Is modern society a bubble? *LONG*

[Franklin]

Really. Is modern society a bubble? Let's stick to Western society to keep it more simple.

100 years ago what did people have for expenses compared to income?
- mortgage
- food
- ???
What else?

They didn't have cable, cell phones, cars, internet, vacation homes, etc..

Now we have so much of what we earn going out towards expenses.


Sure, we have much better lives, don't get me wrong. The quality of life compared to 100 years ago is infinitely better.

The advances in medicine alone in the past 100 years have developed more than the rest of history combined.

Good news, right? How about the poor chap like myself who had a potentially life threatening tumor on my spinal chord?
The ood news, it was benign!
The bad news? I owe the hospital $17,000 for follow up MRIs that my insurance would not cover, at all. They considered them excessive and I have no recourse. Their panel of Oncologists (or whatever kind of Drs they were) thought I only needed one follow up MRI, not one every 6 months for two years. Thanks.

So here I am alive, w/o a tumor. I am happy to be alive, of course! If I added up all the medical expenses I’ve had since that back and tumor removal operations…

My point is that the farther ahead we go, the more “in the hole” we get.
- Do we need three cars per family, a boat, timeshares, a vacation home, 40 pairs of shoes, etc?
- Remember when having pets didn’t cost an arm and a leg? You could feed them table scraps. Now they all have special food, pet insurance, etc. My friend just spent @ $1,200 on a procedure that “could” have extended his dog’s life for @ 6 months. It didn’t work, and the dog passed away.

There was a builder that I worked with about 10 years ago. He was always the highest bidder and got a lot of work. He said it is simple; “Once I realized that these morons all wanted to be able to brag about how much they spent on their ‘powder room’ or whatever I decided to pad the bids by 20-40% to see what would happen. I kept getting the jobs. They kept bragging to their friends. ‘This is Honduran maple that only grows on the southwest side of the island. Very rare, the room cost me $30m just for the paneling’”.

“We need to have a big SUV for safety, right? The Jonses across the street have one, so I can’t drive a little Honda SUV! They will say I don’t care about my kids!”

I don’t think I need to belabor the point. We all know the problems. We all need the biggest, brightest, newest, most expensive crap that we can show off to our friends. So we live from paycheck to paycheck and rack up the debt. Why?

Sure, many of you will say "I don't spend money foolishly" or whatever, but I'm talking about the majority of people out there.

People are living longer and longer, so society will need to really step up to take care of the many millions of people “too old” to work.

So much of what we do for a living is becoming automated. Soon very little will not be automated. Will we all have to become software/hardware techs??

Where will people work in the future?

What happens when it becomes cheaper to produce things in Africa instead of Asia?


How can the way we are going be sustained?



:huh

[Brock]

I agree with you. It's going to get very rough and people will be seeing their things are worthless. It will be like throwing money in the streets and nobody wants it.

[Luke]

How can the way we are going be sustained?

:huh


A World War or a plague. There are too many people chasing too few resources. Kill off a billion people and bomb the crap out of half of the planet and suddenly there will be lots of jobs to rebuild and less applicants to fill them.

[Zelmo]

The bad news? I owe the hospital $17,000 for follow up MRIs that my insurance would not cover, at all. They considered them excessive and I have no recourse. Their panel of Oncologists (or whatever kind of Drs they were) thought I only needed one follow up MRI, not one every 6 months for two years. Thanks.

Bastids! Really!

Oh, and you raise a lot of valid points in the rest of your stuff....

[loudboy]

We'll find out when we run out of cheap fossil fuels.

The discovery of them, in the mid-1800's, is directly responsible for "modern society" as we know it.

It's impossible to sustain today's technology without them and there are no viable alternatives, at present, or on the near horizon.

Before oil, we were hunter/gatherer/farmers, and lived in relatively small, self-sufficient communities.

We'll see where we are in another 150.

[chrisjw5]

A World War or a plague. There are too many people chasing too few resources. Kill off a billion people and bomb the crap out of half of the planet and suddenly there will be lots of jobs to rebuild and less applicants to fill them.

You are, unfortunately, right. We're way overpopulated and our overpopulation is leading to all sorts of problems: environmental and economic. History and/or Earth will eventually put things back in balance. And a very bad time will be had by most.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Population-milestones.jpg

It took us all of human history up to 1804 to hit 1 billion and 123 years to hit 2B. It took another 32 years to hit 3B and now we're getting another billion every 12-15 years. We are a cancer on the Earth. When does it stop? (see answer above)

[Franklin]

I've always thought that the discovery of the new world is what precipitated the industrial revolution -but it was coal. Great point!


I've written lyrics that never made it into a song:

"We are Mother Nature's cancer, looks to be stage 4 to me"

[fetishfrog]

People who are misanthropic enough to refer to humanity as a cancer on the Earth should all be required to kill themselves for the cause. After all, why be part of the cancer when you can be part of the cure?

There are plenty of resources on Earth to support the existing population. The problem is distribution.

As fossil fuels begin to become more difficult/less cost effective to extract, don't be surprised to see viable alternatives suddenly present themselves. It would not at all surprise me to learn that energy companies have already begun to develop alternatives and are simply waiting until oil/coal/whatever to become too expensive.

The above 'scary' population graph fails to take into consideration the following: as nations become more technologically advanced, the rate of population growth slows. As developing nations become developed, their rates of population growth will slow as well. Also, the graph fails to show the reality that, as nations/the world becomes more technologically advanced, we increase our ability to support a larger population. SO that graph really means nothing at all. Malthus was an idiot.

To the OP, I am glad you beat your tumor...sorry about the bills.

Have a good holiday weekend.

[loudboy]

As fossil fuels begin to become more difficult/less cost effective to extract, don't be surprised to see viable alternatives suddenly present themselves. It would not at all surprise me to learn that energy companies have already begun to develop alternatives and are simply waiting until oil/coal/whatever to become too expensive.

Ah, the old Deus Ex Machina...

I've yet to see any valid proof of an alternative energy source that could replace fossil fuels.

You're talking about growing our food, distributing it and manufacturing most of our products...

All presently unsustainable w/o fossil fuels.

[TattooedCarrot]

The above 'scary' population graph fails to take into consideration the following: as nations become more technologically advanced, the rate of population growth slows. As developing nations become developed, their rates of population growth will slow as well.
That's a good point, as evident by the declining indigenous populations of 1st world countries. Take Europe for example. On the flipside, the less developed countries, the third world, continue to outbreed the rest and with our worldly mobility and infiltration of the 1st world countries by the 3rd, will they assimilate and follow the already occurring trend mentioned above? Or will they maintain a 3rd world lifestyle within the 1st world and eventually overtake it, and as a result send us back a few centuries in the process?

Interesting thoughts.

[Franklin]

Thanks fetishfrog. I'm not complaining so much as pointing out an example. If it was malignant, I would probably owe $100,000s.

So you don't think there is a problem with society being a bubble?

You think we can all go on living selfish materialistic lives and somehow we'll find a way out of this mess?

By the way, I'm not in a financial mess. While I don't make a lot of money, I live by the golden rule -I live within my means!!

Easy, don't spend more than you make! Easy to say, not so easy to do. Belive me, I know!

Why I may have a different opinion on material stuff is because I lost 95% of what I owned once in a fire about 9 years ago. All of my amps and guitars. After a while the only thing I really regret losing was the pictures. They are not something that you can replace, for the most part. So I no longer have a materialistic streak....

[fetishfrog]

I've yet to see any valid proof of an alternative energy source that could replace fossil fuels.

True, me neither, but:

I've not seen proof that one does not exist. I've also not seen proof that one, if it doesn't exist currently, won't be discovered in the very near future.

I guess I cannot fathom that, for all of the millions of problems human ingenuity has solved since our descent from the trees, why this energy problem is going to be thee one that gets us, especially since it's been so front of mind in recent years.

[fetishfrog]

Or will they maintain a 3rd world lifestyle within the 1st world and eventually overtake it, and as a result send us back a few centuries in the process?

Interesting thoughts.

If they did it would be a first. The tendency is, as people acquire material wealth, they want to enjoy the luxury of that acquisition. People wait until later in life to have children, the birth rate drops, etc etc. I think the population will continue to grow, but not as fast as we can keep up with the demands that growth places on the available resources.

[TattooedCarrot]

If they did it would be a first. The tendency is, as people acquire material wealth, they want to enjoy the luxury of that acquisition. People wait until later in life to have children, the birth rate drops, etc etc. I think the population will continue to grow, but not as fast as we can keep up with the demands that growth places on the available resources.
Interesting - coming from a Los Angelian ;)

[Tonemeister69]

To the OP,

Thanks for taking the time to write that. You’ve echoed the sentiments of many, many people including myself.

Personally, my wife and I live well within our means. We have a mortgage, for the house, and that’s all the debt we have. If we want something we save and save until we can afford it. Most of the time, when that moment comes around, the moment we’ve actually saved enough for whatever it is we wanted, we realise we don’t really need or want it anymore.

Getting married and buying a house has taught me a lot of things. Life isn’t all about me. I hope and pray my outlook never changes. Life is better this way, somehow.

[fetishfrog]

Thanks fetishfrog. I'm not complaining so much as pointing out an example. If it was malignant, I would probably owe $100,000s.

So you don't think there is a problem with society being a bubble?....

You're welcome. My fiance's youngest son had a tumor on his spine removed when he was 2. Even though it was benign (not attacking surrounding tissue) it was growing. Eventually it would have killed him by crushing the nerves that sent signals to the heart and lungs. As it stands, he's been cancer free for 12 years and counting. :)

As to the rest...I think humanity has always lived in a bubble somewhat...I just don't think it's worse today than at other times in human history, just different.

[fetishfrog]

Interesting - coming from a Los Angelian ;)

Hey, we legally steal water from the north. ;)

Not saying there aren't problems to be solved, that's for sure.

[bluesjunior]

My father could support a wife and five kids on his wages in the 50's & 60's.

I could support a wife and three kids on my wages and when the kids got older my wife took a job for extra money in the 80's & 90's.

Both my sons and both their wives need to work to support two kids and get panic attacks about unemployment in the present.

And they call that progress!!!:dunno:huh:crazy:nuts:messedup:jo

[chrisjw5]

People who are misanthropic enough to refer to humanity as a cancer on the Earth should all be required to kill themselves for the cause. After all, why be part of the cancer when you can be part of the cure?
That alone disqualifies you from being a serious commentator and it shows some serious flaws in your humanity to suggest suicide to someone.

Humanity IS killing the earth. You might object to the 'cancer' part, and you have that right, but we mimic cancer cells. We spread, we multiply and we turn the systems of the earth against itself.

The simple fact is that population growth is not appreciably slowing and we cannot continue to sustain this growth. We've been on the 12-to-15-years-per-billion plan since 1960 and there aren't any signs of the birth rate slowing, despite your insistence that population growth will (I'm paraphrasing), take care of itself. How many billion can we sustain? 10? 12? 14? Can we double our population and continue to live lives at a reasonable level of civilization? I don't think so.

And it's not just fuel, not by a long shot. It's wealth, it's disease, it's food, it's changes in weather patterns and sprawl and the damage it does to the ecosystem. As we grow, we create more waste. Even if we can cut back on a per capita rate, our growth will erase any gains.

By one example, we produce 97,200 cell phones an hour (do a Google search, 27 per second). That's 2.3 million a day. That's 851 million a year. Since about 3 billion people use cell phones, look at the turnover and the waste from disposing of them all by themselves. Now multiply that times all of the other stuff we dispose of. Airlines use 47 cups per second. 1.5 billion a year. Americans pitch 38 billion (with a B) plastic bottles a year. That's $1 billion (with a B) worth of plastic as garbage a year. Literally thrown out without a second thought. Guess where all this ends up? See below. And you're telling me we have room for more? Growth isn't a concern?

BTW - this is not an environmentalist point-of-view I'm taking. I'm not arguing climate change or tree hugging. I'm simply stating that we cannot support many more people without putting the earth into shutdown mode. The earth is a system, like our bodies. Systems can only take so much stress before they begin to die. Like my dad, who has cancer (hence my analogy, which I believe I have the right to make).

All you've done is make a slightly more well-stated claim that Superman is going to save us.

Of course, I don't know why I'm responding to someone whose ill-educated response to an idea you disagree with is to suggest I commit suicide.

http://i625.photobucket.com/albums/tt340/keweiphotos/great_pacific_garbage_patch.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3357/3330201311_4355ed9375.jpg

[fetishfrog]

Of course, I don't know why I'm responding to someone whose ill-educated response to an idea you disagree with is to suggest I commit suicide.

I, of course, am not advocating suicide for anyone...I simply stated what I stated as a means of pointing out the inherit hypocrisy present in someone who's been given the gift of life and yet complains about overpopulation. You are a part of this overpopulation, as much as everyone else, and are equally culpable. I for one, do not buy into it.

As far as the Earth being over populated...prove it. Prove that we are taxing her into oblivion. Prove that, as the population grows and certain resources reach their limits, we won't adapt and thrive on the new technologies and resources made available. Why on Earth do you believe that we've suddenly reached our limits of adaptation after thousands of years of thriving in all environments and conditions, now bam...here we are, in our decline? Humans have survived ice ages, global warming, new ice ages, population growth, war, famine, disease, and here we are, at our most advanced, and you believe we're done, and we cannot solve future problems and adapt to future conditions. Bologna I say.

So prove it...with numbers, research, hard facts, science, etc. Prove that we cannot succeed. Until you do, it's all baseless fear mongering.

[Trandy]

I, of course, am not advocating suicide for anyone...I simply stated what I stated as a means of pointing out the inherit hypocrisy present in someone who's been given the gift of life and yet complains about overpopulation. You are a part of this overpopulation, as much as everyone else, and are equally culpable. I for one, do not buy into it.

As far as the Earth being over populated...prove it. Prove that we are taxing her into oblivion. Prove that, as the population grows and certain resources reach their limits, we won't adapt and thrive on the new technologies and resources made available. Why on Earth do you believe that we've suddenly reached our limits of adaptation after thousands of years of thriving in all environments and conditions, now bam...here we are, in our decline? Humans have survived ice ages, global warming, new ice ages, population growth, war, famine, disease, and here we are, at our most advanced, and you believe we're done, and we cannot solve future problems and adapt to future conditions. Bologna I say.

So prove it...with numbers, research, hard facts, science, etc. Prove that we cannot succeed. Until you do, it's all baseless fear mongering.


Well said.

This sort of reasoning reminds me of all the hoopla about global warming...and we've seen in the last few days how fraudulent that is.

[Franklin]

I have no doubt we are destroying the planet. That's not what I mean though.

Just like the financial systems in the US and the world are sort of a big abstract network of virtual money. Like a pyramid scheme where the last ones out are the losers. I mean a bubble like a real estate or stock market bubble, - but encompassing all aspects of life.

We are a disposable society. Not much gets repaired these days, just replaced. I saw a shoe repair place the other day in my old hometown and I could't believe it still was around!

Can we even go back to being self sufficient again? Could we can fruit, plant gardens, build and fix stuff, sew, etc.? Sure, many of us can I guess.

I just wonder how the next few chapters in humanity turn out. It seems like we're streching ourselves a little too thin all the way around. As my grandfather loved to say, "The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer". That's how it feels sometimes.

There was an economics class in college where the professor was showing the class how there could not be wealth without there being poverty. I think he was saying it goes for all capitalistic societies, but he used the US and some Central American countries as examples. I don't remember how he worked it all out, but it seemed the for there to be a society w/o poverty it could not have a lot of extra wealth to go around. So there could be "no poverty", but there would have to be a huge number of working and some middle class and very little or no rich people. But of course, that sounds like Communism, which of course isn't very capitalistic anyway!

My point is that to me it feels like our society and culture are the decline, but we're still addicted to our personal image.

Everything is broken, but we're a disposable society who has forgotten how to fix things....

[66fs]

"Modern society" can't be sustainable without some new resources to exploit that can replace the ones that are reaching their limit. Find another planet? Drastic population reduction? Obviously don't know what the future holds but the challenges are immense. It won't get too crazy in my lifetime but can't imagine what the future holds for children all over the world living today.

[chrisjw5]

I, of course, am not advocating suicide for anyone...
It's what you said, so either you were a liar then or one now.

I simply stated what I stated as a means of pointing out the inherit hypocrisy present in someone who's been given the gift of life and yet complains about overpopulation. You are a part of this overpopulation, as much as everyone else, and are equally culpable.

As far as the Earth being over populated...prove it. Prove that we are taxing her into oblivion.
So you're admitting that you won't buy into it because you don't want to feel guilt. That's what this boils down to. In your words it's culpability, I'm "equally culpable", and so you don't want to be culpable so you ignore the writing on the wall because it hasn't gotten too late. YET. you want to avoiding guilt, and so you "won't buy into it". Nice.

the evidence is there and I could present a mountain of it, but why? you'll just find an excuse because excuses are easy. and having an excuse makes you feel blameless.

and I'm not saying that we should feel guilty for being human or for what we have. But to take such a horseshit, defiant stance in order to continue to live in a way that you obviously know internally isn't what you could/should be doing... I don't get it. The only people who would argue that we can continue on in this vein are deluded, selfish, or both.

2 points:
1) It's impossible to prove that we're killing the earth until we've already gone past the point of no return. It's in much the same way that I can't definitively prove that it will be my dad's cancer that will ultimately kill him (as opposed to a heart attack or a car accident) until he's in his last hours. But if he had the choice now to go back and make changes, you can bet he would. We'll eventually be in that same place as a species. You might not live to see it and you can go to your grave feeling guiltless, so sleep well tonight.

2) re: my culpability..... I don't have kids. It's a conscious decision not to add to the problem. Instead, I try to better the place by teaching the ones already here.

All I'm saying is that we cannot go on as a species in the direction we've been going for the last 200 years. We're killing ourselves. But like the fatass at Burger King, you won't believe it until you're clutching your chest.

Prove that, as the population grows and certain resources reach their limits, we won't adapt and thrive on the new technologies and resources made available.
Really? Like the chemically-laced sludge that passes for food these days?

Watch Food, Inc. and see what's REALLY in your commercially-produced food. And why is it so? to meet the demands of greater production to feed an expanding populace.

Or bury your head in the sand and continue on in your blameless, selfish anti-intellectual existence.

[Ken Ho]

Yes, our societies are a bubble. Some of those bubbles are gonna burst sooner or later, some in my life-tiem, I predict.
$17K for 4 MRI's ? That's 10 times what they cost here in Oz. 10 times !! That is not a fixable problem for your health system. I would not have approved that either. The old word for that is usury.
So, don't pay the bill and use the same panel of specialists that the insurance company used if you get sued. In fact, just use the same letter.

Otherwise, I agree that we are not living in a sustainable fashio. History indicates what will happen. The have's will be over-run by the have-nots, and the cycle will re-new.

[soapvox speaker]

you dont need scientists to prove that humanity has an irreversible negative effect on the earth. all you need are eyes that can see past the ridiculous facade that western "civilization" has created. anyone who believes that our effect on the planet is a sham should be ashamed of themselves. humans have come a long way with technology and medicine. we should be living in an age of comfort and pride. but instead, we are living in an age of "me me me", and this is a fragile and diseased legacy to pass down to posterity.

[Brian D]

Yes.

[Greggy]

We'll find out when we run out of cheap fossil fuels.

The discovery of them, in the mid-1800's, is directly responsible for "modern society" as we know it.

It's impossible to sustain today's technology without them and there are no viable alternatives, at present, or on the near horizon.

Before oil, we were hunter/gatherer/farmers, and lived in relatively small, self-sufficient communities.

We'll see where we are in another 150.

The move from self-sufficiency to interdependence and market economies is in fact responsible for the wealth we have apparently come to take for granted. But it is a vulnerable state that is prone to destruction. Mankind does not take to modern market economies naturally. It is an artificial construct of sorts, but a damn good one. If it were up to me, Adam Smith would be required reading for all high school students. The story of evolution from self sufficient social units to complex interdependent productive units organized by contractual relationships and related institutions is the story of modern comfort, luxury, and happiness. It is the most important story to tell. Everyone will realize same after we lose it all, if and when that happens. I hope it doesn't, but history tells me otherwise.

Loudboy, please note that the move from self sufficiency to modernity occured before the prominence of oil. If anything, the arrival of modern forms of money (commodity money for example) were both a cause and symptom of the movement from self sufficient economic units (think medieval Venice). There is a rich literature about this. Great topic!

[Trandy]

It's what you said, so either you were a liar then or one now.


So you're admitting that you won't buy into it because you don't want to feel guilt. That's what this boils down to. In your words it's culpability, I'm "equally culpable", and so you don't want to be culpable so you ignore the writing on the wall because it hasn't gotten too late. YET. you want to avoiding guilt, and so you "won't buy into it". Nice.

the evidence is there and I could present a mountain of it, but why? you'll just find an excuse because excuses are easy. and having an excuse makes you feel blameless.

and I'm not saying that we should feel guilty for being human or for what we have. But to take such a horseshit, defiant stance in order to continue to live in a way that you obviously know internally isn't what you could/should be doing... I don't get it. The only people who would argue that we can continue on in this vein are deluded, selfish, or both.

2 points:
1) It's impossible to prove that we're killing the earth until we've already gone past the point of no return. It's in much the same way that I can't definitively prove that it will be my dad's cancer that will ultimately kill him (as opposed to a heart attack or a car accident) until he's in his last hours. But if he had the choice now to go back and make changes, you can bet he would. We'll eventually be in that same place as a species. You might not live to see it and you can go to your grave feeling guiltless, so sleep well tonight.

2) re: my culpability..... I don't have kids. It's a conscious decision not to add to the problem. Instead, I try to better the place by teaching the ones already here.

All I'm saying is that we cannot go on as a species in the direction we've been going for the last 200 years. We're killing ourselves. But like the fatass at Burger King, you won't believe it until you're clutching your chest.


Really? Like the chemically-laced sludge that passes for food these days?

Watch Food, Inc. and see what's REALLY in your commercially-produced food. And why is it so? to meet the demands of greater production to feed an expanding populace.

Or bury your head in the sand and continue on in your blameless, selfish anti-intellectual existence.


I feel sorry for you Chris...and maybe for the kids you teach too.

Are you this mean-spirited with them? Do you constantly fill their heads with your doom and gloom scenarios? I sincerely hope not.

You sound utterly depressed....and angry at the world.

[redgold]

This is an edifying and interesting thread... please don't nuke it with personal attacks. Thanks.

[RedRockRoy]

My father could support a wife and five kids on his wages in the 50's & 60's.

The rest of the world did not have it nearly so good at the time. This is directly related to the US being the dominant world power economically and militarily during those years.

[rob2001]

Ya, things are pretty f'd up but I gotta have a positive outlook. And having a positive outlook is not burying my head in the sand.

Figure this Country's back hasn't been "up against" anything in almost 70 years. Yes, we've been through some hard times but there hasn't been a seriously polarizing event since WW2. That generation pulled together and made major accomplishments because they worked for a common goal. I'm not talking only about the war, but post war saw some incredible achievements.

So now, the economy goes to $hit and everyone thinks life as we know it is over. Well, maybe in some ways it is. Thats not a bad thing. People are actually thinking about important issues that affect us all. We aren't as caught up in our own personal quests for riches and possessions as we were....well, thats debatable! But other things are looking much more important, like a home, family, friends, health etc...

The topic is about a bubble of society. Current times could certainly be looked at as a bursting of a bubble, but it's not deflating and it's not enough to actually bring us together to work towards a common goal.

I still believe America can be resourceful, strong and overcome huge obstacles, but something needs to happen to bring us all back together. And it certainly won't be easy.

Also, in this modern age, because we are so connected with communication, the internet, news media and transportation, the world seems like a much smaller place. The truth is, the world is a dam big planet. I commute 35 miles one way to work....seems pretty close by car....45 minutes. But if I had to walk, ride a bike or ride my horse, i'd quickly find just how big a distance 35 miles really is.

I do believe we are having an impact on the planet, but this planet has been around a long LONG time and it's HUGE. There are still vast areas of this earth that man has barely touched. We are just starting to think in terms of saving the planet as a society. Things take time and I believe the earth will be fine...she's a tough old bird!

I honestly believe that if our backs are seriously to the wall, we'll come together and find solutions. Until then, we can only do our best and hope we don't get hit by a comet.

[chrisjw5]

I feel sorry for you Chris...and maybe for the kids you teach too.

Are you this mean-spirited with them? Do you constantly fill their heads with your doom and gloom scenarios? I sincerely hope not.

You sound utterly depressed....and angry at the world.

Please. you have NO idea what you're talking about. You know NOTHING about me except my response to a question that was posed. Either join the discussion or don't, but lay off the patronizing nonsense.

And don't you DARE question my professionalism.

[Option]

Suppose you took an aquarium and kept adding a goldfish to it every day. At some point the system could no longer support another goldfish. This seems fairly obvious to most. It would be difficult to argue "Well, someone will probably invent a new filtration system that would remove the inevitability of collapse, with the right technological developments, you could add a fish a day infinitum".

I find it amazing that some people believe the Earth is somehow exempt from this logic. Sure it's bigger, and takes longer to pollute. That doesn't mean the logic doesn't apply. Look around. There are too many goldfish (I'm one of 'em).

[Trandy]

Please. you have NO idea what you're talking about. You know NOTHING about me except my response to a question that was posed. Either join the discussion or don't, but lay off the patronizing nonsense.

And don't you DARE question my professionalism.

Thank you. You've made my point for me with your seething, venomous response...and confirmed my suspicions.

I'm done.

[Scott Auld]

Let's lay off the personal back and forth and stick to the subject. I didn't read the thread but I saw the posts on this page and you guys should take a time out from each other. Thanks.

[furry]

Sure, we have much better lives, don't get me wrong. The quality of life compared to 100 years ago is infinitely better.


hmmmm...

[Greggy]

Suppose you took an aquarium and kept adding a goldfish to it every day. At some point the system could no longer support another goldfish. This seems fairly obvious to most. It would be difficult to argue "Well, someone will probably invent a new filtration system that would remove the inevitability of collapse, with the right technological developments, you could add a fish a day infinitum".

I find it amazing that some people believe the Earth is somehow exempt from this logic. Sure it's bigger, and takes longer to pollute. That doesn't mean the logic doesn't apply. Look around. There are too many goldfish (I'm one of 'em).

2 points:

You shouldn't sell short your argument above re technology and resource capacity.
Second, are we really sure we have reached the point where the earth's surface is no longer able to absorb an increasing world population?

And for historical context (which is most important), you should acknowledge that doomsday predictions about world populations have themselves had the properties of bubbles, bubbles that always burst when proven wrong or uninformed (Malthus and Club of Rome, to name a few).

[Cobra]

Sure, we have much better lives, don't get me wrong. The quality of life compared to 100 years ago is infinitely better.

The above assumption may not be accurate.
How can you actually know when it's just opinion & conjecture anyway?

[Franklin]

I'm talking about the billions of people who were born (like my 3 yo) who 100 years ago would have been strangled at birth by their umbilical cords.

I'm talking about the billions of people who would have died from fever 100 years ago.

I'm talking about the billions of people who would have died young from heart disease 100 years ago.

I'm talking about the billions of people who would have died from a billion things 100 years ago but are now curable.

How about the billions and billions of people who live better lives every day, but 100 years ago would be crippled, blind, mental ill, etc


But I agree with you, it's all subjective. There may have been a much greater "quality" of life for many people back then who wouldn't want to be alive now.

[bluesjunior]

I'm talking about the billions of people who were born (like my 3 yo) who 100 years ago would have been strangled at birth by their umbilical cords.

I'm talking about the billions of people who would have died from fever 100 years ago.

I'm talking about the billions of people who would have died young from heart disease 100 years ago.

I'm talking about the billions of people who would have died from a billion things 100 years ago but are now curable.

How about the billions and billions of people who live better lives every day, but 100 years ago would be crippled, blind, mental ill, etc


But I agree with you, it's all subjective. There may have been a much greater "quality" of life for many people back then who wouldn't want to be alive now.
Well that point of view is all well and good but the other side of the coin is that with the projected population explosion in the world over the next 50-100 yrs we are heading towards a world where these cures are only going to be available to the rich, or is the answer that you are rich so why should you be bothered?.