... that I'd spend a little more time on it, perhaps even to blog!
But my new computer sits sad and alone in my office, most of the time. That's because I've made the transition to my work computer, an iMac which I've decided I quite like. It's also because time is fleeting.
Despite my desire to start a foundation that seeks to humanely limit human population on this planet (you heard it here first, folks), I also hold the somewhat opposing desire to see a breakthrough in longevity achieved. Then maybe time wouldn't seem so fleeting.
Actually, I don't really sit around thinking about my mortality when I feel under time pressure. So longevity isn't really the ticket.
Really what I need is a chip in my brain that will allow true human cognitive multi-tasking. Oh yeah, here comes the singularity baby!
5 comments:
Sign me up for your foundation. Too much competition for dwindling resources, and too many poor people living in places that are routinely destroyed by Mother Nature.
We need to reduce the population of the planet down to what the planet can feed, and to the point where people can live in regions where they can reasonably get the majority of their food locally.
A big issue is whether a capitalist economic model can work with zero population growth. With a stable population, does the economy become a zero-sum game? What does capitalism look like without exponential population growth?
Can capitalism even exist without population growth? And if not, what needs to replace it?
One humane way to lessen the populations’ impact on the planet is to adopt. I know that foreign adoptions are trendy, but there are hundreds of thousands of children in our own backyard that need families.
My late grandfather instilled in us the belief that after 2 having kids - you adopt. Its worked pretty well us. =)
John,
I know real new wealth has been generated over the last many decades from the fruits of growth and capitalism. However, a lot of that is concentrated out of the reach of a majority of humans. To us, capitalism already sort of seems 0-sum. Anyhow, you're right, if we're going to have any hope of avoiding killing off the ecosystem's ability to support humans, capitalism as it is currently practiced will need modification. How likely is that? Well... I guess you never know.
Liberty,
That sounds like a very sound policy :-). Reproduce no more than your replacements!
Actually, I think we should take the D&D perspective and treat the 1% of the population who hold 40% of the wealth* like BBEGs and their homes like dungeons.
In other words, kill them and take their stuff. :) **
*source: http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
**I don't actually advocate this.
That said, if you look at the way things are going, the continued consolidation of wealth is an unsustainable trend leads back towards some kind of neo-feudalism.
At some point, the super-rich will become so few and so rich, and the rest so poor, that the likelihood of violent redistribution of wealth is probably quite high.
Then again, if we can manage to elect people who support tax policy that robs from the poor and gives to the rich, we might be able to turn that trend around. Maybe.
This is definitely a "don't get me started" topic! ;)
EDIT: Make that "if we can manage to STOP ELECTING people who..."
Post a Comment