The world popluation problem

[Ryan Rudolph]

Historic and projected rates of popluation growth:
________________________________________

Total Midyear Population for the World: 1950-2050
Year Population Average annual
growth rate (%) Average annual
population change
1950 2,556,518,868 1.47 37,767,386
1951 2,594,286,254 1.61 42,041,389
1952 2,636,327,643 1.70 45,317,770
1953 2,681,645,413 1.77 47,946,111
1954 2,729,591,524 1.87 51,431,401
1955 2,781,022,925 1.89 52,939,486
1956 2,833,962,411 1.95 55,806,419
1957 2,889,768,830 1.94 56,485,150
1958 2,946,253,980 1.76 52,312,991
1959 2,998,566,971 1.39 42,050,543

1960 3,040,617,514 1.33 40,740,865
1961 3,081,358,379 1.80 55,952,183
1962 3,137,310,562 2.19 69,474,547
1963 3,206,785,109 2.19 71,072,775
1964 3,277,857,884 2.08 68,928,875
1965 3,346,786,759 2.07 70,129,548
1966 3,416,916,307 2.02 69,638,911
1967 3,486,555,218 2.04 71,741,620
1968 3,558,296,838 2.07 74,524,755
1969 3,632,821,593 2.05 75,100,149

1970 3,707,921,742 2.06 77,336,429
1971 3,785,258,171 1.99 76,057,243
1972 3,861,315,414 1.94 75,534,004
1973 3,936,849,418 1.87 74,421,608
1974 4,011,271,026 1.79 72,486,216
1975 4,083,757,242 1.72 70,974,673
1976 4,154,731,915 1.71 71,541,021
1977 4,226,272,936 1.68 71,460,832
1978 4,297,733,768 1.71 74,237,303
1979 4,371,971,071 1.70 75,097,643

1980 4,447,068,714 1.68 75,558,581
1981 4,522,627,295 1.74 79,182,983
1982 4,601,810,278 1.75 81,070,472
1983 4,682,880,750 1.69 79,903,951
1984 4,762,784,701 1.70 81,424,277
1985 4,844,208,978 1.70 83,156,127
1986 4,927,365,105 1.73 85,959,632
1987 5,013,324,737 1.71 86,641,780
1988 5,099,966,517 1.68 86,530,730
1989 5,186,497,247 1.68 87,823,244

1990 5,274,320,491 1.58 83,789,232
1991 5,358,109,723 1.54 83,158,416
1992 5,441,268,139 1.48 80,984,675
1993 5,522,252,814 1.44 79,956,377
1994 5,602,209,191 1.43 80,602,387
1995 5,682,811,578 1.40 79,936,273
1996 5,762,747,851 1.36 79,028,605
1997 5,841,776,456 1.33 78,218,229
1998 5,919,994,685 1.29 77,043,342
1999 5,997,038,027 1.26 76,227,207

2000 6,073,265,234 1.24 75,836,768
2001 6,149,102,002 1.21 75,084,506
2002 6,224,186,508 1.20 75,078,489
2003 6,299,264,997 1.20 75,741,407
2004 6,375,006,404 1.19 76,423,464
2005 6,451,429,868 1.18 76,659,694
2006 6,528,089,562 1.17 76,957,430
2007 6,605,046,992 1.17 77,430,945
2008 6,682,477,937 1.16 77,699,484
2009 6,760,177,421 1.15 78,042,762

2010 6,838,220,183 1.14 78,494,833
2011 6,916,715,016 1.13 78,693,879
2012 6,995,408,895 1.12 78,607,281
2013 7,074,016,176 1.10 78,259,702
2014 7,152,275,878 1.08 77,691,983
2015 7,229,967,861 1.06 77,070,229
2016 7,307,038,090 1.04 76,452,328
2017 7,383,490,418 1.02 75,729,126
2018 7,459,219,544 1.00 74,895,043
2019 7,534,114,587 0.98 73,960,666

2020 7,608,075,253 0.96 73,046,516
2021 7,681,121,769 0.93 72,153,865
2022 7,753,275,634 0.91 71,177,765
2023 7,824,453,399 0.89 70,161,619
2024 7,894,615,018 0.87 69,135,119
2025 7,963,750,137 0.85 68,181,780
2026 8,031,931,917 0.83 67,308,728
2027 8,099,240,645 0.82 66,436,139
2028 8,165,676,784 0.80 65,563,742
2029 8,231,240,526 0.78 64,685,286

2030 8,295,925,812 0.77 63,847,765
2031 8,359,773,577 0.75 63,063,747
2032 8,422,837,324 0.74 62,270,107
2033 8,485,107,431 0.72 61,449,106
2034 8,546,556,537 0.71 60,590,596
2035 8,607,147,133 0.69 59,737,633
2036 8,666,884,766 0.68 58,903,336
2037 8,725,788,102 0.66 58,041,346
2038 8,783,829,448 0.65 57,146,068
2039 8,840,975,516 0.63 56,204,887

2040 8,897,180,403 0.62 55,270,458
2041 8,952,450,861 0.61 54,350,082
2042 9,006,800,943 0.59 53,382,950
2043 9,060,183,893 0.58 52,369,437
2044 9,112,553,330 0.56 51,315,498
2045 9,163,868,828 0.55 50,252,259
2046 9,214,121,087 0.53 49,184,789
2047 9,263,305,876 0.52 48,096,185
2048 9,311,402,061 0.50 46,997,397
2049 9,358,399,458 0.49 45,896,926

2050 9,404,296,384
________________________________________

World Density Map

Is the world currently overpopulated? What criteria can one use to measure whether this is correct?

What are some possible solutions besides not having children? Will nature correct the process on it’s own? And could a drastic increase of population ultimately deem the planet incapable of sustaining life period?

In our geologic past, the earth has recovered from many life threatening calamities such as ice ages, meteor strikes, and world-wide floods, so perhaps the earth is capable of bouncing back from ignorant human activities like blind procreation?

What are your takes on this?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

What are some possible solutions besides not having children?

I believe that it is possible that what we are seeing with world leaders committing all these troops to overseas wars, especially since they send them there without adequate safety materials, is an attempt at reducing population. It is unfortunate that the only ones allowed in the military are those who display adequate signs of good genetic material, because that reduces the genetic contibutions of better specimins. In America, the target group for recruitment is amongst those in the lower socio-economic status, who also tend to breed at higher rates as well as tend to be less intelligent, so they probably figure that will compensate for the standards of admission into the military.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Is the world currently overpopulated? What criteria can one use to measure whether this is correct?

The following is just free speculation:

If at least 75% of a population is doing fine surviving and procreating, can we really speak of a problem from the point of view of the animal kingdom?

Perhaps large increases in population are some reverse function of success. I mean that the more problematic a population is (mall adapted or in the process of change) the more it focuses on reproduction?

All growth takes place in 'developing' countries. The reason people there have large families is lack of education, being ruled by tradition and social customs and over-reliance on children to take care of family combined with the higher mortality rates.

"Old habits die hard."

Seen in a larger context the incredible large population we have now gives a lot of different possible recombinations for DNA. If humanity really doesn't know yet what it wants, it has to leave all the doors open and increase the gene pool.

Maybe on a global level humanity is increasing the population to such extremes to make sure there are some survivors in times of inevitable cataclysms or nuclear wars. The danger of over-population and the damage done becomes then a calculated risk of some kind.

If this is true then we'd see the moment humanity starts colonizing other planets the population dropping on Earth itself to more reasonable bounds. Mark my words :)

So far the speculation.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

War is a far more socially acceptable governmental action that euthenasia, but other socially acceptable governmental actions might be to increase various freedoms that will permit Darwinian action to take hold:

increase rights of gun ownership: Austrailia has far more controls that America on who can own a gun, and there are far fewer murders there. By increasing the circulation of guns, those who are not adept at not provoking people to shoot them will be eliminated from the population.

decrease funding to police and deprioritorize anti-vigil ante-ism laws: Revenge shootings will ultimatly enforce a concept of what it is or is not okay to shoot someone for. People were far more civil to each other in colonial America when uncivil behavior was likely to get one shot. With the current laws, the only people who feel really comfortable with shooting others are those who are both without respect for society and believe that they will not get caught, believe that they will not get punished if caught, or are of a mind (or sub-culture) where the "punishment" is not a deterrant.

increase personal freedoms of choice regarding safety devices: Helmit laws and seatbelt laws for adults over 25 protect those who otherwise might be eliminated from the population. In fairness, such safety devices should be mandated for those under 25, as their brains have not yet fully developed, and it important to protect the potentially useful children of unwise parents.

make suicide more socially acceptable: have counselors available to help a person reason things out and figure out if that is really the best option for them, but allow those who do not want to be here anymore the opportunity to leave.

Of course these are just answers to your question - not actual reccomendations.

[Carl G]

What are some possible solutions besides not having children?

I believe that it is possible that what we are seeing with world leaders committing all these troops to overseas wars,

All what troops? How many troops have world leaders committed to overseas wars? A million? That's nothing!

...is an attempt at reducing population.

But a poor attempt this would be. Modern war destroys property aplenty, but doesn't affect population trends much. For instance, World War II only killed 2% of the world population and triggered a baby boom in a number countries afterwards.

No, our only hope is disease. Another Black Plague would have a chance at reducing population. Starvation is also a pretty good killer. Twenty-five thousand children a day is nothing to sneeze at.

It is unfortunate that the only ones allowed in the military are those who display adequate signs of good genetic material, because that reduces the genetic contibutions of better specimins.

Yes, but here again, these days more civilians are killed than soldiers, in modern wars. Smart bombs, uranium casings, and all.

Besides, I believe there is enough repitition of gene material, that even losing a number of 'the best and brightest' does not affect population quality in the long run. Teens and older guys step into the 'breach' and take up the slack, if need be.

Anyway, I wonder why Geniuses would be concerned with population rates. After all, the universe is formless, we lack inherent existence, there is no "I", it is all illusion.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Anyway, I wonder why Geniuses would be concerned with population rates. After all, the universe is formless, we lack inherent existence, there is no "I", it is all illusion.

As I said, it was just an answer to his question, not a recommendation. It is true that ultimatly, none of it matters.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl wrote:

Anyway, I wonder why Geniuses would be concerned with population rates. After all, the universe is formless, we lack inherent existence, there is no "I", it is all illusion.

I don’t understand your reasoning Carl, you could use this series of assertions to negate thinking about anything at all. If one is interested in the promotion of wisdom, then one should also understand the factors that threaten the survival of the species. And overpopulation is an important factor to consider.

Elizabeth wrote:

As I said, it was just an answer to his question, not a recommendation. It is true that ultimatly, none of it matters.

It doesn’t matter, but it does. hypothetically, I think a society of enlightened beings would have a rough idea of the maximum number of beings their environment could support, and they would consciously keep the population below that number.

Diebert wrote:

All growth takes place in 'developing' countries. The reason people there have large families is lack of education, being ruled by tradition and social customs and over-reliance on children to take care of family combined with the higher mortality rates.

This is especially true for places like India, but how do you explain the reproductive success of places like China? Does agricultural success also play a large factor? Would China be as overpopulated if they had grown a less productive crop than rice?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

hypothetically, I think a society of enlightened beings would have a rough idea what is the maximum number of beings their environment will support, and they would keep the population below that number consciously.

Yes, that would be the case, but follow causality down the line on how that would happen. It's the same as the chicken or the egg question, except from this end we can't know if the chicken (the society of enlightened beings) will ever evolve.

[Carl G]

Carl:Anyway, I wonder why Geniuses would be concerned with population rates. After all, the universe is formless, we lack inherent existence, there is no "I", it is all illusion.

Ryan: I don’t understand your reasoning Carl, you could use this series of assertions to negate thinking about anything at all. If one is interested in the promotion of wisdom, then one should also understand the factors that threaten the survival of the species. And overpopulation is an important factor to consider.

The promotion of wisdom and survival of the species are not necessarily co-dependent. Wisdom may be better served by the elimination of a species, humans, which has shown next to no interest in wisdom. Perhaps this would create room for another species more apt to value it.

ElizabethAs I said, it was just an answer to his question, not a recommendation. It is true that ultimatly, none of it matters.

Ryan: It doesn’t matter, but it does. hypothetically, I think a society of enlightened beings would have a rough idea of the maximum number of beings their environment could support, and they would consciously keep the population below that number.

Sounds right, except that we are not a society of enlightened beings.

[Jamesh]

Does agricultural success also play a large factor? Would China be as overpopulated if they had grown a less productive crop than rice?

Food is the dominant factor, yes. The area is quite fertile, even if there was no rice, travellers would bring back other types of plants and animals that could sustain a huge population.

What would be interesting though is to see the correlation between IQ and the available supply of animal food.

Chinese eat heaps of vege's, with some meat. Africans and aborigines traditionally eat lots more meat and they have the lowest IQ's. Meat is problematical, it is not always in supply, and Africas IQ's may have been hampered by inconsistent supply, during which times their brains may have have lacked the required chemicals for brain growth.

There is also reverse causality. Larger populations are more complex. In Africa, as substantial meat eaters, populations are likely to have always been less dense, as animals require larger areas for survival, so to does the meat eater population. This causes segregation and a lessening of the flow of ideas from one village to another, and less societal variation within each village group - making life less complex. If life is less complex then there would have been little evolutionary need to evolve more intelligent brains to handle same.

Intelligence levels in South Asian countries are about 10 points lower than China. Perhaps most of this relates to the segregation caused by difficult to traverse jungle territory, territory likely to contain adeqquate animals resources, but I have a feeling that temperature levels also play a very significant role in IQ development - basically the higher the heat the lower the IQ and the colder the climate the higher the IQ (on a bell curve though - so temperatures above or below certain points make very little difference). I think the difficulty in living in a cold terrian causes people to be more intelligent - you really need to use brains to survive during winter. They have to be able to handle seasonal climates - unlike countries nearer to the equator. Outside of the supply of food, Caucasian and Northern Asian countries, are more intelligent for this reason, or so I believe. As those in colder climes slowly become more intelligent, they will immigrate as numbers increase and move down and take over the areas in more temperate climes.

I wonder if northern Native Americans are more intelligent than Southern one's. Northern Caucasian Americans CERTAINLY are to their southern counterparts :). Perhaps it has to do with having to stay in housing more often (like nerds), versus being able to go out and play (like jocks).

In terms of the Fertile Crescent, the cradle of civilisation, well it was less hot than it is now and more intelligent people most probably came down from the mountaneous areas to the North. The rapid IQ spurt in this area though was mostly to do with the variety of domesticatible plant and animal life variety found no where else at the time.

[Katy]

IQ scores aren't really usable outside of modern western culture. They depend too much on social constructs and stuff to be of any use in determining the intelligence of other societies.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Carl wrote:

The promotion of wisdom and survival of the species are not necessarily co-dependent. Wisdom may be better served by the elimination of a species, humans, which has shown next to no interest in wisdom. Perhaps this would create room for another species more apt to value it.

Wouldn’t another species need to go through the same animalistic cycle as this species? I don’t think any species is exempt from the crude imperfect nature of natural selection, so I don’t see the point as to whether it is this species or another.

You are assuming that another species would have an advantage over this one as far as understanding truth is concerned, but each potential species would have a crude animalistic heredity, which makes the interest in truth a rare phenomenon.

Jamesh wrote:

Chinese eat heaps of vege's, with some meat. Africans and aborigines traditionally eat lots more meat and they have the lowest IQ's. Meat is problematical, it is not always in supply, and Africas IQ's may have been hampered by inconsistent supply, during which times their brains may have lacked the required chemicals for brain growth.

Jamesh, do you think that if a northern white female copulates with a southern black male that has these genetic pitfalls, that the species is better off because the child’s genome would produce a more complex neurological brain structure than if two blacks reproduced?

If this is true then interracial mating could actually improve the genepool.

For instance: Senator Barack Obama is one of the more intellectual blacks in the USA, and he is the result of a interracial copulation.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Wouldn’t another species need to go through the same animalistic cycle as this species? I don’t think any species is exempt from the crude imperfect nature of natural selection, so I don’t see the point as to whether it is this species or another.

You are assuming that another species would have an advantage over this one as far as understanding truth is concerned, but each potential species would have a crude animalistic heredity, which makes the interest in truth a rare phenomenon.

Actually I thought he was referring to an evolution from humans into some species that could no longer really be called human. What should we call them? Sageicites?

Jamesh, do you think that if a northern white female copulates with a southern black male that has these genetic pitfalls, that the species is better off because the child’s genome would produce a more complex neurological brain structure than if two blacks reproduced?

If this is true then interracial mating could actually improve the genepool.

I saw some reports of studies on this, and some of the work did seem to indicate that interracial offspring have a greater advantage than either a black or white offspring, whereas other results seemed inconclusive.

The most logical way to consider it is to look at the results of centuries of dog breeding that has resulted in different species, versus mutts. Many times the mutts are physically sturdier and psychologically more stable than most of the pure breeds, but the pure breeds tend to produce dogs that are more similar in personality as well as appearance - which includes proneness to various genetic defects. Irish setters are pretty but stupid (and one could suspect that much of California could eventually produce the Irish setters of humanity because beauty is valued more than brains), whereas the mixing of races both provides the genetic stability of diversification of genes as well as parental selection by criterea valued more than appearance.
.

[Nordicvs]

I've studied overpopulation for well over a decade and all of these suggestions have been thought before, and have resulted in nothing more than temporary conversation pieces; nothing, not one practical solution, has come from any of it. Over twenty years and counting and no one has a bloody clue (and in the meantime, nearly another billion popped up while they talked and talked and got nowhere), I think opting for the next generation to try to solve it (read: talk and do nothing and dump it on their kids) or not really caring.

China implemented a one-child policy that only slowed their version of this---in fact, short of WWIII (with nukes) and-or a pandemic viral or bacterial outbreak many times worse than the Black Plague, nothing will dent it, not even war. Any other solution will require people to take personal responsibility for not only breeding but also their consumption---99% of all people will never do either of these willingly, and 99% of all people don't give a shit about anything until it directly affects them.

In America right now, there's over 60 million kids (twice the population of my entire country), and birth control not being used and teen pregnancy is at an all-time high. Since every "first world" nation eventually follows America's cultural, economic, and social example, the future global population projections are very kind estimates. A corporate world doesn't care, it never did---more people = more consumers = more profit. The more the merrier. That's how it got this way---greed and permanence-seeking.

All attempts, if any get considered, will just slow the inevitable. Humanity took over Nature's job at managing our species, and we suck at it. Bottom line.

Since an uber-version of the Black Plague might kill off the bulk of the species, there will be survivors (there always are), who will do what humans do best (aside from humping and standing and staring or blathering pointlessly: make the same mistakes over and over), and it'll all happen again. Move out onto other worlds? And do the same thing?---yes, we always say we won't, but we do, every time---that's an excuse for taking responsibility, once again. More gauze for a seeping wound instead of stopping the bleeding and stitching it up. Control freak quick fixes and reactionary failures.

My vote goes for a nuclear WWIII. Reduce the population to a few million. Flatten it all (civilization) utterly, completely, and leave no structure in tact. Not a road, not a house. Go back to nomadic existence, let the globe heal and renew itself without our meddling, focus on both hunting and gathering instead of specializing; give Nature back control over this, get sane again, keep things simple and small.

But then again, I'm a radical.

[kennyvii]

Is the world currently overpopulated? What criteria can one use to measure whether this is correct?

Well, there might be some moral criteria. Certainly past or present populations are not resopnsible for any sort of famine or any other malidy. There could be one person on the whole planet and he could starve to death but does that make it the fault of the population? no. So why shall a genius come to think that starvation ever happens because there are more than one?

What are some possible solutions besides not having children? Will nature correct the process on it’s own? And could a drastic increase of population ultimately deem the planet incapable of sustaining life period?

It seems to me very sad that in developed countries birth rates are generally decreaseing. I think this needs to be turned around somehow. Perhaps intellectualism parading as intelligence needs to be put down. Population increases have been drastic yet the planet has not even begun to notice.
Certainly there is a great abundance of food and shelter.

Tell me geniuses, can we kill the intellectuals but spare the intelligent? It seems that perhaps there is a clear division.

In our geologic past, the earth has recovered from many life threatening calamities such as ice ages, meteor strikes, and world-wide floods, so perhaps the earth is capable of bouncing back from ignorant human activities like blind procreation?

The Earth has not suffered from any of this. Anyway.. it does not suffer; it merely changes it's garments. And if history proves anything I expect it should show that the more humans, the more life in general; that humans are ultimately the major benifit to all life on this planet, not just their own.

What are your takes on this?

That, the more humans, the more space per person, the more life in general and the higher quality of life for all life. Why would a genius think otherwise? I ask this because it was my understanding that the hysterical were the "feminin" or otherwise, irrational.

[Katy]

The most logical way to consider it is to look at the results of centuries of dog breeding that has resulted in different species, versus mutts. Many times the mutts are physically sturdier and psychologically more stable than most of the pure breeds, but the pure breeds tend to produce dogs that are more similar in personality as well as appearance
.

Another way to look at it is self-selection. Our society and culture tells us that interracial marriage and relationships is "not OK" (while this may not be the official line, it is still very prominent around here) - meaning that the people likely to get in such a relationship and have an interracial child are likely to be more thoughtful/intelligent/outside of mainstream - and pass those advantages on to kids culturally and socially.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Nordicvs wrote:

My vote goes for a nuclear WWIII. Reduce the population to a few million. Flatten it all (civilization) utterly, completely, and leave no structure in tact. Not a road, not a house. Go back to nomadic existence, let the globe heal and renew itself without our meddling, focus on both hunting and gathering instead of specializing; give Nature back control over this, get sane again, keep things simple and small.

But then again, I'm a radical.

Did you ever consider that you’re entire radical view is the affect of not being able to handle the uncertainty of the future? Isn’t this all about you wanting to sum up the future of humanity into a nice little ideal? Surely this ideal is nothing, but a fantasy used to alleviate the emotional discomfort you feel upon seeing the world as it is, which is disorderly?

Nature is unforgiving. A primitive hunger/gatherer existence is not desirable, existence is not worth the effort, life isn’t that great of a thing to toil and labour everyday.

I've studied Mic Mac Indian history from where I am from, and it was not an easy existence, their routine to find food required hours and hours of walking, and facing the elements, day in and day out, it's not worth it. I'd rather die, life isnt that great of a thing. I have very little motivation to strive as a means to live.

Only a man that has a strong will to survive could ever excel in an existence like that, and enlightened beings lack a strong will to survive, they are indifferent to the whole thing.

Man is destined to continue controlling nature, and the way he does will continue to be increasingly complex.

you cannot see that intelligence can be born out of incomprehensible complexity.

You want to be able to understand the ultimate ideal society with one simple idea, but surely existence is much more complicated than that, surely it is the destiny of humanity to continue to grow in complexity and technological innovation?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

All growth takes place in 'developing' countries. The reason people there have large families is lack of education, being ruled by tradition and social customs and over-reliance on children to take care of family combined with the higher mortality rates.

This is especially true for places like India, but how do you explain the reproductive success of places like China? Does agricultural success also play a large factor? Would China be as overpopulated if they had grown a less productive crop than rice?

China isn't really a different story since a sudden drop in mortality rate without a similar drop in births gave them two decades (mostly 50's and 60's) of exceptional growth explosion that they still haven't recovered from.

The difference between China and other examples is perhaps that the 'tradition' and 'social customs' or religious values were replaced by enforced ideology of Mao Zedong that even encouraged extra breeding (aka The Great Leap Forward). Interesting to see what happens when traditional religion is suddenly removed: an uglier and more insane demon replaces it. I've never seen an exception to this.

The one-child policy tried to undo the damage of Mao's idealism but it will take a while before that really will have effect. For now it leaves the populations with a lot of males since when forced to choose many parents went for a male child. The effects of this unbalance on a highly pressured modern society remains to be seen. Maybe future China becomes a good market for masculine philosophy. Hmmm.

[Carl G]

CG: The promotion of wisdom and survival of the species are not necessarily co-dependent. Wisdom may be better served by the elimination of a species, humans, which has shown next to no interest in wisdom. Perhaps this would create room for another species more apt to value it.

RR: Wouldn’t another species need to go through the same animalistic cycle as this species? I don’t think any species is exempt from the crude imperfect nature of natural selection, so I don’t see the point as to whether it is this species or another.

It could be an extraterrestrial species.

You are assuming that another species would have an advantage over this one as far as understanding truth is concerned, but each potential species would have a crude animalistic heredity, which makes the interest in truth a rare phenomenon.

I think you are the one making assumptions. I was simply speculating. Neither of us know.

Anyway, I'm not sure it is wise to think so linearly. For instance, there have been past times in which truth and wisdom were more valued than they are now.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

there have been past times in which truth and wisdom were more valued than they are now.

Indeed. I live in a large city, and when I went to a local branch of the library and asked where their philosophy section was, I was told "This is all we have - it's really small." The selection included a few dictionaries of philosophy/philosophers, and such special titles as Aristotle Would Have Liked Oprah and Seinfeld and Philosophy. I eventually found some Nietzsche in the religion section (I was hoping there would be some Kierkgaard there, but there was not).

[Matt Gregory]

Nordicvs wrote:

My vote goes for a nuclear WWIII. Reduce the population to a few million. Flatten it all (civilization) utterly, completely, and leave no structure in tact. Not a road, not a house. Go back to nomadic existence, let the globe heal and renew itself without our meddling, focus on both hunting and gathering instead of specializing; give Nature back control over this, get sane again, keep things simple and small.

But then again, I'm a radical.

Did you ever consider that you’re entire radical view is the affect of not being able to handle the uncertainty of the future? Isn’t this all about you wanting to sum up the future of humanity into a nice little ideal? Surely this ideal is nothing, but a fantasy used to alleviate the emotional discomfort you feel upon seeing the world as it is, which is disorderly?

I think we should replace all fast food restaurants with health food stores. America would be doomed!

Only a man that has a strong will to survive could ever excel in an existence like that, and enlightened beings lack a strong will to survive, they are indifferent to the whole thing.

No, that's not wisdom you're talking about, that's nihilism.

[Nordicvs]

Did you ever consider that you’re entire radical view is the affect of not being able to handle the uncertainty of the future?

I have considered such an effect, but I'm not uncertain.

Did you ever consider that you're a 'house nigger' trying to convince an escaping 'field nigger' how wonderful it is to be inside?

Isn’t this all about you wanting to sum up the future of humanity into a nice little ideal?

Nope. We can't go back to a "nice little ideal," not as a species. It's as futile as is the current trend of the species---I really don't care that much about humanity, anyway...the thought of it just doesn't give me the woody it does among 99.9999999% of the population of the planet.

No one can stop progress.

Surely this ideal is nothing, but a fantasy used to alleviate the emotional discomfort you feel upon seeing the world as it is, which is disorderly?

How can that be? I don't see this world as disorderly; it's uber-ordered, run by feminine control freaks who are walking contradictions, two genders with inverted natures, micromanaging themselves into extant redundancy. (And that's fine.)

But do continue your ham-handed psychological intellectualizing.

Nature is unforgiving. A primitive hunger/gatherer existence is not desirable,

For you and those fueling the survival of the weakest prerogative, yeah...

existence is not worth the effort, life isn’t that great of a thing to toil and labour everyday.

Exactly. Most guys working 60-hour work-weeks, and blasting their brain cells away every weekend with beer and drugs to escape it or drowning themselves in digital realms for the same goal, would tend to agree with you.

I've studied Mic Mac Indian history from where I am from, and it was not an easy existence,

Nothing easy is worth doing. Feminine-brained folk and children never value that which comes with effort because they're prone to the easy way out, logically. The spirit thrives when the body suffers; the search for meaning is immaterial (literally) when one is living meaningfully.

their routine to find food required hours and hours of walking, and facing the elements, day in and day out,

Yep. Good stuff.

it's not worth it. I'd rather die, life isnt that great of a thing. I have very little motivation to strive as a means to live.

Okay, then be the way you are. I'm not stopping you. However, it's quite irrational how stubbornly you continue to rail against it (as I said before, like a junkie not wanting his fix taken away) when all you know of it is what you read in some book. When's the last time that you even saw a forest that wasn't in a city park or on TV? When's the last time you had fresh air, clean water? Have you ever eaten food that wasn't prepackaged and heated up for you? Have you ever gotten your hands dirty? Have you ever faced death?

In short, how can you judge something without any first-hand experience of it? Like the other muppet in that thread, "camps out" like a chubby tourist for one night and decides so elegantly: "living without technology sucks." Brilliant! Sticking your face out in minus 10 degrees Celsius immediately "sucks" because you're not used to it. You live up here---which month is colder: March or November? (Some survey found that most chose November as colder, but in fact it is warmer than March. Why did so many pick November?)

Only a man that has a strong will to survive could ever excel in an existence like that, and enlightened beings lack a strong will to survive, they are indifferent to the whole thing.

Okay. Well, I don't claim to be enlightened and if that means being a pathetic, squirrely milksop who jumps at his own shadow, cares fuckall for the planet, and runs to mommy for a hug and a mouthful of sugar every time something difficult arises, looking for an easy way out, following a "path," then, holy shitballs, I will never seek 'enlightenment.'

Fuck paths. I shit on paths. Are there no trailblazers left? Where are the real men? Where are the creative, inspired, passionate beings not chattering away in the belly of the machines they make and bravely rationalizing their latest hi-tech-gizmo-fixation. Jesus fucking Christ...

Man is destined to continue controlling nature, and the way he does will continue to be increasingly complex.

I have no doubt of that. "Man" is a highly subjective term, though.

you cannot see that intelligence can be born out of incomprehensible complexity.

Define "intelligence," please.

You want to be able to understand the ultimate ideal society with one simple idea,

No, I already understand it---it is you who are flapping about like a bird with one wing.

but surely existence is much more complicated than that,

Keep It Simple, Stupid.

surely it is the destiny of humanity to continue to grow in complexity and technological innovation?

It sure is. That will be its undoing. The more complex, the more likely it will break down.

This thing will never be fixed because, like a car that keeps stalling, creating smog and noise and consuming fuel like a pig, and periodically crashing into the ditch (being pulled out and fixed up, put back on the road only to do it again and again and again and again and again and again and...), everyone---in true left-brain fashion---keeps looking at the details, what components or modules need fixing, tinkering and adding and making it all worse; "Is it the brakes?" Another generation has the answer: "Is it the tires?" Another generation has the answer: "Perhaps the colour?" Another generation has the answer: "No, no, it's just too slow!" Another generation has the answer: "Let's add a tinted windshield and a better fuel-injection system." Yet another generation has the answer: "No, how about a new muffler and all-wheel drive?" And the last generation: "Nah, it needs a computer under the hood." This generation: "It needs to be able to drive by itself..."

The existence of the car is the problem.

[kennyvii]

Nordicvs:

Did you ever consider that you're a 'house nigger' trying to convince an escaping 'field nigger' how wonderful it is to be inside?

I have invested in a lot of forums over the last 12 years. Please show me that this forum is not populated by a bunch of "house niggers" please.

I'm begging you.

edit: in case you are curious, which I doubt because of long experience, there seems to be a connection to being a "house nigger" and being intellegent. It must be a genetic thing. So the better the mind you are blessed with the more hard-wired you will be to see things conventionally. Too bad, because even a stupid person can otherwise see that you are wrong.

edit 2: I am holding out for you, though. See you in New Mexico.
edit 3: You can't grasp this because of your intense desire to be part of the "whole" but if you ever thought to apply your mind to free thought you would realise the obvious; you would transend the mortal; you would see what even a stupid drunk person can see
edit 3: it is fine to conclude that "life" is complex but it isn't really, is it...? Actucally it is very simple. Dumb people run from this and intelligent people ignor it. But what would a genius do?

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt Gregory wrote:

No, that's not wisdom you're talking about, that's nihilism.

Nihilism is the negation of everything, which is actually closer to Nordicvs position because he seems to negate almost everything that has been created in civilization and return to hunter/gatherer state.

My position is slightly different, I agree with him in negating the 9-5 job, but I negate the hunger-gatherer regression as well because both are extreme positions that do not succeed in drastically reducing man's plight.

I am not reading to abandon technology so prematurely before we see what exactly it is capable of.

Nordicvs wrote:

Did you ever consider that you're a 'house nigger' trying to convince an escaping 'field nigger' how wonderful it is to be inside?

Let me redefine what we are talking about: I am suggesting that a return to a hunter-gatherer state is too extreme of a position, I’m not against nature walks. And I agree with you that the present work week in civilization is feminine and irrational.

Nordicvs wrote:

Exactly. Most guys working 60-hour work-weeks, and blasting their brain cells away every weekend with beer and drugs to escape it or drowning themselves in digital realms for the same goal, would tend to agree with you.

You can cut out the hedonism and keep some of the best technology, that is my main point.

Nordicvs wrote:

The spirit thrives when the body suffers;

Oh come on, the whole point of philosophy is liberation from suffering, not reveling in it. I wont suffer on a matter of principle.

Nordicvs wrote:

When's the last time that you even saw a forest that wasn't in a city park or on TV? When's the last time you had fresh air, clean water? Have you ever eaten food that wasn't prepackaged and heated up for you? Have you ever gotten your hands dirty? Have you ever faced death?

I live in the country, near an ocean, so I have spent time outside with the natural world, I’m just don’t make a point to glorify the nature world as if we can just throw away everything that has been invented, and roam the forests eating insects and berries.

It is fantasy thinking. The control over nature is a good thing because nature is unforgiving on her own.

Nordicvs wrote:

Have you ever eaten food that wasn't prepackaged and heated up for you? Have you ever gotten your hands dirty? Have you ever faced death?

Facing death has nothing to do with hard labour or eating food raw from nature. I have grown my own food organically, and I have bought it from a grocery store, and at the end of the day, there is absolutely no difference. Food is just nourishment.

Nordicvs wrote:

Fuck paths. I shit on paths. Are there no trailblazers left? Where are the real men? Where are the creative, inspired, passionate beings not chattering away in the belly of the machines they make and bravely rationalizing their latest hi-tech-gizmo-fixation. Jesus fucking Christ...

Working a 9-5 hell job is that same thing as roaming the forest for 6 hours a day trying to scrape enough food together to survive, both are extreme positions, both are absurd, there must be an easier way than either of those options.

Nordicvs wrote:

It sure is. That will be its undoing. The more complex, the more likely it will break down.

Have you ever considered that technology could evolve to a state, where it has the capacity to regenerate without a lot of human effort?

Nordicvs wrote:

Define "intelligence," please.

That which is ever-creative, and that which does not suffer based on principle, that which lives to overcome every form of suffering.

Nordicvs wrote:

The existence of the car is the problem.

The current car seems like a problem because of how crude is it, but it is simply a template for what is yet to come.

The smart-car and hybrids are only the beginning. What do you think will exist in 500 years? will the coming technology be as harmful on the environment?

[Matt Gregory]

Matt Gregory wrote:

No, that's not wisdom you're talking about, that's nihilism.

Nihilism is the negation of everything, which is actually closer to Nordicvs position because he seems to negate almost everything that has been created in civilization and return to hunter/gatherer state.

No, no, I was disagreeing with your statement that enlightenment causes a person to lose their will to live. It doesn't because it's not nihilism. It's a lot more subtle than that.

My position is slightly different, I agree with him in negating the 9-5 job, but I negate the hunger-gatherer regression as well because both are extreme positions that do not succeed in drastically reducing man's plight.

I am not reading to abandon technology so prematurely before we see what exactly it is capable of.

Yeah, I think we have a long way to go before technological development slows down enough to become static and permanently incorporated into our way of life. At least a hundred years. It'll all become like the technology of paper, though, you know? Unchanging.