problematic but happening none the less. Failure is just part of it. If you stick to the numbers things are getting better. You can ignore that but at least know apparently there is more going on than just damage control.
Quote
Stats saying that global poverty are lower are fine, but there are still 1 Billion people starving.
Should we let them starve and die of disease? No. But can we save them from a already written fate? I'm afraid the answer is No as well.
It is deeply tragic but simply not the result of overpopulation or lack of food. Poor distribution, artificial scarcity, proverty, war, naturel disasters, wastefull farming and poor infrastructure however are very real factors. And most if not all those things relate to technology.
Snarky & Tamatic, yes things are better and in some places much better in a way we would not think of a few decades ago.
Still, I think that the localized regions of the world where extreme hunger persists are beyond our help. It's actually easier to send 1Billion meals every day than to fix all the deep structural problems those populations have.
Because that's what we do, we organize them in camps, set up medical tents, and feed them. The people doing it (Red Cross, etc...) are heroes and the only ones with a conscience here, although a quick google search will bring money laundering to the scene.
The gigantic gap between what developed countries have already achieved and the hungry populations is such that saving them became almost impossible, although we'll never admit it.
Just more stats:
2012 World Hunger... (http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm)
Quote from: miguel on Wed 23/01/2013 10:43:56my opinion on 3rd world countries not having a chance becoming prosperous. Ever.
Quote from: miguel on Wed 23/01/2013 22:11:36nobody can save Ethiopia and the likes. It is very sad, but it can't be done.
Quote from: miguel on Thu 24/01/2013 19:18:03I think that the localized regions of the world where extreme hunger persists are beyond our help.
You might be interested in the map at the top of this article (http://www.economist.com/node/21541008), which shows that from 2007-2011, Ethiopia had the highest percent-wise growth in GDP/person in all of Africa. It's still miserably poor (and ruled by an oppressive regime), but that means it added more than 50% in GDP per person over that period. And no, of course it wasn't fairly distributed across the population, but adding that sort of money to the economy makes a real difference to people's lives regardless:
"Ethiopia will grow by 7.5% this year, without a drop of oil to export. Once a byword for famine, it is now the world's tenth-largest producer of livestock. Nor is its wealth monopolised by a well-connected clique. Embezzlement is still common but income distribution has improved in the past decade."Which just goes to show that things are not as hopeless as you make out, even in some of the worst-off places in the world. Heck, if Somalia got itself a semblance of a working government (and that might just happen), it too might get itself out of the worst of it.
I hope so Snarky. I just don't have any faith on those new-democracies and the "ways" people get elected. I even have doubts that clan based societies can fully understand what the democratic right is. And worse, if they really want it. Like I said before, it took Europe centuries to implement what was thought by the ancient Greek. Millions died for democracy, a political ideal for the benefit of all people. While on some parts of the world the simple idea that a woman can have a opinion on something may lead to persecution.
Many new-democracies are show-off for the rest of the world, the "old" powers still rule masked by institutional nomenclature, and the same people keep abusing population rights.
Somewhat related to this topic. The BBC is holding an art contest and asking for your visions of the not-too-distant future.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21163117
There are two categories (still and moving) and the winner of each catgory gets a laptop of their choice worth up to £2500