|
| Thread: The Federal Reserve |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted November 24, 2008 04:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Typical Malthus-style thinking. And wrong, as usual. There are a lot more creative minds than there were a hundred years ago. And there were a lot more creative minds a hundred years ago than a thousand years ago.
Nope I meant that regardless of the number of creative minds out there, laws of nature are still laws of nature. How many "designs" for a gun, for example, can possibly be?  (creativity, not 'funding')
Quote:
He already lives in paradise? Anyone can live better.
??? If you live in a world where you don't need to work, how can you live better? (suppose you don't like work, unlike nerds for example )
and no he is perfectly healthy.
Quote:
And capitalists use their money gained from voluntary exchange in further voluntary exchanges.
Yeah like a nuke right?
or paying lawyers or covering their tracks or if they feel downright too powerful maybe even pay hitmen so others to keep their mouth shut... or they can just become the direct oppressors, given not enough government control obviously.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 04:52 PM |
|
|
The goverment needs a minimum of power otherwise people with power can get lose and wreak around as they please. Sure mobs can exists for that purpose, but a mob is way to random in selecting a path so it needs to be someting stable akin to police or someting.
Current functions of the Federal Reserves[ripped from Wikipedia]:
*To address the problem of banking panics
*To serve as the central bank for the United States
*To strike a balance between private interests of banks and the centralized responsibility of government
*To supervise and regulate banking institutions
To protect the credit rights of consumers
*To manage the nation's money supply through monetary policy to achieve the sometimes conflicting goals of
-maximum employment
-stable prices
-moderate long-term interest rates
*To maintain the stability of the financial system and contain systemic risk in financial markets
*To provide financial services to depository institutions, the U.S. government, and foreign official institutions, including playing a major role in operating the nation’s payments system
*To facilitate the exchange of payments among regions
*To respond to local liquidity needs
*To strengthen U.S. standing in the world economy
Ignoring the last part, where is the function of create countermeasures for the bubble effect?
Because people ENJOY talking about it.
____________
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 05:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
How many "designs" for a gun, for example, can possibly be?
You'd be surprised...
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 06:16 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 18:20, 24 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Obviously not, the labour is performed by machines, and at such high efficiency that the goods produced are more than enough to satiate all three persons. Needless to say, if there had been CURRENCY between them, that is utterly useless now, since you don't need to buy goods that are automaticly produced and in such abundance that you don't need to compete for them.
1. If all work is performed by machines then all work is performed by capital. So the owners of the machines get the benefits, because their property produces the goods. Besides, there is a lot of work that needs to be done which is not connected with making a physical product.
2. If the goods are produced in such a high abundance that there is no need to compete for them then it is optimal for the society to increase population to an extent that the goods are no longer abundant. Otherwise either goods or production capacities are wasted. Waste is not a good thing and indicates inefficiency. Artificial 'abundance' doesn't erase natural scarcity and forces you to keep the population way below the environmental limit, not as close to it as possible. Sounds idiotic to me.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 06:50 PM |
|
|
Employment?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 07:32 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 19:35, 24 Nov 2008.
|
A job is any legal activity that someone wants to get you to and offers something in exchange. I do not think that nonexistence of jobs is possible.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 10:44 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
Nope I meant that regardless of the number of creative minds out there, laws of nature are still laws of nature.
The laws of nature have not changed in the whole history of mankind. But the number of creative jobs is increasing all the time. Explain that, if you can.
Quote:
??? If you live in a world where you don't need to work, how can you live better?
You can always live better. Imagine that the guy invented these robots, and then made it so they can run for an infinite amount of time. Then he sent them back in time to caveman days, so the cavemen would never have to work. Does that mean that the cavemen couldn't live better, even if they have those robots? There's always room for improvement.
Quote:
and no he is perfectly healthy
That's a pretty big fantasy. Nobody is perfectly healthy.
Quote:
or paying lawyers or covering their tracks or if they feel downright too powerful maybe even pay hitmen so others to keep their mouth shut... or they can just become the direct oppressors, given not enough government control obviously.
The problem is not when they hire lawyers or hitmen. The problem is what those lawyers and hitmen do. And "direct oppression" is hardly voluntary exchange.
del_diablo:
Quote:
where is the function of create countermeasures for the bubble effect?
Quote:
*To manage the nation's money supply through monetary policy to achieve the sometimes conflicting goals of
-maximum employment
-stable prices
-moderate long-term interest rates
*To maintain the stability of the financial system and contain systemic risk in financial markets
*To respond to local liquidity needs
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 10:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The laws of nature have not changed in the whole history of mankind. But the number of creative jobs is increasing all the time. Explain that, if you can.
Dude, they are increasing mostly because of competition or because humans need to work or whatever (some of them also like creativity just for it, see 'art' or something). Now, it doesn't mean that you need this creativity for your ROBOTS. That was my point. You can have all the creativity in the world but you can't make light travel faster, for example (i said travel, not teleport ). Sure others can use creativity but does the guy with robots need it? After all, they can't "employ themselves" since they have no jobs/funding so it's impossible for them to get any funding to start a business or something, unless they work for the guy with robots, which he doesn't need.
well of course the guy can be an artist in which case he might need creativity -- but I was talking about a lazy fat big boss
Quote:
You can always live better. Imagine that the guy invented these robots, and then made it so they can run for an infinite amount of time. Then he sent them back in time to caveman days, so the cavemen would never have to work. Does that mean that the cavemen couldn't live better, even if they have those robots? There's always room for improvement.
If you are in a Matrix world where absolutely everything you want you can have -- where's the improvement? (this is another example not from the previous one, don't mistake it)
Quote:
That's a pretty big fantasy. Nobody is perfectly healthy.
Well in his time he has some kind of 'regenerating' cells and 'auto-replacement' cells so he doesn't have any degenerative disease problems (aging included)
although it would be boring to live forever, that's for sure.
Quote:
The problem is not when they hire lawyers or hitmen. The problem is what those lawyers and hitmen do. And "direct oppression" is hardly voluntary exchange.
What's with all this voluntary exchange fuss? I said that he gets his power from voluntary exchange, so to speak (well how he gets all his money anyway?). Paying people to oppress others, he PAYS them to DO SOMETHING (e.g: his private army), therefore it is voluntary exchange in a way -- not to the citizens oppressed of course.
Or if he buys a nuke -- isn't that voluntary exchange? I mean he gives money, and the other gives him the nuke.
But then the question is: who's gonna stop him from using it? Just like who's gonna stop the capitalist these days from abusing?
(don't get me wrong, the government is far from perfect, but it is obvious a CHANGE is needed).
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 24, 2008 11:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
1. If all work is performed by machines then all work is performed by capital. So the owners of the machines get the benefits, because their property produces the goods.
In that situation, that property would be common goods or, community property. Or, owned by the STATE, which represents ALL human beings.
However, I don't think that matters to begin with. If all goods are produced in such abundance there is no need to sell them or "own them". What's wrong with being social?? Greedy bastards...
Quote:
Besides, there is a lot of work that needs to be done which is not connected with making a physical product.
200 years back, people could not begin to imagine what is technologically possible today. Likewise, we cannot begin to comprehend what might be possible in 200 years, and more.
Stating there are jobs that can "Never" be taken over by machines is merely based on one's inability to look beyond.
Quote:
2. If the goods are produced in such a high abundance that there is no need to compete for them then it is optimal for the society to increase population to an extent that the goods are no longer abundant.
That's utter rubbish... Goods would be produced according to the population's demand. In societies where people are wealthy and live a stress-free life, I suspect populations would remain fairly constant.
Over-abundance is merely a negative aspect when profits are involved, since profits can only arrise out of scarcity. Otherwise, over-abundance is a good thing.
I don't hear YOU complaining about the abundance of oxygen? I'm not sure about you, but saying we should "optimally" use oxygen by increasing our population to the point that we can JUST barely survive, doesn't make much sense to me.
Quote:
Otherwise either goods or production capacities are wasted.
Which is only a problem if there is scarcity (including scarcity of labour). There is no such thing as "wasted capacities", that only applies when there is money on the line, when the production COSTS money. Fully automatized and maintained by machines who are maintained by machines that maintain one another, there are no "costs". Especially not if material is recycled.
Quote:
Waste is not a good thing and indicates inefficiency. Artificial 'abundance' doesn't erase natural scarcity and forces you to keep the population way below the environmental limit, not as close to it as possible. Sounds idiotic to me.
There is no such thing as "natural scarcity". There are MORE than enough recources available, there is MORE than enough abundance of goods. Many recources are ARTIFICIALLY kept scarce to keep the price and demand high. The only reason recources are not efficiently used, is the lack of money needed in this society.
"At the beginning of World War II the U.S. had a mere 600 or so first-class fighting aircraft. We rapidly overcame this short supply by turning out more than 90,000 planes a year. The question at the start of World War II was: Do we have enough funds to produce the required implements of war? The answer was No, we did not have enough money, nor did we have enough gold; but we did have more than enough resources. It was the available resources that enabled the US to achieve the high production and efficiency required to win the war. Unfortunately this is only considered in times of war." ~ Jacque Fresco
Especially with our state of technology and the developing technology of the future, efficiency of the use of goods and recources will only increase.
In fact, COMPETING with different products that have the same purpose, THAT is a waste of recources, in my opinion! THAT is inefficient.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2008 01:55 AM |
|
|
Interesting as this discussion is, I'd prefer it to have its own thread or to move into the economics thread. This thread is dedicated to discussing the Federal Reserve, and the whole discussion about the profit motive is not exactly relevant.
"Let's circle the wagon."
Moonlith, for a moment disregard your claims that the Federal Reserve is corrupt. And both of you, momentarily set aside your criticism of the profit motive, and discuss the actual subject at hand.
For an economic system that is centered around the profit motive, should a non-corrupt central bank exist? Or would it be better to have a commodity standard? Remember, in your responses to this, remember that the profit motive is to be preserved and that the central bank is not corrupt.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 25, 2008 02:32 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 02:40, 25 Nov 2008.
|
What's there to discuss? The FED is NOT a federal central bank and thus unconstitutional, corrupt and illegal to the bone. There's no discussion.
"Permit me to issue and control the money of the nation and I care not who makes its laws." — Mayer Amsched Rothchild
"If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied." — Thomas Jefferson
"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." — President Woodrow Wilson, 1913
"This Federal Reserve Act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President (Wilson) signs this bill the invisible government of the Monetary Power will be legalized." — Hon. Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., Dec. 23, 1913
"The real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. Like the octopus of real life, it operates under cover of a self created screen... At the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both political parties." — New York City Mayor John F. Hylan, 1922
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson." — letter to Colonel House by Franklin D. Roosevelt, November 21st, l933
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 25, 2008 02:43 AM |
|
Edited by executor at 02:50, 25 Nov 2008.
|
Moonlith, you clearly don't understand what abundance is. A thing is abundant if regardless of consumed/processed amounts any additional amount of this something is available at hand. Oxygen is abundant because we do not have the means and/or numbers to use it in such quantities that it would become scarce. Its supply is virtually (although not in reality) infinite. I would love to live in a world where supply of any given resource is *really* infinite, but our universe is finite, therefore everything is ultimately scarce.
And yes if your environment can feed up to 9 bln people you want to have 9 bln people. More than enough for 6,5 bln is less than enough for 12 bln. And having maximum population possible is optimal for the society as a whole. More people=more ideas.
And yes if there exists capacity that is not used but yet maintained it is a waste even if money is never invented. Why have something you do not use? Why commit limited resources to such an idiotic activity? Better use them on something else. Or even not at all. Unless you have excess, there is no abundance. And excess is a synonym to waste in economics.
Artificially maintained 'abundance' is terrible an idea as far as my opinion is concerned.
And I don't care if labour becomes obsolete due to technological progress or not. If it does, then capital is responsible for all the output and hence capital gets all reward. Fair with me.
And if you are promoting a society without property then fine, but I don't sign in. I don't like my house belonging to everyone, thank you very much .
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2008 03:17 AM |
|
|
Moonlith:
If the Fed is not a central bank, then what is it?  And how is it illegal? In the Constitution, it clearly says that Congress has the power to coin money. Congress thus established the Fed to this end.
Jefferson's quote: Hey, I thought you wanted to abolish property. What's the problem? And Jefferson was clearly wrong, as he was on several other things. In fact, he wasn't as great of a President as he is considered today.
Wilson's quote: Politicians are paranoiacs. So?
Lindbergh was basically a Fascist.
Hylan's quote: That's a general socialist-style complaint. Don't see what it has to do with the Fed, though.
FDR's quote: He was pretty much a socialist, so he'd say that.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 25, 2008 10:31 AM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 10:50, 25 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Moonlith, you clearly don't understand what abundance is. A thing is abundant if regardless of consumed/processed amounts any additional amount of this something is available at hand. Oxygen is abundant because we do not have the means and/or numbers to use it in such quantities that it would become scarce. Its supply is virtually (although not in reality) infinite. I would love to live in a world where supply of any given resource is *really* infinite, but our universe is finite, therefore everything is ultimately scarce.
While I partially agree, you are neglecting the fact nature can renew many recources, including energy (wind, solar, tidal, wave, geothermal) and food. With proper usage of technolgoy other recources can be properly recycled as well, at least enough to the point where 6,5 bln can live with abundance of recources. If that stage is reached, it would be VERY stupid to increase your population to the point where you get scarcity again... Why the hell would you want to do that? So a few dominant greedy men can own more than others again?
You obviously think Welfare in the hands of a select few is more important than a high standard of living for all people.
Quote:
And yes if your environment can feed up to 9 bln people you want to have 9 bln people. More than enough for 6,5 bln is less than enough for 12 bln. And having maximum population possible is optimal for the society as a whole. More people=more ideas.
Maybe, but I would imagine such a society would as well be properly educated and REALIZE their society would be based on abundance of recources, and overpopulating would be a VERY bad thing. Keep the population around 6 bln and you will have MANY generations that can come up with ideas, and HAVE all the time and opportunity to come up with ideas.
Quote:
And yes if there exists capacity that is not used but yet maintained it is a waste even if money is never invented. Why have something you do not use?
As I said, it only costs something if capital is involved. I have a shovel in my backyard which I RARELY use, I don't consider it "wasted capacity". Think about it: If every single person has more than enough shovels and there are more than enough in stuck in case one breaks, what's the problem? The fact the recources could have been used for other items? That doesn't apply to a society where there are abundant recources.
Quote:
Why commit limited resources to such an idiotic activity?
Because they wouldn't be limited to begin with.
Quote:
Better use them on something else. Or even not at all. Unless you have excess, there is no abundance. And excess is a synonym to waste in economics.
That's the joke, there wouldn't be economics in such a world
Quote:
If it does, then capital is responsible for all the output and hence capital gets all reward. Fair with me.
AKA uberpowerfull rich elite dictatorship 
But I'm starting to see as well Mvass is right: We are drifting very much off topic
Mvass:
The fed is a PRIVATE bank. Money does not need to be printed in order to be created: nearly all the money today is digital. Money is created on loans, NOT because Congress demands more money supply. It's illegal, created out of nothing, and YOU need to wage your property if you wish to loan it.
By the way, that's the flaw and fradulent element in the system itself.
The money is essentially created with debt, AT INTEREST. Fact is, that interest never existed. So if the central bank loans out 100 billion into the society, and requires 110 billion to be returned... Where does the 10 billion come from?
It comes from the property you wage in exchange for the loans, that is given to the banks if you cannot pay off your debts.
I call it very fraudulent.
By the way, I think you go VERY far when a 16 year old calls an experienced president who KNEW what the hell was talking about "paranoid" just to justify his own points.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2008 02:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The fed is a PRIVATE bank.
Proof?
Quote:
Money does not need to be printed in order to be created: nearly all the money today is digital.
So?
Quote:
Money is created on loans, NOT because Congress demands more money supply.
I should hope that Congress not be able to demand more money supply! With all them worrying about being reelection, we'd have booms right before election day and busts right after. And money is indeed created on loans, but not on property. Repayment is based on future productivity.
That is, the money supply increases, but the amount of "productivity units" increases as well. So if it lends out 100 billion dollars and expects 110 billion dollars to be paid back, it expects productivity to rise by at least 10% when the time for repayment comes.
And I wasn't calling Wilson paranoid. I was referring to the politicians that he was talking about.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 25, 2008 03:07 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:09, 25 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
While I partially agree, you are neglecting the fact nature can renew many recources, including energy (wind, solar, tidal, wave, geothermal) and food. With proper usage of technolgoy other recources can be properly recycled as well, at least enough to the point where 6,5 bln can live with abundance of recources. If that stage is reached, it would be VERY stupid to increase your population to the point where you get scarcity again... Why the hell would you want to do that? So a few dominant greedy men can own more than others again?
You obviously think Welfare in the hands of a select few is more important than a high standard of living for all people.
Fully agree with Moonlith. Why the hell increase the population to have starving children again?
Sounds to me like a kid who no matter how much you give him to satisfy him (he says "just one more pls") he will always bite the whole hand and want MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE MORE just for kicks (even though before it wasn't bad at all, like having 6 billion but living comfortably in abundance, but nope we need MORE  )... such greed is what makes me feel we are more like a virus than a mammal.
Quote:
Quote:
If it does, then capital is responsible for all the output and hence capital gets all reward. Fair with me.
AKA uberpowerfull rich elite dictatorship
Finally someone who sees my point. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
executor
Famous Hero
Otherworldly Ambassador
|
|
posted November 25, 2008 04:26 PM |
|
Edited by executor at 16:27, 25 Nov 2008.
|
On topic:
FED, as a conglomerate of private banks, held the functions of a central bank. Since most money is based on credit, they own the monetary base. This means that monetary base of US dollar is owned by a private institution. First flaw.
The second shortcoming I see in fed is that it has other obligations than to keep prices stable. They are obliged to care for growth and job creation as well. It may seem OK at first sight, but it also means that they might use these additional obligations as a loophole to inflate the money supply. Which is clearly beneficial for them, as they own the monetary basis.
In my opinion, if you want to have a central bank, and with credit based money I know no better option (well you may let the government control the monetary basis, but they have reasons to inflate it, so you don't want that), let it be a public central bank, separated from the government, and its one and only concern is to keep prices stable. This way you got a central bank that will have little or no incentive to inflate the money supply, and the monetary basis is possessed by the society as a whole.
If someone ever presents an idea how credit-based money can be created by private persons in a stable way, I'll go for it. But it has not been done so far.
Of course you can always have commodity-based money with its merits and flaws, no problem with me. Then no central bank is needed.
Back off-topic .
I do know that there are renewable resources, and we can treat them as infinite as long as we do not destroy them. But to do so, we can use only a fraction of them in a given time period, to allow them to renew, and this indicates that the amount we can use in a given period is limited. Therefore they are scarce.
The capital issue. And who should own the product if not those, whose machines produced it? They can of course give the products to the people, but do they have an obligation to do so? I think not. And if someone wants to take their property by force, they are thieves, and I feel obliged to combat them rather than support them. We had that in Poland, thank you commies, people were deprived of their property because they were a bit richer than a poor farmer. Nobody asked whether they were honest and decent people or not. If someone gives you something out of free will, fine, but he has the right to keep it as well. And he doesn't need to justify himself if he keeps.
Finally, population. I have no idea as to how are you going to keep it on the 'right' level, except of direct oppression or heavy social engineering. You are going to do what, forbid people to have more than 2 children? What is with you? If people want have children, let them. But then we will arrive at the thing you hate so much, scarcity. Why shouldn't mankind grow to the limits of its environment? You want to tell me, that if Earth could support 12 bln people, we should not aim at it? Why not colonize and use resources of this whole system, and go even further? Because growth is stupid? I do not think so. It is natural for any species to fill the limits of its growth. Including humanity.
And yes we do want to have more ideas NOW. Why? Because those who would come after us will already have them, and no need to invent them again, that will enable them to invent even more marvels! I do not know how anyone caring for mankind can promote restraining its growth artificially. There are natural limits of course, but they should be reached, not feared. However the time mankind has before itself may seem infinite for ones as short-lived as we, it is not. Shouldn't we aim for the best of ours to achieve in that time, rather than comfort ourselves with artificial abundance and entrench our possibilities? Not to mention that scarcity encourages progress, if you are decent people of course.
Feel free to disagree, but I am not willing to go your way. If abundance of some goods is obtained within free market economy, and with no unnatural restrictions on growth, I will not oppose. Otherwise, it is something not desirable for me.
____________
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
|
|
Moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted November 26, 2008 08:30 PM |
|
Edited by Moonlith at 20:30, 26 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
You want to tell me, that if Earth could support 12 bln people, we should not aim at it? Why not colonize and use resources of this whole system, and go even further?
I will remind you the only one who would give US the right and permission to do such a thing, is US ourselves. And I think it's very arrogant if you give yourself the right to claim everything you wish and use it to your fullest desire.
And it makes me think you as a person confirm my statement you cannot have ethics, morals, or conscience when dealing with money, mister Economist. This is not just a planet that exists to SERVE humans..
Quote:
Because growth is stupid? I do not think so. It is natural for any species to fill the limits of its growth. Including humanity.
Indeed it is, because all animals act on INSTINCT and cannot see the consequences. Some humans can, you apparently can't either. Did you miss the story of the foxes and the rabbits?
Nature is balanced because it has three ways to keep populations from growing too large: Natural predators, supply of food (recources needed for survival), and diseases.
These attributes do not apply to humans, we have fought our way out of that balance, "risen above it" so to say, and blinded ourselves to the consequence.
Lemme remind you: The consequence is Mass death and misery, and not only for human beings.
Quote:
And yes we do want to have more ideas NOW. Why? Because those who would come after us will already have them, and no need to invent them again, that will enable them to invent even more marvels!
Greedy greedy greedy... But hey, you don't hear me complain about updating the level of education? It's a known fact it sucks epic monkey balls everywhere. Simple question: Why isn't philosophy taught at elementary and primairy schools? It is the ONE subject that aims at increasing a human's abiltiy to think.
Quote:
I do not know how anyone caring for mankind can promote restraining its growth artificially.
By being able to see that by NOT restraining a population's growth, the resulting misery would be far greater than from restraining population growth.
More people = more scarcity, FACT. Imagine living on this planet with 10 people and the highest level of technology possible: Everything is automized. Clearly, EVERY recource would be abundant, and not scarce at all. Add 10 billion people, and you have misery. Heck, I think 6 billion is too much.
Quote:
There are natural limits of course, but they should be reached, not feared.
So you favour having every person live at a MINIMAL level of quality rather than having a smaller population live at a higher level of quality?
THAT'S what I call uncaring. You're a materialist aren't you?
Quote:
However the time mankind has before itself may seem infinite for ones as short-lived as we, it is not. Shouldn't we aim for the best of ours to achieve in that time, rather than comfort ourselves with artificial abundance and entrench our possibilities?
I don't see why we should.... But that's because I think our aim should be at creating HAPPYNESS. Sure, with progress you can create happyness, but if it comes with more populationgrowth, you keep on increasing scarcity. I'd rather lead a stressless life.
Quote:
Not to mention that scarcity encourages progress, if you are decent people of course.
People do not need motivation or encouragement to develop in the areas that interest them. Many of the GREATEST inventors and discoverers did NOT do ANYTHING for money or because they wanted humanity to progress or lift itself to a higher standard: They did it because it INTERESTED them.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 26, 2008 08:36 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This is not just a planet that exists to SERVE humans..
Why not?
Quote:
Lemme remind you: The consequence is Mass death and misery, and not only for human beings.
You know, eventually we will be able to stop population growth. But the important question is, will we run out of resources before that point?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 26, 2008 08:38 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 22:03, 26 Nov 2008.
|
Quote:
Why not?
Why yes?
What about a planet used to serve only WHITE people? Or only a certain religious group? You may not be racist but you are certainly speciesist. Do not try to deny that.
...and you want to exterminate murderers, heck. Long live Specie Nazis!
@executor:Quote:
Because growth is stupid?
Because we are supposed to be mammals, not viruses.
for mammals, a function "f(t)" computing the population average over time 't' should almost be constant. You suggest it to increase. it is against natural and I make a big fuss about it because you used natural arguments.
Quote:
It is natural for any species to fill the limits of its growth. Including humanity.
Oh I think if Fox overpopulate they will DIE OF HUNGER until their prey gets 'back in shape'. We obviously, as humans.
Do not try to use natural argument. It doesn't cut it. Give me an example of an animal that POPULATES MORE, given 1000 years, such that on average it keeps on growing on and on. Then you can start with 'natural' arguments.
I think it's pretty 'natural' actually if we had Terminators from Terminator 3 wiping us out -- so we don't overpopulate. After all, on average, our population is supposed to not change in 1000 years (given all other factors equal) so what you suggest is a natural fallacy.
I take it you never heard of natural balance or ecosystem balance or whatever it is called? The Earth (and with the Sun ofc) is supposed to be a CLOSED system (that is to balance itself without needing any kind of intervention) but obviously if we keep on growing it won't be enough. So whatever else is completely unnatural in every sense of the word.
It's just like a virus. I'm starting to think the Matrix machines aren't so bad after all. At least they were right in one spot.
What Moonlith said:Quote:
More people = more scarcity, FACT. Imagine living on this planet with 10 people and the highest level of technology possible: Everything is automized. Clearly, EVERY recource would be abundant, and not scarce at all. Add 10 billion people, and you have misery. Heck, I think 6 billion is too much.
He has a good point.
What's such big fuss about 'humanity'? Isn't the important thing to just have a decent life instead of growing like viruses only to find scarce resources because we keep growing? That's just like suffering only to encounter another suffering. What the hell is the point? If there are few humans it's not like those "not born" will suffer since they aren't even here. And I think the others having now better lives (abundance of resources) will live a lot more happier. So isn't this the thing we should aim for? Seriously...
Unless you have the goal of a virus, that is to grow, infest, without caring for individuals (scarcity) as long as we keep on infesting more and more. It makes me sick. We aren't the King Pin of the universe.
As the quote goes:Quote:
Does the extinction concept offend you? You are running away from reality and rationality. What difference does it make to you if humankind goes extinct or not? Our own life is limited to a century at best, so the tragedies of 10,000 - 100,000 years from now won't directly impact us.
In fact, I would understand if you cared for individuals to have a decent life rather than just caring for what??? for growing? that's like just fixing a problem (suppose new technology makes resources better) ONLY TO START A NEW PROBLEM YET AGAIN? What the hell is the freaking point? It's like not even caring for the suffering/problems of an individual just for the sake of growing and infesting even more? It's not only the lack of sympathy for those individuals but also the CONCEPT in itself is bad enough.
Mind you, we wouldn't be considered viruses if we actually weren't so damn greedy to have this growing mentality -- I mean is growth the only thing that matters? That's the freaking goal of a virus!
In fact what's so bad if everyone died? At least the stuff around us will remain uninfested... like we wipe out viruses.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
