Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------
I myself view it possible that not everywhere will collapse. Already there are countries that are adapting. Sweden started it's efforts to weed itself off oil-dependence in 2005. As long as it is stable by the time get really bad, it should be able to pull through. The same is true of any country. They might not be what they once were, but they would still pull through. For those states that do not adapt on time, they will have to whittle away functions such as health care, social security, and eventually even education, until they have only the bare minimum needed to sustain themselves. It will be up to the people of the countries themselves to take up the functions the state dropped. Those that have the needed skills and supplies will be invaluable in these cases. As for the Neo-Malthusian ideas in Ishmael about food production and pop
growth being inherently linked I must say this; Such is true when there is material scarcity, but look at what
happens in developed countries and you'll see that if that scarcity is lacking enough, then people will be able to question whether unlimited growth is ideal. America's population is at an equilibrium, and Europe is caught in the Eurabia mess because of the questioning of unlimited growth as ideal.
Don't get me wrong, I am not for the system as is. It's just that every time I talk about my idea involving this, they say "They're outbrreding us! If we go all ecological, we will lose the War on Terror!" And over time, I've come to think of the term Good Muslim as the modern equivalant of Good German. If they don't object to the things the extremists do, then they are not as moderate as they claim to be.
Now since that is dealt with, I'll stop for now to answer questions.
I myself view it possible that not everywhere will collapse. Already there are countries that are adapting. Sweden started it's efforts to weed itself off oil-dependence in 2005. As long as it is stable by the time get really bad, it should be able to pull through. The same is true of any country. They might not be what they once were, but they would still pull through. For those states that do not adapt on time, they will have to whittle away functions such as health care, social security, and eventually even education, until they have only the bare minimum needed to sustain themselves. It will be up to the people of the countries themselves to take up the functions the state dropped. Those that have the needed skills and supplies will be invaluable in these cases. As for the Neo-Malthusian ideas in Ishmael about food production and pop
growth being inherently linked I must say this; Such is true when there is material scarcity, but look at what
happens in developed countries and you'll see that if that scarcity is lacking enough, then people will be able to question whether unlimited growth is ideal. America's population is at an equilibrium, and Europe is caught in the Eurabia mess because of the questioning of unlimited growth as ideal.
Don't get me wrong, I am not for the system as is. It's just that every time I talk about my idea involving this, they say "They're outbrreding us! If we go all ecological, we will lose the War on Terror!" And over time, I've come to think of the term Good Muslim as the modern equivalant of Good German. If they don't object to the things the extremists do, then they are not as moderate as they claim to be.
Now since that is dealt with, I'll stop for now to answer questions.
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: Alternate Idea of the Future Part 1
Mon, August 18, 2008 - 4:28 PManswer questions on what? you didnt say anything as far as i can see. -
-
Re: Alternate Idea of the Future Part 1
Tue, August 19, 2008 - 5:12 PMSounds like a strung out libertarian answering his own questions... -
-
Re: Alternate Idea of the Future Part 1
Wed, August 20, 2008 - 10:19 AMTo tell you the truth, I don't know what I am. I have had this dialog going in my head between the ideals of ongoing technological progress and anarcho-primitivism. At one point I decided that there was value in both points of view, but lately I'm coming to question whether I know enough about tribal peoples to make that judgment. I'm definitely certain what we have now is not the right way to live,
but I'm not sure what should be put up in it's place. -
-
Re: Alternate Idea of the Future Part 1
Thu, August 21, 2008 - 7:42 AMPrimitivism is not at all what Quinn was advocating, read My Ishmael if you havent done so. Technology is one of the few things we have in the modern age that will allow us to reverse the damages we have done so far. Communications and cooperation are the keys to any sort of tribal oriented future and technology is needed for those things. I also am not sure where this idea that technological advance is mutually exclusive to tribalism came from, read the Diamond Age by Neal Stevenson for an example. Also I dont see why everyone is so obsessed with the "old tribes" their way of life is no more, We (taker culture) have all but destroyed them and their ways of living. Like Quinn says its time to inovate, create our own world.
-
-
-
-
Re: Alternate Idea of the Future Part 1
Wed, August 20, 2008 - 10:58 AMBut I do have some things to note involving involving Ishmael. Quinn says that Food Production and Population Growth are inexorably connected, that when one happens, the other follows, part of a self-reinforcing cycle. But in the developed countries, this is is happening slower, and in places like Europe the native populace is going into a population decline. Sure historically they have been linked, because during civilization's lifetime,a real condition of scarcity existed. But with the Industrial Revolution, and even more so with petroleum, that scarcity grew lesser, and more people had more leisure time. And with the emerging eco consciousness of the 60s more people were able to see that continued environmental abuse would be harmful to them and the environment. America is at close to a steady state population and Europe- well, Europe's native population is declining, while their Muslim population is on the rise. A lot of this I got from the book America Alone by Mark Steyn, Despithis mistaken judgement on Jared Diamond's Collapse he seemed right on about Islam and demographics. It's basic claim was that America was best hope for the world with Europe being taken over by Muslims and so on. Not bad. You do have to admit, America is better to plant the Giver/Leaver vision than Saudi Arabia or Iran if you are honest. Just two notes. Feel free to point out flaws. -
-
Re: Alternate Idea of the Future Part 1
Wed, August 20, 2008 - 5:45 PMThanks for bestowing the freedom to point out the various obvious flaws in your "argument". What do "muslims" have to do with population demographics? Why not use the Mormons as an example?
You are right on with population growth and oil extraction rate. Like a sugar cube dropped into a petri dish...
My advice is to try to stop seeing things from an anthropocentric view and see it from and ecocentric view.
-
Re: Alternate Idea of the Future Part 1
Thu, August 21, 2008 - 12:02 AMJacob, Daniel Quinn pointed out that while some countries' populations are decreasing, human population OVERALL is increasing. Spreading the industrial society everywhere aggravates the problem rather than fixes it because if everyone lived like we do, then collapse would happen immediately. The earth can't sustain 6 billion people living like Americans. It soon won't be able to sustain XBillion people living like anyone.
The demographics points you bring up are based on Mother Culture. First, our economies depend on unlimited growth. A large part of this growth is unlimited demographic growth. And it makes practical sense. A large population of old people is harder to take care of if there are less young people. The missing piece is that the social system has no need for old people. They aren't productive any more and thus "need taken care of" instead of having a place in the mutual support network of a tribe.
Other demographic points have to do with nationalism and cultural clashes, also products of Mother Culture. Basically, Europe has problems because they treat immigration differently than the USA. The US is a nation of immigrants. Our country subsumes new immigrants rather well but also adapts to the new cultural spices they bring and is enriched by them.
European cultures aren't dynamic and open to change. Europeans are very proud of their ancient cultures. A nation like France has distinct French culture, language, long history, cultural baggage and wounds, ancient families, and specific ethnic roots. It's much harder for someone from North Africa who came to France to work a shitty job to feel a part of France. The French don't even view their immigrants as first class Frenchmen. That's why the European Muslims aren't integrated into Europe and the Europeans are afraid of losing their cultures.
Hope that helped. :)
-
