A good life for all Y/N
Moderator: Staff
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
A good life for all Y/N
Another topic on the thread of the freedom one... This one to do with quality of life...
Everyone likes having a good life obviously, we have the adequate infrastructure in our nations (be they England, America, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Poland or anywhere else in the developed world) to be able to chat and argue away on forums like this without much worry about health, food, security or education, but billions of people in the world don't have that, we've all seen the adverts raising money for charity, and later this year a group of people from my school are going to Uganda to help build some schools for the children there...
but then you hit a stumbling block...
Resources?
There's only so much land to grow food, only so much metal in the ground and as we see very prominently on the news, only so much oil and fuels remaining. Are there enough resources for us all to live like we do?
An article in newscientist a while ago brought up the problem in a pretty easy to understand way, how many earths does it take to sustain various lifestyles if the whole earth adopted them?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... pment.html
In case you're not all subscribed to new scientist (although I'm sure you all are ) here's the graph:
It says things such as everyone living like the UK would need 3 Earths, living like USA would require 5 Earths, Living like Cuba would require 0.9 Earths and Living like Burundi would require 0.4 Earths.
Measuring the resources in earths is quite a nice idea, but someone wrote into the magazine 3 weeks later with a different idea:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... e-key.html
He says that instead of measuring it in earths as we ultimately only have 1 (well, unless NASA, ESA or China can speed up to the Moon and Mars ) we should measure it instead on how low the world population would have to be for all of them to live with those conditions, For example, A world of people living like the people in UK would have to have a population of roughly 2.24billion*, living like USA would need a population of roughly 1.34billion*, living like Cuba would be able to have a population of roughly 7.45billion* and living like Burundi would allow a population of roughly 16.77billion*
The problems there are basically that no one wants to live like Burundi and few people want to live like Cuba, and our population is already too high for everyone to live like UK or USA for the resources available, with current technology...
Note there the part "with current technology", does this mean that we might be able to cope? Well, hydroponics could solve a lack of arable land for crops? Nuclear, wind or solar energy could solve a lack of electricity? Desalinization plants could solve a lack of clean wter? and growing meat in vitro (in a lab, from stem cells or similar) could solve a lack of space for animals to graze and grow? Well, then we face a technology gap, it costs around $10,000 per kilogram of meat grown in vitro, Desalinization plants require lots of energy currently and filters need replacing, People are generally opposed to Nuclear and wind power due to risks and aesthetics and Solar power is as effective as spitting on a hydroelectric generator ...
And then there's the CO2 released by such a population of purely MEDC nations, which is another problem entirely which could be solved in the future (another technology gap) by plants, machines to remove CO2 from the air or turning plants into charcoal and burying them.
And we won't even go into the psychological probems of having a population of just britons, cubans etc, I guess it's assumed people would be allowed to keep their attitudes towards everything after being adopted into this new MEDC world
So, is it a good idea to make the whole world rich? on the surface it certainly is, better health, education and security for everyone right? but the issues go deeper, or is it better to have the world's richest distributed as today? with 10% of the population using 90% of the resources?
So, this poll will be a bit less polarized, because it's a bit more complex really...
*Based on a current world population of roughly 6,706,993,152 people
PS: this is the longest post I have written for months if not years
Everyone likes having a good life obviously, we have the adequate infrastructure in our nations (be they England, America, Canada, Australia, Netherlands, Poland or anywhere else in the developed world) to be able to chat and argue away on forums like this without much worry about health, food, security or education, but billions of people in the world don't have that, we've all seen the adverts raising money for charity, and later this year a group of people from my school are going to Uganda to help build some schools for the children there...
but then you hit a stumbling block...
Resources?
There's only so much land to grow food, only so much metal in the ground and as we see very prominently on the news, only so much oil and fuels remaining. Are there enough resources for us all to live like we do?
An article in newscientist a while ago brought up the problem in a pretty easy to understand way, how many earths does it take to sustain various lifestyles if the whole earth adopted them?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... pment.html
In case you're not all subscribed to new scientist (although I'm sure you all are ) here's the graph:
It says things such as everyone living like the UK would need 3 Earths, living like USA would require 5 Earths, Living like Cuba would require 0.9 Earths and Living like Burundi would require 0.4 Earths.
Measuring the resources in earths is quite a nice idea, but someone wrote into the magazine 3 weeks later with a different idea:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... e-key.html
He says that instead of measuring it in earths as we ultimately only have 1 (well, unless NASA, ESA or China can speed up to the Moon and Mars ) we should measure it instead on how low the world population would have to be for all of them to live with those conditions, For example, A world of people living like the people in UK would have to have a population of roughly 2.24billion*, living like USA would need a population of roughly 1.34billion*, living like Cuba would be able to have a population of roughly 7.45billion* and living like Burundi would allow a population of roughly 16.77billion*
The problems there are basically that no one wants to live like Burundi and few people want to live like Cuba, and our population is already too high for everyone to live like UK or USA for the resources available, with current technology...
Note there the part "with current technology", does this mean that we might be able to cope? Well, hydroponics could solve a lack of arable land for crops? Nuclear, wind or solar energy could solve a lack of electricity? Desalinization plants could solve a lack of clean wter? and growing meat in vitro (in a lab, from stem cells or similar) could solve a lack of space for animals to graze and grow? Well, then we face a technology gap, it costs around $10,000 per kilogram of meat grown in vitro, Desalinization plants require lots of energy currently and filters need replacing, People are generally opposed to Nuclear and wind power due to risks and aesthetics and Solar power is as effective as spitting on a hydroelectric generator ...
And then there's the CO2 released by such a population of purely MEDC nations, which is another problem entirely which could be solved in the future (another technology gap) by plants, machines to remove CO2 from the air or turning plants into charcoal and burying them.
And we won't even go into the psychological probems of having a population of just britons, cubans etc, I guess it's assumed people would be allowed to keep their attitudes towards everything after being adopted into this new MEDC world
So, is it a good idea to make the whole world rich? on the surface it certainly is, better health, education and security for everyone right? but the issues go deeper, or is it better to have the world's richest distributed as today? with 10% of the population using 90% of the resources?
So, this poll will be a bit less polarized, because it's a bit more complex really...
*Based on a current world population of roughly 6,706,993,152 people
PS: this is the longest post I have written for months if not years
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
Re: A good life for all Y/N
What about simply overproducing and increasingly taxing the resources of the planet until a breaking point is hit, and the world's population is forced down by famine and disease.
Коля лает «гав-гав».
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: A good life for all Y/N
Blair, Bush? I didn't know you posted here?
I guess there should be more poll options...
I will add a few more from the couple of suggestions I have had so far
I guess there should be more poll options...
I will add a few more from the couple of suggestions I have had so far
Re: A good life for all Y/N
Western European and North American lifestyle probably isn't sustainable.
An equalitarian society with a great standard of living would be incredible, but it'll never happen.
So yes, the only way we can achieve that is by changing the ratio of people to food and committing mass genocide.
Let's start with all those who like Peter Kay, for example...
An equalitarian society with a great standard of living would be incredible, but it'll never happen.
So yes, the only way we can achieve that is by changing the ratio of people to food and committing mass genocide.
Let's start with all those who like Peter Kay, for example...
Re: A good life for all Y/N
Woo! Communism wins at something other than education, research and military.
-
- Posts: 2925
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:27 pm
Re: A good life for all Y/N
Why do i get the feeling we're all helping spangle with social studies homework or something here
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: A good life for all Y/N
Were we to encounter another species acting in the same manner we do - we'd be advocating a cull.
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: A good life for all Y/N
Jeremy: I don't do social studies, well we do do PDP, and we did do presentations about world issues, but our class presentation had to be about obesity...
I'm just trying to probe the human mind, and where can one find perfect human minds? I'm not too sure, but micronationalism is the only resource of human minds available.
Ardy: We do don't we? mass breeding, mass resource intake, mass destruction, causation of extinction events... sounds like rats to me?
I'm just trying to probe the human mind, and where can one find perfect human minds? I'm not too sure, but micronationalism is the only resource of human minds available.
Ardy: We do don't we? mass breeding, mass resource intake, mass destruction, causation of extinction events... sounds like rats to me?
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: A good life for all Y/N
Point taken - lets employ the IDF as Homo-Sapiens specific pest-control service.dr-spangle wrote:
Ardy: We do don't we? mass breeding, mass resource intake, mass destruction, causation of extinction events... sounds like rats to me?
- Guido Zambelis
- Posts: 2854
- Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 5:26 pm
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: A good life for all Y/N
Say what you like - in an optimal scenario where no one I care about gets caught up in it, it'd work...
- Swamp Candle
- Posts: 1098
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2007 3:49 pm
- Contact:
Re: A good life for all Y/N
You're one line away from becoming Agent Smith...Ardashir Khan wrote:lets employ the IDF as Homo-Sapiens specific pest-control service.
dr-spangle wrote:You did way better than us...
- dr-spangle
- Technical Advisor
- Posts: 13072
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 12:20 pm
- Contact:
Re: A good life for all Y/N
So it appears a lot of people would like to live like cuba, an honourary sacrifice to prevent the loss of billions of lives? so, If we plunged everyone into a cuban lifestyle they would accept it happily?
Banks are collapsing, everyone's getting a little poorer and we're all crapping ourselves, getting down to cuba might also help in lowering the population, but we'd have to keep clearing the areas under bridges or the next people jumping won't fall as far
Banks are collapsing, everyone's getting a little poorer and we're all crapping ourselves, getting down to cuba might also help in lowering the population, but we'd have to keep clearing the areas under bridges or the next people jumping won't fall as far
- chrimigules
- Posts: 1102
- Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:04 am
-
- Posts: 895
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 8:36 pm
Re: A good life for all Y/N
Fine.Swamp Candle wrote:You're one line away from becoming Agent Smith...Ardashir Khan wrote:lets employ the IDF as Homo-Sapiens specific pest-control service.
I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species. I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You move to an area, and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet, you are a plague, and we are the cure.