Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
Like Tree14Likes

Thread: Sustainability of Zeitgeist world itself

  1. #11
    New Member
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    8
    I'm in agreement with some of the other posts here, but it is clear that having a central registry of children and forcing people to not reproduce isn't the answer. This is the very thing most capitalistic types accuse any non-market based system of...coercion. There is nothing wrong with using a "per-human" measurement of resources in an aggregate fashion, as it's a good value to judge how efficient the society is (rates of use vs rates of gain).

    Besides that, the claim that "more women will reproduce" isn't generally held up in that way. As standard of living and education rates go up, birthrates go _down_. The places where you see the highest birthrates are places where education is not up to par for the majority of the population, and the devoutly religious. Compounding this is the increased carrying capacity furthered by how efficiently society can operate at that level.
    droneBEE likes this.

  2. #12
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Dev View Post
    If you choose to bring a new human into the world, then some portion of your share of the resources immediately passes to your progeny. This balances your desire for a particular lifestyle against your desire to reproduce. And being a rational, undamaged person living in a world no longer driven insane by profit motive, the probability is very high that you will choose wisely.
    Probably the best prediction/explanation I've heard so far...

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    702
    This questions reminds me of when people automatically assume that our Behaviors/Customs/Lifestyles will be the same as they currently are Today. The NLRBE Model should offer way more choices and opportunities that one generally has today. Basically more Freedom to decide and follow your own destiny and become your own person and not to simply have to follow the usual get Married and have Kids ethos.

    I think they would even want to have Less children. 2-3 at the most because they would probably start to "settle down" and have kids Later in their lives like way in their 30's so they have time to enjoy their Free Lives while their Young with more Energy to experience things. So we probably could even hit like a Steady-State situation later deep into the NLRBE concept. Wouldn't that be interesting..
    droneBEE and RhythmAnarchy like this.

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    940
    Quote Originally Posted by Ernest View Post
    This questions reminds me of when people automatically assume that our Behaviors/Customs/Lifestyles will be the same as they currently are Today. The NLRBE Model should offer way more choices and opportunities that one generally has today. Basically more Freedom to decide and follow your own destiny and become your own person and not to simply have to follow the usual get Married and have Kids ethos.

    I think they would even want to have Less children. 2-3 at the most because they would probably start to "settle down" and have kids Later in their lives like way in their 30's so they have time to enjoy their Free Lives while their Young with more Energy to experience things. So we probably could even hit like a Steady-State situation later deep into the NLRBE concept. Wouldn't that be interesting..
    Here's my take. The responsibility for the global population should be shared with everyone, all will be parents, brothers, sisters, mentors, students, parents.
    When we get a handle on the global responsibility of the Human Resource we should move forward. No need to wait till your into your 30s and at that time responsibilities morph.
    Ernest, droneBEE and Phil like this.
    Everything Is Possible. Nothing Is True.
    (ψ = Σanψn)
    What do you know when the time is up and the door to the box is opened?
    It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,908
    Yes...that is it Rhythm!!!! The responsibility should be 'equally' shared.....a novel approach.

    Once we all (it will take a majority) evolve to a point of recognizing/accepting that all of humanity (all life) are our 'relations'.....that we are all made up of the same space dust...that we are in fact ONE race, living on ONE World, arbitrarily divided for individual gains by Kings and Kingdoms, while also recognizing that we are just a 'small piece' of the super organism we call planet Earth, with inherent responsibilities to care for each other....Yeah, once we reach that level of understanding we and all of life will finally move forward.

    Some days I can feel it coming better than on other days......
    Ernest likes this.

  6. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    317
    Worst case scenario when human population growth becomes economically unsustainable or begins to leave dynamic equilibrium, we will engage in a reproductivity management programs that will place all people within a system that physically control's the ability to produce offspring (for example tube tying etc).

    It's the equivalent of Jacque's solution to solving car accidents, instead of making a law saying don't do this make it impossible to not do it given our technical abilities, this way punishments etc will not be in order and we can utilize our technical assets to ensure prosperity without suffering or death.

    No one will be unable to have children during this period, they will only be allowed one child within a given amount of time to ensure we do not overrun our natural boundaries, and so our population will be within an optimal range of dynamic equilibrium to provide the most prosperity and life creation possible in accordance with sustainability and public health.

    There are rules to this game we call life.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northwest Wisconsin
    Posts
    1,908
    "There are rules to this game we call life"

    Yes there are. Unfortunately, we ignore the 'rules of nature' and follow the 'rules of man."

  8. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    194
    Quote Originally Posted by droneBEE View Post
    Yes...that is it Rhythm!!!! The responsibility should be 'equally' shared.....a novel approach.

    Once we all (it will take a majority) evolve to a point of recognizing/accepting that all of humanity (all life) are our 'relations'.....that we are all made up of the same space dust...that we are in fact ONE race, living on ONE World, arbitrarily divided for individual gains by Kings and Kingdoms, while also recognizing that we are just a 'small piece' of the super organism we call planet Earth, with inherent responsibilities to care for each other....Yeah, once we reach that level of understanding we and all of life will finally move forward.

    Some days I can feel it coming better than on other days......
    This is off-topic, but -- I hope you are not picturing our planet in some version of the Gaia hypothesis. Viewing the whole Earth as a "super-organism" is not supported by the science we know -- i.e., organisms according to best knowledge are evolved things. The Earth doesn't reproduce so it cannot evolve adaptations and functions as an organism does. One can see the Earth as life's habitat and I can accept the terms "synergy" or "symbiosis" when describing the global equilibrium which is eventually reached with time, but that view cannot be stretched to consider the Earth as being "synchronised" as a single entity for some greater purpose.

    About humans being "ONE race", this is correct, but has not always been. Other species of the genus homo have been contemporary to humans and probably in competition for the same resources. Perhaps the "racial fear" instinct had a purpose, at some point in our evolution history?

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    637
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil View Post
    This is off-topic, but -- I hope you are not picturing our planet in some version of the Gaia hypothesis. Viewing the whole Earth as a "super-organism" is not supported by the science we know -- i.e., organisms according to best knowledge are evolved things. The Earth doesn't reproduce so it cannot evolve adaptations and functions as an organism does. One can see the Earth as life's habitat and I can accept the terms "synergy" or "symbiosis" when describing the global equilibrium which is eventually reached with time, but that view cannot be stretched to consider the Earth as being "synchronized" as a single entity for some greater purpose.
    Actually, recent studies show that evolution has incorporated learning elements and backup plans into the DNA itself (as this kind of things help survival after all). All species have junk DNA and genes from other species picked up and left behind by viruses, but usually deactivated. In times of destabilization and stress, random activation of that DNA is started in offspring to kick start rapid evolution. In that way, earth does work somewhat as a learning organism.

    There is also the different views. Before, in the multi-deity religions, there was the view that we were slave to the elements and the pawns of gods. The mono-deity religions are assuming that we're the master of nature and translated into the scientific method, as long as we can apply the right force, we get the right result. A newer view, that I think is emerging, is that we're actually part of a web of actions/consequences and should be partners with nature, not it's master or slave, and build economies/societies on that idea. This accidentally just happens to be closer to the Gaia hypothesis. So people looking in a new direction when our economy and traditions fail, will arrive at other kind of religion beliefs like taosim, neo-druidism, shintoism, earth-mother... Or it's just that these kind of spiritualism will allow better adaption to changing circumstances.
    droneBEE likes this.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
web statistics
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1