Less is More

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Arne Saknussemm, Apr 3, 2014.

  1. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Years ago I read a Norman Spinrad short story in which a diminutive billionaire industrialist builds an apartment block with ceilings four feet above the floor. Of course he is roundly criticized for stinginess and sheer idiocy, but the story unfolds into it all being the first step in the little fellow's plan to scale down the human race. Because of his financial power and Washington and Madison Avenue connections (of lots of other small guys) he is able to launch an advertising campaign, and much more than just an ad campaign, that teaches people that small is good, small is smart, small is sexy! Small cuts cost. Small saves precious resources like food and minerals. In the story the four-foot nothing billionaire is young enough to see his dream come true by the end of his lifetime, and his apartments occupied by three foot tall families with small, and I do mean, small children.

    Question: is this an option? Would this be a good idea to make our resources last? Would it be healthful? I'm thinking with our great earth-moving equipment and our modern ways of waging war, size really does not matter. A pygmy could operate a cement truck customized to accommodate his size as well as a great burly fellow of six foot six. With modern technology, what do we got to be so big for? So civil rights and strapping adversarial populations aside, would this be feasible? Would it be a good idea to scale down humanty's size through selective breeding?


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    Welll, as long as EVERYTHING is not small!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Joking aside, I do not see how just being smaller will solve anything. The problem is human nature (greed, intolerance, expoitation, wastefulness, etc) and education, economic opportunity and a fair social and judicial system actually needs to be super-sized in order to save lives and money.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Population control by birth control methods would be more prudent I'd think and more realistic to achieve.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Or just our hearts need to be super-sized.
     
  8. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It happened before, google "Homo floresiensis". They were about 3.5 feet tall.
     
  9. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    Yes, I had forgotten. Now google, 'Hobbit'.
     
  10. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    Your thread title reminded me of a book I read...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Is_Beautiful

    On the topic of 'selectively breeding' humans, I say "Good Luck". I consider our species to be among the least discriminating of mammals on the topic of sex and reproduction. :bugeye:
     
  11. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    Ummm, this would be one of those times when we should NOT ask for documentation.
     
  12. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    Absolutely.

    You will have to do your own confirmation on this one.

    A Walmart parking lot usually affords a good field of view for a baseline of current population demographics and dynamics.

    Does Walmart even carry size 'small'?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If every person on the earth, could have the same lifestyle as the rich and famous, the earth's resources would be used up an alarming rate. The goal of everyone being wealthy or even well off, is not practical or even possible. As an example, if all the humans of the earth had houses as large as Al Gore's house, and used his amount of electricity and had his globe trotting carbon signature, global manmade carbon emissions would go up 100-1000 fold and the earth's scarce natural resources would be gone in no time.

    The parody is about downsizing human demand for good and services. This demand is subjective and market driven and is often used for the goal of prestige instead of genuine need. If we lower the subjective need for prestige, lesson the impact of marketing, less goes much further. For example, if the new feeling of being rich was at the level of current lower middle class in America, (this is the case in poor countries) so all the humans had a small house, the size of Al Gore's tool shed, the amount of resources would stretch further, with all people subjectively feeling they are enjoying the good life (breed them to think smaller). The little people symbolize downsizing subjective need so the same amount goes further; lower the ceiling away from the sky.

    One wild card, that nobody talks about, is the role of women in the overuse of resources. In a home, it is usually the wife who wants to replace the furniture while the guy is content to use less resources and keep the old until it is broken. Guys may have socks as old as himself and his wife will complain if he wears the same shirt all the time. While, each women has enough shoes for ten women but can't part with one.

    Men are blamed for using up the resources, since he is always wrong, but when it all comes down t brass tacks, men do this to lure and maintain the needs of women, who if they divorce, need this lifestyle to the point of a legal gun. Subjectivity impacts females more; social makeup, with this causing resources to be used for superficial things more important to females.
     
  14. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    Of course Eve and Al Gore are the root of our ills. Women and liberals really wellwisher? Do you ever take any other path?

    Couldn't you for example have said Romney's elevator instead of Al Gore's toolshed. This would have been refreshing coming from you and a shock as well.
     
  15. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I thought you were going to say a WalMart parking lot is a good place to do the documenting.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    Perhaps we should compare military spending in the U.S. to the discretionary spending of women or even of men placating or pursuing women. In many households, women are freaking genius at maximizing the use of a dollar to feed and cloth their family to best advantage.

    You are perhaps considering just one female stereotype?
     
  17. scheherazade Northern Horse Whisperer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,798
    Given that they allow free overnight parking of motor-homes in their parking lot, this might well be the case.

    Just another one of those hypotheses that I leave to the imagination or your own field research.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    This is a case where I would not want to be accused of being outstanding in the field.

    However, there may be provisions in the R&D budget for an RV with all the amenities of a field lab, suitable for conducting independent research. :mufc:
     
  19. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I did not say women are not good shoppers and don't know how to maximize a dollar. The topic was resources usage. The more you shop, even for bargains, the more resources you will go through. The military might spend $820 billion in 2014, but look below.

    Marketing targets women more than men because women control the most of the purse strings and do most of the shopping. This means they make the decisions that use the most resources. If all the women of the world had access to the same spending habits and power, as above, the world's resources would be depleted.

    I pointed this out, and the first reaction was to hide the truth, since it does not go along with the women victim narrative. I love women, but it is easier to attract them if you can provide access to more resources.

    I would even go out on the limb and say the increase in government spending has a connection to the increasing role of female influence in culture, since they will bring their spending dominance with them. Liberalism is feminine so this is predictable. The Conservative say we need to save and balance the budget, while liberals say we need more credit cards (raise the debt ceiling). We are not even trying to make the government more efficient (return shoes never worn).

    The male is the evil person for suggesting we cut back on spending, while also being made responsible for using up all the resources. Men may dig the gold, but the females wear it. Only the digging is look at in terms of the propaganda narrative. The wife does not always want the husband to know exactly what and how she spends.
     
  20. cornel Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    137
    Wellwisher, your entire argument is wrong, the woman spends for the family, just as the man goes to his job for the family, neither of them consumes more or less, they 've just specialised their means of acquiring because, when there are two instead of just one, you can improve the situation by specialising.
     
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Let me get this straight, women outspend men by 2 to 1, and they like to shop, and therefore although they ultimately create the demand for the most resources, yet this has no impact on the rate at which natural resources are being used up? The narrative of the evil male and the female victim seems to trigger a linear reaction not subject to reason.

    The two things in marriages that cause the most arguments are money and sex. The gals complain about not enough money to buy things, the male complains about not enough sex. Sex is renewable and does require new resources based on seasons and fashions. Keeping up with the Jones and the styles does take resources.

    If you are an average family, is this poor performing economy, there may be only enough money to get the necessities. Women are good at shopping and can make their family dollar go further than men, on the average. But if the pay level goes way up, the extra is already spent on frill deficit. Now it is time to buy new furniture even before all practical use has not been used up. This helps the economy and will create jobs, which are both good, but the topic is less is more. The topic is about breeding smaller people with less demand. If women spent as much as the men, we would be half way there, and save trillions of dollars of resources.

    I am not blaming anyone. I am only pointing out something the narrative never talks about. This is why is seems wrong, but still adds up. Traditionally the female is connected to matter and the male to spirit. This is reflected in female material need and males more content with abstracts like tinkering and sports.

    I am not a big save the planet person since the planet does not need saving. But for those who are, one needs to look at all the angles and do the math.
     
  22. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,353
    None of this man vs woman stuff has anything to do with my original post. However, I can tell you that no lesser a wise man than Leo Tolstoy observed that 90% of everything that can be bought in shops is for women, or of interest to women. Similarly I knew another wise man, an elderly elevator operator on Kearney Street in San Francisco, circa 1983 (poor fellow is probably as dead as Tolstoy by now, may he rest easy) whose usual sunny disposition was all clouded over one day, and I am sure he knew nothing of Tolstoy but knew his wife and daughters well enough, and he made the exact same observation: ninety per cent. Yes, just go down to the high street and have a look.
     
  23. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    I am not waging war on women, nor do I feel the need to save the planet, but the discussion never includes female demand. This may be taboo so I will not press too hard until people get used to the facts.
     

Share This Page