In an eggshell.

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by nitram22, Apr 9, 2011.

  1. nitram22 Registered Senior Member

    What we know for certain is that tomorrow will come with or without us. From the moment of th 'Big Bang' until now and I would believe forever in perpetual change and growth the Universe will go on. It will likely never be realized what was before this Universe came pouring out and filling space with the mass, energy, and capability to spawn life. But, Earth is tiny, and obscure as planets go, and to face the truth can only support so much. The sheer numbers in people, animals, plant life, and water. The ratio of resources to man is not a good balance.
    Think about what it would be like if not for ww1, wwr2, and the the plague. How many people would be sapping all the resources that could be developed.
    We need to change in the way we view life. This world will change as it always has, and it will be sudden. If we are to continue on we must use our gift of understanding, and our ability to learn and create. Our focus must be to the pursuit of broader horizons. The first step is EDUCATION. We must start pouring funds into the creation of more schools w/ smaller classes. We must provide teachers w/ all the tools to teach effectively with better wages. It's common sense to see that this is how to....
    A: Create jobs
    B: Build a smarter workforce.
    C: Develop a vision for change.
    D: Survive.

    The control and greed of our government needs to be eliminated as a whole.
    It needs to be replaced with those determined to listen to the over all majority of the PEOPLE. Corporate control of an electoral college must be removed along with any belief that our Presidents of late have made ANY decisions not paid for. If our leaders do not turn our county in to a country for education and redirect the majority of tax money, corporate funds( even w/ force) toward education. Than those leaders are NOT for anything but greed. The International Space cooperations should also be pushed.

    I am not done. I have to go. But facts and figures are to come.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    But who will be in control? Will people that are kind, honest and enlightened be the ones or the corrupt, gangster, greedy ones be the people who will be in charge? The problem as has always been to try and keep a balance as best possible as to what goes on and who's in charge. While I agree that education is a very good thing, what kind of education will be taught? So while I find that I agree with your train of thought to a degree it will be almost impossible to think that only good and cooperation with be used when the sly and wicked are among us always.:shrug:
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    The latter.
    They fight harder for it and they use tactics good people won't stoop to.
    (Also, the glass is half-empty.
    Probably wasn't a clean glass to begin with, either)
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    Some macrocosmologists suggest that the expansion will eventually reverse and one day the universe will vanish in a "Big Crunch." Apparently it depends on how much dark matter and dark energy there is. You younger people may live to hear the answer to that question.
    Those same macrocosmologists now say that the phrase "before the Big Bang" is meaningless because space and time, as well as the laws of nature such as gravity, all came into existence at the same time. It's like asking, "How would matter behave at a temperature below absolute zero?" The Big Bang was, according to this hypothesis, the Absolute Zero of Space and Time.
    WWII only killed off three percent of the human population. A tragedy from our perspective but a nit from any other. WWI killed less than one percent. The Black Death, on the other hand, killed very roughly about ten percent of the world population, and one-third of Europe's (even though it originated in or near China and was spread along the Silk Road). It was a boon to the European economy, because every survivor was 50% wealthier than he had been.

    If your intent was to add your voice to the chorus screaming about "overpopulation," you (and the rest of the chorus) need to understand that you're thirty years out of date. The second derivative of population turned negative in 1980, and the first derivative is generally expected to hit zero late in this century, when population peaks just shy of ten billion--and then starts to decrease for the first time in more than one hundred thousand years.
    You can say that again. Every economic model since Adam Smith has used population growth as the engine that drives prosperity. Keeping everyone employed at producing goods and services for a shrinking population will be a challenge--much less a population with a much higher median age than the world has ever seen. Fortunately older people tend to be less hot-headed so there will be fewer wars or perhaps none at all. Especially since when we do "fight wars" we always send you younger people to do the actual fighting, and when there will be so precious few of you we will be reluctant to "waste" any of you in combat.
    If you listen carefully you might be terribly disappointed in what you hear. You need to get that "better education" thingie working before you try to implement a truer form of democracy. Marx recognized this a century and a half ago; that's why he grudgingly made "dictatorship of the proletariat" a first step toward his fairytale-economics-based utopia.
    I think that's an exaggeration, but there's plenty of truth to it.

    I think the real problem with today's governments is that they are too big. If you look at the government of a small town, you'll often find that the people in charge are real experts in their professions. But as they rise up into county politics, state politics and national politics, the selection process changes. At the national level, elections only select for two traits in candidates:
    • 1. They really want power.
    • 2. They really know how to win elections.
    Notice carefully that "they really know how to govern" or "they really have the best interests of their constituents at heart" are not on that short list.

    In a country the size of the United States (or Brazil, India, Russia, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.), the government has so many levels that by the time a person rises to the top he or she has had to win ten or twenty or thirty elections with increasingly tougher competition. Those "experts in their professions" who won the town council elections are going up against opponents who want the power so badly that they have turned campaigning into a distinct type of business. The campaign industry has its own experts in fundraising, making speeches, posturing for the cameras, grooming the family for public appearances, and making promises with one's fingers crossed behind one's back.

    What are the chances that an "expert in his or her profession"--somebody who actually knows what the people need and has some idea of how to deliver it--is going to beat that system?

    This is one of the many reasons we libertarians promote the idea of smaller government. The people who comprise a smaller government are more in touch with their constituents, and more likely to have desires other than seizing power and skills other than becoming popular.
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No US President, VP, or even very many Congressmen on the US national level, have run any such gauntlet.

    Not only is the election process not nearly that rigorous (in that sense) for high office, but the competition is often not increasingly tough as one goes up the two or three rungs of the real life ladder - at the very highest levels (US Congressman, say) initial blind luck followed by the accrued support of incumbency is a common history of the successful officeholder, and once elected or appointed by, more or less, chance, tough competition is only occasionally faced.

    The smaller the government compared with the size of its constituency, the less accountable it becomes to any one of them.

    The ultimate in small government would be a King or Caesar of some kind, a tribal Chief with no official advisers etc - a one man show - and such are accountable to almost no one, at any geographical or demographic scale to which the word "government" commonly applies.

    One does not limit the power of government by making it "smaller" in any ordinary sense. "Local" may be what you are looking for - but that's not going to manage the Mississippi watershed, or the Grand Banks fisheries, or the Oglalla Aquifer irrigation drain, or the coal mining operations in Appalachia.

    The ecologically significant human population - the population that any given landscape supports, on that landscape - has been alternately increasing and decreasing around a mean for most of human history, as your Plague example highlights. The occasional semi-permanent booms here and there (agriculture, new continents) have been rare and fairly short-lived in boom phase. Only recently has a sustained worldwide boom been possible, and the notion that it will curb itself through worldwide accumulation of wealth and voluntary limitation of reproduction is pollyanna.

    The overpopulation people are thirty years out of date not because the population is leveling off, but because they lost the main battle forty years ago and more - we have overpopulated.
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2011
  9. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    I think Fraggle was actually arguing for more local control of those things that can be controlled locally in an effective manner...and to that I say there's a good argument for that.

    Although, as a queer, I may not be able to expect protection from local authorities in many areas of this country. Really.

    So to me more local control's kind of a two-edged sword; in theory it gives me more power over how my government is run, but it also gives any local band of motivated bigots who are supported by general consensus a far better ability to wreck my life and/or run me out of town.
  10. 1337spb Registered Member

    So you believe in time then? If time exists Education is good though , especially in poor countries.
  11. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    You don't even get that now in a lot of places. But you could always move to Hollywood. I was there for ten years (and I'm straight) and found it to be a wonderful place to live. Many of America's big cities have happy gay communities, even places like Houston and Atlanta. Who wants to live in a small town anyway???

    You could also move to Canada. Janis Ian got married in Toronto and said that when perfect strangers found out why they were there they bought them champagne and did all kinds of nice things, just to press the point that Canadians aren't Americans. And she closed that anecdote with, "And then we came home." The club was very quiet for a few moments after that.

Share This Page