Its just modern medicine. We should see some massive drops in the next couple hundred years from flu's and other natural sicknesses. The more people the more crowded the petri dish "This World" becomes and the better the chance of a super bug forming. I'd say the most immenent threat would be solar flares knocking out electronics. In sun time our electronics have only been here a milisecond. If a big solar flare hits earth it could kill all our electronics completely.

 

In my eyes, this thread is similar to the one we had about aliens, last month.

Strantor, in your exposition, you make future predictions based on a few citations, claiming that you are sure of the events to come.

You talk about a gloomy future that will lead to a world war. Do you have things so figured out? Wars happen everyday, still you seem to prophecize one that will end the civilization.

Problems arise, but as you said yourself, mankind has overcome its troubles before.

Summing up, you yell that the end is nigh. Maybe, maybe not, but we need to discuss on facts or we will end up fighting over nothing, like the aliens thread.

Please show prudence in your responses, everybody.

 

I don't know if war will be the cause or not. I wrote that paper years ago and my views have changed somewhat since then. I will not make any more predictions, as none can be accurately made. I will only state that the past few thousands of years of history before the industrial revolution reflect the amount people the earth naturally sustains; about 300 million. The population we see today, I believe is nothing but a bubble, and cannot be sustained indefinitely, much less continue expanding. Notice I said believe. There is no model I know that could factually prove this, but I think it's rather obvious, personally. That's the only part I'm sure of. This is not the science forum, which is the difference between this and the aliens thread. This is off topic, and AFAIK beliefs are allowed here.

 

I remember now why I stopped talking about this years ago. If there were a list of things that people don't want to hear, this topic would be at the top of it. You'll sooner be laughed out of the room than heard out. I shouldn't have posted this. If I was making any progress with my fractional banking posts, I've surely ruined my credibility and undone that work with this post.

 

Personally, it's not the content of the news that bother me. The current system seems to have ran its cycle and will probably be replaced, sooner or later.
It's the presentation you give it that alienates me. A nuclear mushroom in the front page? Phrases such as "No more oil is being found"? A predetermined war scenario?

As you said, this community includes mature and intelligent members. Your paper was written as an exposition for a highschool essay. It 's not just what you say, it's how you say it that also affects your credibility.

 

My personal extinction is probably not very far off at all: in a few hours I will be having a scan to see how far the rot has progressed. I look around me at many areas in crisis and decline and like many an older individual I'm tempted to think that the end of the world is near.

Maybe it is, but we would not be the first people to suspect this. We may tell ourselves that we know more than those that preceded us, so we are in a position to be more certain about it, but every generation that has looked at this problem could say the same.

There are a bunch of problems with making up doomsday scenarios. These usually rest on a set of unreliable assumptions, say that a given trend will continue. Extrapolation is a dangerous game though, as witness certain recent problems with stocks & shares. We also have to bear in mind that our present methods of doing things may not remain necessary in future, so for instance panic over the limited availability of such and such a raw material may not be warranted.

In my opinion the real issue though is that there may be completely unforeseen issues waiting to change things. As an example, in the next few decades some technology might emerge that may be as transformative as the vacuum tube was in the last century. We might also see unexpected political alignments - who knows what is really coming.?

 

@Bill_Marsdon, I do not think the discussion of this off-topic stuff is inappropriate, provided that it is apolitical rather than political in nature (this thread being a perfect example of such), nor do I think that the core emphasis of AAC will ever deviate from the discussion of circuits. Rather than blaming current problems on this or that political party, we are avoiding the surface left-right paradigm and going to the heart of the issue.

However, the human mind is far more than circuits--yes, the topic of circuits has drawn AAC together, but it is now obvious that this forum now includes a strong social element that in my mind transcends that of popular social networks such as facebook etc. On the other hand, those who have no interest in such topics can easily avoid such.

What strantor is saying is that the world (we included) is "going to hell in a handbasket" and should be a serious topic of discussion. It is not unlike strantor's busy, informative thread: "can banks predict (control) the future" or loosewire's "Joey Can You See Occupy Fort lauderdale From Your Office" that took on a life of its own.

Rather than risking "bad feelings," this culture is adding life to AAC--I like it!

 

Personally, it's not the content of the news that bother me. The current system seems to have ran its cycle and will probably be replaced, sooner or later.
It's the presentation you give it that alienates me. A nuclear mushroom in the front page? Phrases such as "No more oil is being found"? A predetermined war scenario?

As you said, this community includes mature and intelligent members. Your paper was written as an exposition for a highschool essay. It 's not just what you say, it's how you say it that also affects your credibility.

My opinion is that strantor's paper is quite insightful for a high schooler and does not in any way affect his credibility. I, too, disagree with many of his statements, but he is accurately reflecting the popular thought of the day and cannot be faulted any more than CNN or FoxNews' (fair and balanced) shallow reporting.

 

I'd be concerned if my student submitted said document in high school. That said, it is well known that schooling can be stressfull for many as they move through thier developing years. Such outlooks, in my view, reflect ones' inner stability. I'm not sure that predicting the future in this regards has merit though. It's kind of like the discussion of what would you do if you won the lottery.

 

@Jimkieth ,you don,t understand the humor and personal touch of

The Joey can you see the Ocupy Fort Lauderdale,you need to read

the forward to some of these post.I did agood job of bringing art and

wealth thru all the wars,you should read that thread. A logical post

easy to understand.

 

You are in Canada,The U.S. is under going changes that the man on the

street don't understand. When people don't go by the rules rules that

apply to there every day live,they seek a way to speak out. AS far

2012 go's lets see how the health care holds up. And we have already

won the lottery,we are alive and well.

 

My ...my...and I thought I was the only one in AAC that likes to stir things up.

Strantor's Essay was just high School hormones.

We human's are not living long if you think but rather our age is getting to be much shorter than it use to be...

And why America attack Saudi Arabia. Saudi will sell and will keep on selling oil.
Why do you say that America will attack. Does America wants to start a war.
Why can't you people just get along and ask nicely.

Is your power the only thing.

 

I'd be concerned if my student submitted said document in high school. That said, it is well known that schooling can be stressfull for many as they move through thier developing years. Such outlooks, in my view, reflect ones' inner stability. I'm not sure that predicting the future in this regards has merit though. It's kind of like the discussion of what would you do if you won the lottery.

Such an essay may also say something about the student's circumstances, including their family, surrounding community, and media influences. We are all influenced by these things, but younger people in particular may know of little beyond their immediate surroundings.

This can lead to them thinking that the world in general should be like a bigger version of what they see around them, perhaps flavoured with some input from the media. The idea that other societies may do things significantly different from what happens in their own milieu may not occur to them, or if they are aware of them may see the strangers' ways as irrelevant - perhaps because they are in conflict with them.

It is not hard to see how this can lead to a young man growing up in sheltered and favoured circumstances becoming overly idealistic, or another youngster brought up in a tough area becoming cynical and pessimistic. The most extreme example of this may occur in a beleaguered group such as a gang or a nation at war, where only fellow members are seen as valid members of humanity. The sad irony is that there is often a group with equal but opposed views on the other side of the fence, equally convinced that they are in the right and that "those people" are not fit to be allowed to live.

With wider experience, some may come to question their earlier views, while others may not. I'm old enough to have reconsidered some of the things which seemed so clear to me as a youth, but I still remember how strongly I rejected my elders' criticism of them at the time. This reminds of a quotation attributed to Mark Twain:

When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.

 

Strantor's Essay was just high School hormones.

pretty much...

The idea that other societies may do things significantly different from what happens in their own milieu may not occur to them..
With wider experience, some may come to question their earlier views, while others may not. I'm old enough to have reconsidered some of the things which seemed so clear to me as a youth, but I still remember how strongly I rejected my elders' criticism of them at the time. This reminds of a quotation attributed to Mark Twain:

Yes, I agree. This essay is the view point of a naive, ignorant kid. I don't know if everybody understood that, and understood the fact that I wasn't actually making those arguments today. I had no intention of arguing the points in it. It just so happens that the naive, ignorant kid, while a little overzealous and influenced, wasn't too far off the mark with the general idea. Or, I could be just still naive and ignorant. I've been all over the world between then and now; done and seen things that most never will. I have been to countries in poverty and countries in wealth and it hasn't changed my outlook. The predictions of war and such were a bit fanciful and I wouldn't make them again today. I would still argue the one about life getting harder and harder until honest men start stealing & killing though.

 

Far from being ignorant or having a hormone attack, you were a thinking teen--few and far between in this dumbed down society where few can even begin thinking outside the box.

Check out Robert Wanek who made so many waves in his high school, they forced him to quit. He posted a number of youtube videos as well and one got him in big trouble when it should have been essentially a 1st amendment issue. His experience may not be universal, but most of his observations are valid. He shouldn't be so down on math, but some aspects of education are essentially busy work.

 

When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years. - Mark Twain

I liked that!

 

pretty much...

Yes, I agree. This essay is the view point of a naive, ignorant kid. I don't know if everybody understood that, and understood the fact that I wasn't actually making those arguments today. I had no intention of arguing the points in it. It just so happens that the naive, ignorant kid, while a little overzealous and influenced, wasn't too far off the mark with the general idea. Or, I could be just still naive and ignorant. I've been all over the world between then and now; done and seen things that most never will. I have been to countries in poverty and countries in wealth and it hasn't changed my outlook. The predictions of war and such were a bit fanciful and I wouldn't make them again today. I would still argue the one about life getting harder and harder until honest men start stealing & killing though.

It seems likely enough that in harder times more men will start stealing and killing, some of whom may have been honest beforehand - or appeared so. I don't however buy the argument that everyone will all necessarily descend to that level, nor that we will stay at whatever low point is reached. Hard times and lawlessness have been with us before; they have never really been absent. So far however, the often predicted slide into permanent chaos has not materialised.

It is true that some new conditions apply to the current era that have not been seen before, but I would be wary of saying what their consequences may be. For instance, very different world population growth projections result depending on what assumptions are made. That, by the way, is just a matter of assigning different values to parameters that we already know about. It is always possible that something completely unexpected may come along. As an example, what might happen if there were an epidemic of a disease that caused a widespread reduction in fertility?

I would not either rule out the re-emergence of causes or movements for people to believe in, which may help them to stand against the bad guys, even at cost to themselves as individuals. This appears to have happened in earlier times of need, and the fact that they do not seem to be so well supported at present does not rule out their future revival, or the formation of new ones. On the contrary, while some may give in to selfishness in hard times, others have shown themselves capable of acting for the good of others. I suspect that I would be unable to do that, but I prefer not to assume that everyone else is down at my level.

There is one final thing that I want to say, which is that it seems inadvisable for anyone hoping be a parent to have too pessimistic an attitude to mankind's future. The future belongs to the coming generations: let us not deny their chance to have their turn.

 

There is one final thing that I want to say, which is that it seems inadvisable for anyone hoping be a parent to have too pessimistic an attitude to mankind's future. The future belongs to the coming generations: let us not deny their chance to have their turn.

My #2 goal is getting people out of mental atrophy and thinking about the direction we are going. My #1 goal is setting myself and my children up to have the best possible chance to thrive in whatever may come.
I wouldn't say my views are pessimistic, because (not by definition, but by common assumption) pessimism implies a person has no hope for the future and sees no point in trying to make it better. I see myself as a realist, and I do see hope for the future. That hope however is completely dependent on individuals, and most individuals I encounter are not willing to consider information or ideas which may aid them in planning their future in a way that will allow them to weather the storm. So, for these individuals, I have no choice but consider them doomed. People have nothing to lose by planning for "doomsday", even if it doesn't happen; they have everything to lose by ignoring the problems and assuming nothing will happen.

 

I'm glad to hear that you see a future for your family. I have to admit that I was thinking more of sinister consequences of despair than of "survival-ism". I don't agree however that one has nothing to lose from a survival plan. It all depends on what the plan is, and how much effort goes into it compared to other activities. As an example, should all effort go into making a cabin in the woods rather than pursuing education or building a career?

Another thing worries me about movements that reject main stream society and go off by themselves. This is that they can sometimes be a starting point for processes which end badly. The danger seems to begin when a group or individual becomes so isolated from the rest of society that they lose contact with other influences. They can then begin to develop more and more extreme views. Sometimes the process has continued until the they became convinced that drastic measures were needed, with tragic results.

Perhaps if I were younger I too might be inclined to have an escape plan, but now I'm too old and ill. With any luck the worst will not come until I've gone up the crematorium chimney - at which point despite possibly making my very own little contribution to atmospheric pollution, it will cease to be my concern. It may be different for later generations, I suppose. Will funerals perhaps be taxed according to carbon footprint?

 

Yes, there are plenty of examples of such extremism with no outside influence that you speak of. You also mentioned previously negative influence from media. So when I combine these ideas, it seems you are saying that you can't listen to the media, but you have to listen to somebody. I somewhat agree with this. It's up to the individual who to, or who not to listen to. I think it's important not be a sheep and just pick someone/some source to listen to and believe; I think it's important to do your own investigations. Apply your own critical thinking. Form your own opinions, beliefs, plans. When you just listen and repeat, you cannot be confident; you never really know if you know what you're talking about. When you launch your own years-long investigation into affairs and come up with what you consider to be a pretty sound comprehension of things at hand, then there's no reason not to act on that. If you read a 4 page paper on doomsday and decided to go build a bunker in a national forrest, you might be unstable. I don't consider myself unstable. I am trying to get people to do a little bit of independent investigation, so they can know some of the nasty facts and have some confidence. Without confidence in your understanding, your understanding can be easily reversed.