The Golden Age of Mankind

[Black Red Devil]

But he's a chef. I would rather listen to African economists.

Perhaps if the thugs running the government there didn't steal and plunder the country's coffers quite as much they would have enough money for infrastructure and education.

And your second statement is the reason your economists perspectives in your link are a calamity for disaster. There are too many unstable Govts in Africa. At least some of the aid gets through to the right people, though I agree, many of it is wasted and goes to the interchangeable warlords in power at the time. The UN and NGO's should work on better ways of filtering aid through to the people in need, not halt it.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

There is always one golden age at same time as one decline.

I love Dutch Golden age a lot.

[Black Red Devil]

Over the years I have on this forum noted that many believe that we are evolving ever upward and that we are leaving our most base nature behind. As such many believe that we are developing or evolving toward a Golden Age, where humanity can eventually address many of the problems it has encountered over the ages and which it has also many times inadvertently caused by its ignorance.

Many are the authors who envision a bright future with the aid of technology, mankind may be on the verge of rewriting the very laws of nature that still bind it.

The political interpretation given the Golden Age by Virgil, who situated it in the future, resurfaced in subsequent eras of revolutionary change. Queen Elizabeth I of England was frequently hailed by her supporters as the virgin goddess Astraea, and the famous lines of Virgil's fourth Eclogue quoted above are supposed to be the source of the motto Novus ordo seclorum (New Order of the Ages) that appears on the Great Seal of the United States. The British poet Shelley hailed the promise of the romantic and revolutionary era with these lines, which foretell the dissolution of empires and the advent of a new religion, superior even to Christianity:

The world's great age begins anew,

The golden years return,

The earth doth like a snake renew

Her winter weeds outworn;

Heaven smiles, and faiths and empires gleam

Like wrecks of a dissolving dream....

Saturn and Love their long repose

Shall burst, more bright and good

Than all who fell, than One who rose,

Than many unsubdued.

Not gold, not blood, their altar dowers,

But votive tears and symbol flowers.

But my issue here, the reason why I post this is that I believe we are writing our own ticket to extinction instead.

I have been called Doomsayer and I have been called Negativist as well as Pessimist, but I wonder what technology will save mankind from itself?

http://scitizen.com/

http://www.overpopulation.net/

One word comes to mind, Kaizen. Progress in this world depends on a constant improvement in all assets of our world society. Where there's a weakness, a remedy needs to be put in place to overcome the problem. This can only be achieved if the whole group/team/sector/nation/government etc work together.

Progress is also similar to evolution but with a programmed direction. We just need to make sure we're progressing in the right direction to avoid extinction like so many species, plants, organisms etc. have, through the milennia.

It's up to us how and how much we work together as a team.

Edited June 21, 2013 by Black Red Devil

[redhen]

And your second statement is the reason your economists perspectives in your link are a calamity for disaster. There are too many unstable Govts in Africa.

Agreed.

At least some of the aid gets through to the right people,

I'm guessing maybe 50%, which we've seen in past stories.

though I agree, many of it is wasted and goes to the interchangeable warlords in power at the time.

Or hereditary dynasties like in North Korea. Why should Kim Jung Ill and successors pay for food, they need money to develop nuclear weapons. The west is happy to feed his citizens, those that can afford to pay for it on the open market, and armies. And if they ever balk at that idea, they threaten war against their benefactors.

The UN and NGO's should work on better ways of filtering aid through to the people in need, not halt it.

Right, good luck with that. What would you propose? Should the west go back into all these countries and re-colonize them?

[Black Red Devil]

Right, good luck with that. What would you propose? Should the west go back into all these countries and re-colonize them?

No, not the west, the UN should act as the Organisation they were created to be. This is the UN Charter,

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
  
• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
  
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
  
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
  

AND FOR THESE ENDS

• to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
  
• to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
  
• to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
  
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
  

They should work together with NGO's to provide aid to the suffering civilians and safeguard them from attacks from brutal dictators by employing UN troops to engage the enemy immediately, when their troops are fired upon or when civilians under their protection are attacked. They should be the true cops of this world, with troops made up of a combination of all military nations in the world. Troops allegiance should be towards protecting the UN Charter, not towards their Govts religious or political affiliations.

The west shouldn't be involved in any solitary, intertwining and deceitful plot on their own under the banner of the UN. This vetoing BS option by elite Govts should also be given the flick.

Probably sounds utopia and unrealistic, at least in our lifetime, but you wanted a proposal so there it is.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Black Red Devil

[redhen]

No, not the west, the UN should act as the Organisation they were created to be.

>>snip

The west shouldn't be involved in any solitary, intertwining and deceitful plot on their own under the banner of the UN. This vetoing BS option by elite Govts should also be given the flick.

Probably sounds utopia and unrealistic, at least in our lifetime, but you wanted a proposal so there it is.

I agree. This was/is what the League of Nations and U.N. are for. But these will never work with such divided interests. How 'bout a one world government?

- cue the conspiracy theories

[sutemi]

A nice discussion, the well fed judging the needs of the sick and starving, like the children in Syria, arguing about the likes of North Korea and various acts of corruption in foreign countries and still the children die in there thousands. There are good Charities and bad Charities, it is not hard to find good non-governmental ones. They run their own clinics, shelters and food stations. They try very hard to make sure our money is well spent.

Here’s a question, how long did your last post take to write? Divide that time by 5 seconds and the result will be the amount of CHILDREN who died through no fault of their own and in excruciating pain caused by such things as DIARRHOEA! Then think again about your moralistic stance as you throw away probably every day, enough to feed a child. This world needs to learn compassion, all of us, before any real change can happen. Stuff the politics, the corrupt thieving officials and mistakes that can happen and let’s feed the children and get medicine to them. For £10 a month you can feed 30 children and supply the same amount of mosquito nets that is with a very good charity ‘Save the Children Fund’. They check as much as possible to make sure the aid gets where it is supposed to, as shown in this film.

The International day of Peace 21 September 2013 why not join in? We can talk or we can act.

[redhen]

Here’s a question, how long did your last post take to write? Divide that time by 5 seconds and the result will be the amount of CHILDREN who died through no fault of their own and in excruciating pain caused by such things as DIARRHOEA!

Those are the immediate causes, but the ultimate causes need to be addressed in order to finally solve these perennial problems. I submit the ultimate cause is corrupt, dysfunctional "governments", that still seem to find the money to lavish on their kin and friends and military/security budgets in order to oppress their people.

Then think again about your moralistic stance as you throw away probably every day, enough to feed a child. This world needs to learn compassion, all of us, before any real change can happen.

Compassion without wisdom is dangerous. If a bear falls out of a tree, would you stand underneath and try to catch it? By propping up these dictatorial rulers, you're only making the problem worse.

Stuff the politics, the corrupt thieving officials and mistakes that can happen

Impossible! It's always political. But why look so far away from home to help? If you're a North American, you should be helping the poor Native children living in poverty, their parents too drunk and incapable of looking after them, and resorting to suicide.

These are Canadian stats, but I'm sure things are no better in the U.S.A.

Like Africa, It's not a problem of aid money, it's a problem of corrupt Native politicians, with no accountability to the federal government. People that pay to prop up these oligarchies, aka taxpayers, are finally waking up though.

[Clarakore]

If you're a North American, you should be helping the poor Native children living in poverty...

Pretty much guessed that this was about helping your "own" only.

What about letting people decide who they want to help instead of trying to discourage them from helping others?

Edited June 22, 2013 by The world needs you

[redhen]

Pretty much guessed that this was about helping your "own" only.

No, not your "own" (I assume you mean race), I mean why not help children in your backyard rather than half a world away?

Speaking of children, another comparative trend between Africans and Native Americans is their population growth. If you live in abject poverty (and how could you not be aware), why would you insist on having half a dozen or more children to house and feed?

Where does personal responsibility factor in? Or are these societies held to a different standard?

[Clarakore]

No, not your "own" (I assume you mean race), I mean why not help children in your backyard rather than half a world away?

Speaking of children, another comparative trend between Africans and Native Americans is their population growth. If you live in abject poverty (and how could you not be aware), why would you insist on having half a dozen or more children to house and feed?

Where does personal responsibility factor in? Or are these societies held to a different standard?

Why do some always look for the worse in others only?

While some are trying to help others, others are trying to bring them down. Naturally a balance will be maintained regardless of how we try to influence it.

Why do some always look for the best in others only?

Let those who want to help others decide how they will help. Let those who need help decide what help they will receive or reject.

It is up to each person to decide in the end. Presumably you have decided for yourself. Are you to decide the population growth among other groups too?

Edited June 22, 2013 by The world needs you

[Jor-el]

Why do some always look for the worse in others only?

It's not about looking for the worst, it is about recognizing that we are our own worst enemies. At this time we have a lot of aid going out to any number of different countries. Countries that for one reason or another are impoverished but cannot seem to get out of that situation, no matter what is done to help them.

The fact is that without aid they would even be worse off than they are now.

I find it interesting though that while the more advanced nations in the Americas and in Europe, with one or two exceptions in Africa and the Asian continent have succeeded in stabilizing their population growth and are concentrating on sustainable growth, we have the majority of the world sliding slowly in to chaos and disaster, due to overpopulation, lack of natural resources, food and water and especially arable land.

The situation is getting worse by the year as the resources that are available need to be shared by ever increasing populations, with borders blocking movement of needy populations from moving to areas that can sustain them.

Things are only going to get worse as the situations become ever more unstable, yet here we are on the cusp of a world believing in the imminent arrival of a Human Golden Age.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Jor-el

[redhen]

Why do some always look for the worse in others only?

I don't have to go out of my way to look, it's ever present, all around my area; nepotism, corruption, greed and ignorance.

While some are trying to help others, others are trying to bring them down.

Some people, like children, need discipline enforced upon them, otherwise they will hurt themselves.

Naturally a balance will be maintained regardless of how we try to influence it.

We have removed all the Malthusian traps.

Are you to decide the population growth among other groups too?

Obviously not.

[Jor-el]

We have removed all the Malthusian traps.

this to me is the most important point yet made.

Thomas Malthus even to day is a controversial figure, but his views do seem to be spot on regarding the sustainability of our world.

Malthus became widely known for his theories about change in population. His An Essay on the Principle of Population observed that sooner or later population will be checked by famine and disease. He wrote in opposition to the popular view in 18th-century Europe that saw society as improving and in principle as perfectible. He thought that the dangers of population growth precluded progress towards a utopian society: "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man". As a cleric, Malthus saw this situation as divinely imposed to teach virtuous behavior.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Robert_Malthus

[WhyDontYouBeliEveMe]

We need KAL EL superman

[Clarakore]

It's not about looking for the worst, it is about recognizing that we are our own worst enemies. At this time we have a lot of aid going out to any number of different countries. Countries that for one reason or another are impoverished but cannot seem to get out of that situation, no matter what is done to help them.

The fact is that without aid they would even be worse off than they are now.

I find it interesting though that while the more advanced nations in the Americas and in Europe, with one or two exceptions in Africa and the Asian continent have succeeded in stabilizing their population growth and are concentrating on sustainable growth, we have the majority of the world sliding slowly in to chaos and disaster, due to overpopulation, lack of natural resources, food and water and especially arable land.

The situation is getting worse by the year as the resources that are available need to be shared by ever increasing populations, with borders blocking movement of needy populations from moving to areas that can sustain them.

Things are only going to get worse as the situations become ever more unstable, yet here we are on the cusp of a world believing in the imminent arrival of a Human Golden Age.

Do not know anyone's situation, nor is it necessary to know, but plenty who feel others should not have children just might not have any of their own.

Why would you want to bring children in a world that is going to end horribly anyways?

But are we mind readers to claim those on the other side of the world, or even here, are just mindlessly having babies without caring?

Do we truly know what they are thinking? Do we truly know them as people to claim anything one way or the other?

It seems some have too much education for their own good (they know every possible problem and disaster) while others have too little education (they don't know when to stop having babies).

Still what solutions do they offer besides: stop helping others?

Maybe if we corrected the education balance we could correct the economic imbalance. The education balance though is not as all as I proposed, where some know too much, and others know too little, it is that we all know too little. Too little to say what is best for ourselves much less for others.

If you want to change the world then work on changing yourself.

Overall the world is getting better in my view. We will never solve every problem but less people die in our era than in the tribal era. Many will still die be it in peace at old age in bed or through famine which is not a lack of food but because of faulty distribution systems. In time we will recognize more problems and fix more of them too. Maybe by then our own attitudes will catch up to the wonderful progress.

Truly those who do not want to help others hurt themselves more than others. Holding onto hot coals in your hand planning who to cast them at only harms yourself. Jumping into the fire of misery that you see is the world only means you burn with others who choose to jump in with you. Whether it is hate or just pessimism the disadvantage is to yourself primarily, then to those immediately around you, those across the world, with nothing, might be happier for the simple things that we ourselves cannot find with all our luxury.

[Frank Merton]

The basic Malthusian concept is that a population of animals cannot long exceed the sustaining capacity of its environment.

There is generally a single limiting factor. It might be light (for plants) or something like salt or space or water or, of course, food. When this is exceeded, the overall health of the population declines, and opportunities for disease and predation increase.

Normally populations are kept below this level by predation and other natural factors, but sometimes for one reason or another populations get into a cycle of population boom and bust.

Efforts have been made to apply these principles to human populations, especially the variations seen in Europe during the Middle Ages, along with its outbreaks of disease. The idea has a surface appeal but doesn't withstand close scrutiny, and other reasons for what happened seem to make a better fit.

At the moment technology seems to step in far ahead of any Malthusian crisis, so that populations have grown and are now stable, and even where people are poor living conditions are steadily improving. Of course a widespread famine or pandemic is always possible, but probably not for Malthusian reasons.

[redhen]

Why would you want to bring children in a world that is going to end horribly anyways?

But are we mind readers to claim those on the other side of the world, or even here, are just mindlessly having babies without caring?

No, you don't need to be a psychic, you just have to do a bit of research. It has been shown over and over that where women have the freedom to choose, they will accept and make use of contraceptives. Europe is a prime example.

"Beginning in 1973 in Egypt, and then in dozens of countries, we were able to demonstrate, with the help of local research associates, that, when oral contraceptives were offered at every abode, the majority of householders accepted them and a large proportion of non-pregnant women soon began using them.(10) Furthermore, later research showed that by making all the most effective means of fertility control readily available to all population groups, use rates comparable to those in much more developed societies were soon achieved. "

Ravenholt, R.T. (1994). Taking contraceptives to the world's poor.

Free Inquiry, Spring 1994 v14 n2 p6(5)

It's a macho culture in these countries that oppresses women and controls their reproductive cycles. In India for example only 929 girls were born per 1,000 boys in 1994. In China we see 106 boys per 100 girls within the governments "one-child policy" plan, and 118 boys per 100 girls outside the plan.

Jones,A (2000) Case Study:Female Infanticide

Gendercide Watch http://www.gendercide.org

According to census data for Canadian Inuit populations from 1900 to 1932, the ratio was heavily skewed, with 173 boys per 100 girls. Early explorers reported female infanticide as customary, with one expedition in 1931 reporting a female infanticide rate of 66 percent

Smith, E., Smith,S. (1994) Inuit Sex-Ratio Variation

Current Anthropology 35: 595-624

In light of these ingrained cultural barriers it may sound underwhelming to read from the latest UNFPA 2008 report:

"Culturally sensitive programming is key to building this common ground. It provides a practical and strategic response to the observation that cultural beliefs and perceptions are at the root of gender inequalities in many societies." (UNFPA, 2008).

A common thread that runs through all these problems seems to be lack of modern education. One excerpt from the UNFPA report can illustrate some extreme cases concerning human reproduction;

In parts of Egypt and India, people believe that men contribute a fully formed foetus; the quality of the woman’s womb and menstrual blood determines how the foetus develops.Some Asian and African cultures define infertility as women’s inability to produce sons. Some societies consider infertile women to have been cursed. (UNFPA 2008).

Hell, I should post my whole essay.

[Jor-el]

The basic Malthusian concept is that a population of animals cannot long exceed the sustaining capacity of its environment.

There is generally a single limiting factor. It might be light (for plants) or something like salt or space or water or, of course, food. When this is exceeded, the overall health of the population declines, and opportunities for disease and predation increase.

Normally populations are kept below this level by predation and other natural factors, but sometimes for one reason or another populations get into a cycle of population boom and bust.

Efforts have been made to apply these principles to human populations, especially the variations seen in Europe during the Middle Ages, along with its outbreaks of disease. The idea has a surface appeal but doesn't withstand close scrutiny, and other reasons for what happened seem to make a better fit.

At the moment technology seems to step in far ahead of any Malthusian crisis, so that populations have grown and are now stable, and even where people are poor living conditions are steadily improving. Of course a widespread famine or pandemic is always possible, but probably not for Malthusian reasons.

There are quite a number of limiting factors not just one. Disease is one. Disease was a natural equalizer of populations that allowed them to maintain a stable ratio between growth and decrease. natural resources, as you mentioned is another. No one has said that the Malthusian concept is based on only one limiting factor. many have argued against the concept itself due to another human tendency, denial.

1. simple denial: deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether
   
2. minimization: admit the fact but deny its seriousness (a combination of denial and rationalization)
   
3. projection: admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility by blaming somebody or something else.
   

[Jor-el]

Do not know anyone's situation, nor is it necessary to know, but plenty who feel others should not have children just might not have any of their own.

Why would you want to bring children in a world that is going to end horribly anyways?

But are we mind readers to claim those on the other side of the world, or even here, are just mindlessly having babies without caring?

Do we truly know what they are thinking? Do we truly know them as people to claim anything one way or the other?

It seems some have too much education for their own good (they know every possible problem and disaster) while others have too little education (they don't know when to stop having babies).

Still what solutions do they offer besides: stop helping others?

Maybe if we corrected the education balance we could correct the economic imbalance. The education balance though is not as all as I proposed, where some know too much, and others know too little, it is that we all know too little. Too little to say what is best for ourselves much less for others.

If you want to change the world then work on changing yourself.

Overall the world is getting better in my view. We will never solve every problem but less people die in our era than in the tribal era. Many will still die be it in peace at old age in bed or through famine which is not a lack of food but because of faulty distribution systems. In time we will recognize more problems and fix more of them too. Maybe by then our own attitudes will catch up to the wonderful progress.

Truly those who do not want to help others hurt themselves more than others. Holding onto hot coals in your hand planning who to cast them at only harms yourself. Jumping into the fire of misery that you see is the world only means you burn with others who choose to jump in with you. Whether it is hate or just pessimism the disadvantage is to yourself primarily, then to those immediately around you, those across the world, with nothing, might be happier for the simple things that we ourselves cannot find with all our luxury.

I strongly suspect that we are out of time for adopting the long view

[Frank Merton]

I don't get what you are trying to say and get the strong feeling you didn't read what I posted at all carefully.

Technology tends to increase the carrying capacity of the environment. It is not without limit but the human population will limit itself long before anything Malthusian rears its head.

This is not "denial," but just realism without the "thrill" of predicting doomsday.

[Jor-el]

I don't get what you are trying to say and get the strong feeling you didn't read what I posted at all carefully.

Technology tends to increase the carrying capacity of the environment. It is not without limit but the human population will limit itself long before anything Malthusian rears its head.

This is not "denial," but just realism without the "thrill" of predicting doomsday.

The thing is, as has been stated here, we have in effect done away with all the limiting factors, whatever they may be. What then should the outcome be?

[Frank Merton]

There is always a limiting factor that stops population growth, presuming normal predation and disease don't. I saw one study where the limiting factor was one of the rare-earth minerals.

The difference between humans and animal population is that we have the ability to make rational decisions, and these decisions, added up, make for the trend. The trend is clear, toward population stabilization, and this removes Malthusian worries.

I repeat, that does not rule out disasters caused by other things.

[Jor-el]

There is always a limiting factor that stops population growth, presuming normal predation and disease don't. I saw one study where the limiting factor was one of the rare-earth minerals.

The difference between humans and animal population is that we have the ability to make rational decisions, and these decisions, added up, make for the trend. The trend is clear, toward population stabilization, and this removes Malthusian worries.

I repeat, that does not rule out disasters caused by other things.

Where are you finding this trend Frank?

You find it in the Highly advanced nations, where population has stabilized or is even in decline... that accounts for 10% of the entire world...

[Frank Merton]

China, India, Mexico, Turkey, Russia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan, Myanmar, Thailand, S. Korea, Japan, Europe, Brazil, Iran, Egypt.

The only really populated country with runaway population is Nigeria.