perhaps, if we get some scientific breakthrough or not
4%
[ 6 ]
no, it won't get that bad (see Cuba for example)
14%
[ 18 ]
who knows?/I have no idea
12%
[ 15 ]
Total Votes : 125
Author
Message
eastbay Moderator
Joined: Dec 18, 2004 Posts: 4412 Location: One Mile From the Columbia River
Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
Oh... one more point. Much of the population growth will slow when The West ceases paying people who do not (will not?) work to have more children. _________________ Got Dharma?
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:05 am Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
Jenab6 wrote:
Ludi wrote:
What "right answer"? Yours isn't a "right answer." It is only "your answer." Small, weak countries or populations will probably be wiped out in the future by larger, stronger populations. Oh well. Later on, when we've gone back to the stone age, all populations will have equal technological ability, hence equal strength, and population will stabilize in the way it used to before civilization was invented. Problem solved.
I suppose that if it doesn't matter to you which people, or what sort of people, the survivors are, then your point of view is understandable. Some of us, however, have preferences in that regard. And anyone who would have his own nation be among the survivors will have to oppose voluntary population reductions, since to advocate them is to advocate national military weakness in an ecologically competitive low technology world. Bear that in mind whenever you believe that you should write the pronoun "we." We who? That "we" might not include you, nor yours, if you make it a habit to insist that the right answer is merely another answer.
The problem with your motivations and ideas is that it's devolution. You're confident being in the "human family" because you know nothing more, your knowledge is lacking and therefore you're ignorant. Your ideas should NOT survive because they're modeled in a pathetic, short sighted, arrogant, and childish mentality.
In the end your desires are insignificant in infinite time. Some technological civilization in another planet may evolve into a less hedonistic, pathetic and crap-like way of life than what our current technological civilization has made.
That you can't see beyond your arrogant fueled, unawakened bullshit, is honestly not my problem. However if you want to to implement your ideas be prepared to fight, and lose. I got plenty of energy, and it may even be possible that I can plant a seed of doubt in your ignorant mind to see higher. _________________ anagami.net
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
I like the way Jenab thinks. Although not particularly practical, the ideas are definitely outside the box. That sort of creativity will offer an advantage in years to come. _________________ If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."
-George Orwell, 1984
Joined: Dec 25, 2005 Posts: 576 Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
zensui wrote:
Jenab6 wrote:
Ludi wrote:
What "right answer"? Yours isn't a "right answer." It is only "your answer." Small, weak countries or populations will probably be wiped out in the future by larger, stronger populations. Oh well. Later on, when we've gone back to the stone age, all populations will have equal technological ability, hence equal strength, and population will stabilize in the way it used to before civilization was invented. Problem solved.
I suppose that if it doesn't matter to you which people, or what sort of people, the survivors are, then your point of view is understandable. Some of us, however, have preferences in that regard. And anyone who would have his own nation be among the survivors will have to oppose voluntary population reductions, since to advocate them is to advocate national military weakness in an ecologically competitive low technology world. Bear that in mind whenever you believe that you should write the pronoun "we." We who? That "we" might not include you, nor yours, if you make it a habit to insist that the right answer is merely another answer.
The problem with your motivations and ideas is that it's devolution. You're confident being in the "human family" because you know nothing more, your knowledge is lacking and therefore you're ignorant. Your ideas should NOT survive because they're modeled in a pathetic, short sighted, arrogant, and childish mentality.
In the end your desires are insignificant in infinite time. Some technological civilization in another planet may evolve into a less hedonistic, pathetic and crap-like way of life than what our current technological civilization has made.
That you can't see beyond your arrogant fueled, unawakened bullshit, is honestly not my problem. However if you want to to implement your ideas be prepared to fight, and lose. I got plenty of energy, and it may even be possible that I can plant a seed of doubt in your ignorant mind to see higher.
I wonder whether you have any idea of how little you said. It boils down to: "Jenab6 is ignorant. Aliens on other planets might do better than humans did. Jenab6 is ignorant." That, along with maybe a "Jimmy crack corn and I don't care," is about all it was.
kpeavey wrote:
I like the way Jenab thinks. Although not particularly practical, the ideas are definitely outside the box. That sort of creativity will offer an advantage in years to come.
I strive to be fascinating. If I please as well, then so much the better.
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:14 am Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
Jenab6 wrote:
zensui wrote:
Jenab6 wrote:
Ludi wrote:
What "right answer"? Yours isn't a "right answer." It is only "your answer." Small, weak countries or populations will probably be wiped out in the future by larger, stronger populations. Oh well. Later on, when we've gone back to the stone age, all populations will have equal technological ability, hence equal strength, and population will stabilize in the way it used to before civilization was invented. Problem solved.
I suppose that if it doesn't matter to you which people, or what sort of people, the survivors are, then your point of view is understandable. Some of us, however, have preferences in that regard. And anyone who would have his own nation be among the survivors will have to oppose voluntary population reductions, since to advocate them is to advocate national military weakness in an ecologically competitive low technology world. Bear that in mind whenever you believe that you should write the pronoun "we." We who? That "we" might not include you, nor yours, if you make it a habit to insist that the right answer is merely another answer.
The problem with your motivations and ideas is that it's devolution. You're confident being in the "human family" because you know nothing more, your knowledge is lacking and therefore you're ignorant. Your ideas should NOT survive because they're modeled in a pathetic, short sighted, arrogant, and childish mentality.
In the end your desires are insignificant in infinite time. Some technological civilization in another planet may evolve into a less hedonistic, pathetic and crap-like way of life than what our current technological civilization has made.
That you can't see beyond your arrogant fueled, unawakened bullshit, is honestly not my problem. However if you want to to implement your ideas be prepared to fight, and lose. I got plenty of energy, and it may even be possible that I can plant a seed of doubt in your ignorant mind to see higher.
I wonder whether you have any idea of how little you said. It boils down to: "Jenab6 is ignorant. Aliens on other planets might do better than humans did. Jenab6 is ignorant." That, along with maybe a "Jimmy crack corn and I don't care," is about all it was.
(...)
No, you're taking this personal. I said that I don't want your memes to survive and why not. _________________ anagami.net
Joined: Dec 25, 2005 Posts: 576 Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 11:22 am Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
Because zensui doesn't understand my previous comments about population pressure, I'll try to restate them with greater clarity.
1. There are good reasons to reduce the global population, one of them being that there soon won't be enough food to go around.
2. There are good reasons why no particular group may be among the first groups to undertake reduction; i.e., reduction in population brings with it a reduction of potential military manpower, which translates to a vulnerability to conquest and extermination / enslavement by neighbor nations who did not also reduce and who, for that reason, have become relatively more numerous and militarily stronger.
3. A global population-reduction scheme satisfactory to everyone might not be possible, primarily because some nations already have a decisive advantage in excess population that could pose a military threat to neighbor nations. The nations with such an advantage would not care to throw it away, and the nations threatened by it would not consent to any global reduction program that didn't make the threat go away.
4. Even if a global population-reduction scheme could be agreed on in principle, no nation would believe that at least some of the other nations weren't cheating, and there would be a "prisoner's dilemma" kind of pressure for suspicious nations to cheat, as well.
5. Within countries where there is effectively more than one nation (i.e., more than one race), there is an internal conflict (between the common need to reduce the country's population and each group's defense requirements) as well as the external conflict described in items 2, 3, and 4. This kind of conflict exists, like the repeated features of a fractal, on nearly all scales of societal size, probably all the way from the international scale to the neighborhood scale in which gangs (of some sort) can't afford to restrict births lest some other gang get large enough to kill them off and take their stuff.
I think we can forget about voluntary population reductions. They aren't going to happen. Since national voluntary population reductions won't happen, neither will the global population reduction. That means the global mass die-off is on schedule, with some uncertainty about how many of the deaths will be shifted into the warfare tally from the starvation tally.
So... How much territory will China grab? Anybody want to gamble? Which of its neighbors will China invade first? My guess is Vietnam, for the rice. How many millions will China butcher in the first wave of conquest? My guess is the entire population of Vietnam. Then Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Mongolia, Kazakhstan. Once the Chinese have Kazakhstan, they'll be planning to strike next at Russia and Ukraine. They might have problems about then with Pakistan and India. If a nuclear war hasn't begun already, that'll be about the time it does.
China will follow the conquest policy sooner or later, with fast moving infantry (blitzkrieg) strikes, announcing each gain to the world in unapologetic tones: "This land is ours now. Who wants to fight about it?"
Last edited by Jenab6 on Fri Apr 04, 2008 9:04 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
Jenab6 wrote:
(...)
I think we can forget about voluntary population reductions. They aren't going to happen. Since national voluntary population reductions won't happen, neither will the global population reduction. That means the global mass die-off is on schedule, with some uncertainty about how many of the deaths will be shifted into the warfare tally from the starvation tally.
There is a tendency in some countries, like parts of Europe, China, Japan, and even Costa Rica of having less births than before. This is a fact. However, this is not a global tendency which brings us to military.
Jenab6 wrote:
So... How much territory will China grab? Anybody want to gamble? Which of its neighbors will China invade first? My guess is Vietnam, for the rice. How many millions will China butcher in the first wave of conquest? My guess is the entire population of Vietnam. Then Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Mongolia, Kazakhstan. Once the Chinese have Kazakhstan, they'll be planning to strike next at Russia and Ukraine. They might have problems about then with Pakistan and India. If a nuclear war hasn't begun already, that'll be about the time it does.
China will follow the conquest policy sooner or later, with fast moving infantry (blitzkrieg) strikes, announcing each gain to the world in unapologetic tones: "This land is ours now. Who wants to fight about it?"
Yes, it's possible. But I just want to ask you one question: did you think that xenophobic-fueled resource Wars are desirable? and if so why?
What I'm proposing is that this Wars will just be another cycle of human destruction, death and pain. And that if we don't learn this time we may never learn how to live in harmony with nature and in peace with one another. For nature it's preferable human extinction than survive and start it all over again. But I'm arguing for an evolution of human mind, to learn how to live within limits. And use this die-off as a lesson. However, it's preferable that this die-off is because of less births and more natural diseases that don't need a "human judge".
You and many others are proposing anger, fear and pain as the solution.
I and many others are proposing serenity, harmony, love and compassion as the solution. _________________ anagami.net
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 1:42 pm Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
Jenab6's is the ideology of a warrior in a warrior state. Laughable but handy rationalization for the fat lazy slobs who run this country and citizenry who feed off this corrupt theory. Few understand it is merely a rationalization for their own lack of love, imagination and an excuse for greed.
Truth is the 'prisoner's dilemma,' and the 'tragedy of the commons' are supported by a misunderstanding of evolutionary biology and social science. Social group altuism and selflessness is as powerful a biologic force as the personal genetic propensity for selfishness. We want to to good because it helps us. and it feels good. _________________ ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap
Joined: Dec 25, 2005 Posts: 576 Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:11 pm Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
zensui wrote:
Jenab6 wrote:
So... How much territory will China grab? Anybody want to gamble? Which of its neighbors will China invade first? My guess is Vietnam, for the rice. How many millions will China butcher in the first wave of conquest? My guess is the entire population of Vietnam. Then Taiwan, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Mongolia, Kazakhstan. Once the Chinese have Kazakhstan, they'll be planning to strike next at Russia and Ukraine. They might have problems about then with Pakistan and India. If a nuclear war hasn't begun already, that'll be about the time it does.
China will follow the conquest policy sooner or later, with fast moving infantry (blitzkrieg) strikes, announcing each gain to the world in unapologetic tones: "This land is ours now. Who wants to fight about it?"
Yes, it's possible. But I just want to ask you one question: did you think that xenophobic-fueled resource Wars are desirable? and if so why?
Ah. Now I understand your hostility. No, I do not desire war. I merely see them as unavoidable, for one thing, and I see that beyond the immediate facts of death and destruction that low technology wars have a compensatory benefit to the surviving part of humanity. They can reduce the world's overall human numbers, rid the Earth of your group's competitors, and, best of all, make positive eugenic gains (heritable biological improvements) in the human genetic stock. Since we can no longer avoid wars, the right thing to do, it seems to me, is to come away from them with the most advantage that we can.
zensui wrote:
What I'm proposing is that this Wars will just be another cycle of human destruction, death and pain.
Yes. And that will never end. Struggles of that kind are, and always have been, a permanent part of human experience. Those who fail to prepare for wars, who are unable to fight when necessary, shall disappear when their enemies kill them.
Humans obey the natural laws of ecology: expanding to fill their niches maximally, after which each subset of humanity attempts further expansion by the "takeover" method; i.e., at the expense of other groups. The humanity pot is always on boil in this sense, with the single exception of the recent past, when the drawdown method made the takeover method temporarily partially obsolete.
zensui wrote:
And that if we don't learn this time we may never learn how to live in harmony with nature and in peace with one another. For nature it's preferable human extinction than survive and start it all over again.
"It" can't be started all over again. There never will be, in the habitable part of this planet's future, another fossil fuel supply like the one we have already somewhat more than half consumed. There will never be another period of drawdown, never another technological civilization with heavy industry. We will not come this way again.
From here on, the ecological laws that will apply to us are the same ones that apply to other primate species. We will find that our best chance for survival and enlargement will be to obey those laws. And that means that warfare will forever be a part of the human experience. It was set aside only partially and temporarily during a time when drawdown (fossil fuel use) made takeover comparatively inefficient. But those days are nearly at an end.
You appear to want what has never been, will never be, and can't possibly be, given the laws of nature (ecology) as they apply to tribal species such as ourselves.
zensui wrote:
But I'm arguing for an evolution of human mind, to learn how to live within limits. And use this die-off as a lesson. However, it's preferable that this die-off is because of less births and more natural diseases that don't need a "human judge".
Don't worry. We will learn to live within limits. Or, rather, those who survive the lifestyle changes will do so. Obviously, since they would otherwise not have survived. But the moral lessons that people will take from the die-off aren't what you appear to hope that they will be. Fossil fuels are the reason constant competitive struggles were held temporarily in partial abeyance. Their loss will return mankind to the previous ecological dynamic equilibrium of global scale balance with local scale competition. Humanity will live with its means, but different groups thereof will struggle against each other for a larger share of the fixed pie.
The world as a whole will be energetically harmonious, but political circumstances on smaller scales will not be placid. No, there will be war from time to time in any place, and there will always be a war going on somewhere. The way to reduce, as much as possible, the chance of being involved in a war? Be your group ever ready to fight, and strong enough to make neighbor groups decide not to attack yours.
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
Jenab6, you've made some quite big IF/assumptions. "there will never be peace, humans will always be at war or preparing for war".
As Zaknafein's last words before being killed by Matron Malice (from R.A. Salvatore's book The Dark Elf Trilogy):
"I will finally be at peace, Matron Malice however will always be at war."
If you are just starting to question the possible implications of TFSHTF, then continue thinking. I propose something to continue your path:
"assume nothing; know that some or all of your current thoughts may be false".
I've done it, and after some effort it helped a lot.
metta, even to you Jenab6 _________________ anagami.net
Joined: Dec 25, 2005 Posts: 576 Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 6:56 pm Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
zensui wrote:
Jenab6, you've made some quite big IF/assumptions. "there will never be peace, humans will always be at war or preparing for war". As Zaknafein's last words before being killed by Matron Malice (from R.A. Salvatore's book The Dark Elf Trilogy): "I will finally be at peace, Matron Malice however will always be at war."
I have read that trilogy, as well as its "Icewind Dale" sequel. So far, those six books are the only ones from the Drizzt do'Urden series that I've finished.
However, I was using natural science to make my very rough predictions about the future state of human culture. To see how reasonable they are, you'd need only to discover what would be required to make the alternative you prefer come about.
At the individual level, a bandit briefly makes war to snatch away someone's belongings, which the bandit takes for his own use, and he might cut the throat of the former owner to prevent being identified or described afterward. It's a straightforward activity arising from a straightforward motive. The bandit knows that he is engaging in a very unpopular activity, so he chooses his victims and the location for his attacks with the intention of remaining unknown to anyone else.
War is what happens when the bandits team up to form very large bandit gangs, with the leaders thereof having the option of sitting in well-appointed offices while their underlings carry out their orders to attack, slay, and expropriate a great many other people. The legality of the war-making business is a trifle, a technicality of paperwork, "word magic" by which the bandit leaders attempt to absolve themselves of blame, at least in the eyes of the people who have become accustomed to paying them regular tribute. Functionally, war and banditry are the same thing, distinguished only by scale, the degree of labor specialization, and by the fact that the people whom the large bandit gangs most routinely victimize have "gotten used to it."
In order that there be a world without war, it would be necessary to breed out of humanity the temptation to cheat - i.e., to get ahead at the expense of someone else's labor, the produce thereof being taken without permission.
We live in a world in which trying to keep all the fruit of your own labor to yourself is defined as a "crime" by the bandits, who are the alleged "victims" of your "theft." If they catch you not paying them, they'll send their enforcers to rob you even worse, and maybe kill you as well to show the other little people what happens when they "cheat." Note that the definitions of all the words that I've put in quotation marks [crime, victims, theft, cheat] are the opposites of those that common sense would suggest for them.
Leftists have been aiming to create a warless world on bandit terms, in which the bandits are so powerful that no tribe can hope to fight them successfully. They realized long ago that the only way to suppress common violence was to suppress people, perpetually, with the threat of overwhelming, unstoppable, fearful, ruthless, centralized violence. Sooner or later, as their program continues, people lose their freedoms as licensure extends into personal minutiae with large fees and strict conditions demanded in exchange for grudging permissions, which the state may withdraw at any time for any reason (count up the other fees and taxes you must pay before you may drive the car you bought, with sales tax being added to the price, on the highways that your taxes paid for - there are about half a dozen, if you can think of them all). People lose their privacy as the state imposes, first, mandatory paperwork (and penalties for inaccurate statements), then surveillance first in public places, then into institutions (schools), then into corporations (your workplace, the phone company) [YOU ARE HERE], then into your home (Orwell's TV screen behind the painting). Eventually, you can't take a crap without a government video camera staring up your butt from inside the toilet because you might be concealing illegal drugs in your body; can't have that.
It might be simply a matter of taste, but I prefer a world with constant scattered tribal wars, rather than the world of the kind into which the leftists were trying to drag us. I regret the loss of the opportunity for space colonization. (I picked my college major with the idea of learning how to pilot spaceships and showing all the other Mister Sulus how it was really done.) But maybe it's just as well this way, with the power left to mankind being inadequate both for global tyranny and for colonizing Mars.
Jerry Abbott
Last edited by Jenab6 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 9:38 pm; edited 3 times in total
Joined: Dec 02, 2005 Posts: 6417 Location: Oil-addicted Southern Californucopia
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 7:39 pm Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
zensui wrote:
Jenab6, you fool.
Sounds like you may not be familiar with Jerry. This is what he's all about:
Jenab6 wrote:
...and, best of all, make positive eugenic gains (heritable biological improvements) in the human genetic stock.
He tells us all about himself in this grotesquely ugly thread. If you haven't gone through it, be forewarned that having a stiff drink or two beforehand is probably a good idea. _________________ "Thank you for attending the oil age. We're going to scrape what we can out of these tar pits in Alberta and then shut down the machines and turn out the lights. Goodnight." - seldom_seen
Joined: Dec 25, 2005 Posts: 576 Location: Hillsboro, West Virginia
Posted: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:06 pm Post subject: Re: Liebig's Law & Overshoot; Why There Will Be a Die-of
Zardoz wrote:
zensui wrote:
Jenab6, you fool.
Sounds like you may not be familiar with Jerry. This is what he's all about:
Jenab6 wrote:
...and, best of all, make positive eugenic gains (heritable biological improvements) in the human genetic stock.
Notice that Zardoz leave it implied that genetic improvement is a bad thing. He doesn't explain why he prefers that genetic problems remain in the gene pool. Of course he doesn't. The unstated argument goes like this: The Nazis were pro-eugenics, and therefore eugenics must be a bad thing. Period. Anyone with a respectable IQ can see the fallacy of judging the value of the argument by the alleged infamy of its proponent. The ancient Greeks discovered the invalidity of that kind of reasoning; yet here is Zardoz performing it for us.
Zardoz wrote:
He tells us all about himself in this grotesquely ugly thread. If you haven't gone through it, be forewarned that having a stiff drink or two beforehand is probably a good idea.
Zardoz, you've denigrated me by implication while not responding to a single statement I made in that thread. I was challenged there, and I dealt with those challenges. I took the trouble to prove my point. Now you have left me with a choice: let your implication stand, or turn this thread into a defense of what I said in that thread. One harms me, the other harms this discussion.
Briefly. The Jewish inception of communism and the Soviet Union had come under discussion. (See page 20 of that thread.) I was aware that Jews were the prime movers of the Bolshevik Revolution - the organizers were Jews from Russia, the financeers were Jews in New York (Jacob Schiff, the Kuhn-Loeb bank). Trotsky, also a Jew, was a initially a go-between and later a Soviet military leader. Zardoz disputed my statement that 86% of the top leaders in the Soviet government were Jews, notwithstanding the fact that only 5% of the Russian population was Jewish. In order to prove that I was (almost) correct, I listed the members of the Central Communist Committee USSR in 1920 and noted the ethnic group to which each member belonged. The Jewish component of that body was 79.2%. I took from the Soviet press the membership of the 556 most important functionaries of the USSR and found that 82.2% of them were Jewish. I was close.
In his reply to my discoveries, Zardoz merely called into question the character of one of my sources; he made no attempt to dispute the information gained therefrom. We can see, I believe, that Zardoz has a habit of calling doubt to arguments or to information by casting aspersions on the character of those who provide them.
I apologize for the off-topic comment. I hope that this does not disrupt the flow of posts relevant to this thread.
Last edited by Jenab6 on Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
ree rah rip ram. sunofabitch godamn. hidey didey christ almighty. rah rah crap 
