2012-10-02, 13:14 | Link #21 | |
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
But let's talk about food. Sure, there's enough grain out there to prevent most people from starving. But the problem is not grain, contrary to news reports that always focus on the very worst parts of the world, the poor of the world by and large are not starving. The bigger problem is that some widely desired food crops are limited. We might have enough Rice, Corn and Wheat for everyone, but do we have enough Steak? Enough Bananas? Cashew Nuts? Peppercorns? Oranges? Cod? Shrimp? Lobster? Many of these foods are not essential part of our diets, but people desire them anyway. What's a better way to distribute them amicably then to put a higher price on the rare things? That way a consumer can choose between eating 5 Kilos of Oranges, or 1 Lobster. It's the only fair way to distribute these things that also reflects choice. The way to solve these poverty issues is not to stamp down one group's lifestyle to elevate another. It's to grow the pot big enough that these things can be available to all. And to keep control of the beast, and stop it from wrecking the planet, the governments need to step up and put a cost on trashing the environment. And we can grow the pool. With genetic engineering and agricultural science, we can make hardier, more nutritious and better tasting crops. We've already been genetically engineering our foodstuffs for centuries, it's called breeding. Now we can do so faster and more precisely. It's also to help these groups learn trades and techniques to be productive, and be able to buy more goods and lead better lives. Peter Joseph is talking Utopian Bullcrap. It's just communism dressed up in different language. And it's problems are the same as Communism. The beauty of our system is that it's center-less, it's just people acting in concert with one another. His problem is that he thinks our species is a bunch of dumb super monkeys (his words, not mine) that willfully destroy and live to entertain ourselves with nothing more then the latest fart jokes. He thinks we need some greater intelligence to guide us. I say we're good enough to manage ourselves, and that, actually, we're not dumb monkeys willfully destroying everything. We have changed, engineered, the world to be to our liking, we have not simply destroyed, we have built! And why shouldn't we? The world is ours to use and exploit in order to provide ourselves with a better life. Our culture is not one that is in decline. It has problems, sure, but right now it is greater and more developed then at any other previous point in history. That fact that he can even broadcast his little show to millions over the internet is proof of that. If there is any threat that could bring down our civilizations, it's that people might become disillusioned with our democratic(and dare I say Free market) ideals that got us here in the first place. There are certainly problems in our system (for one, I'm unemployed...), but the solution is not a complete revolution. It's reform. |
|
2012-10-02, 14:49 | Link #22 | |
* >/dev/null
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Surrey, UK
Age: 39
|
I think one of our big'ish problems (at least in the UK anyway) is that the government is always looking to get re-elected, and so will try to tinker at the edges with projects that will only take a couple of years, so that the electorate then gets a couple of years to notice their effects (if any). So an example of this is that every government coming in will claim that the healthcare service and schools "aren't working" and they must be fixed! We might see a few small infrastructure projects, but by and large, big ticket items that can get cross-party support will get pushed, and pushed and pushed off to a future date; see: CrossRail or Thameslink 2000. The latter so called because it was supposed to finished by 2000, when instead it will be finished by 2018.
And if there isn't cross-party support, or the infrastructure project is controversial? Then we'll get an endless barrage of "reviews", legislation will then be purposed, and finally dropped (see: Heathrow/south-east airport capacity expansion). I guess I just wish that long-term planning was rewarded for at the election box... Quote:
|
|
2012-10-02, 15:11 | Link #23 |
Deadpan Snarker
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 46
|
The reason communism didn't work was because the idealist weren't idealist, but greedy businessmen/powermongers
the Russian aristocracy was replaced by a new one, as was done in the French, American -ANY- revolution and in EVERY revolution, they start with people manipulating the disgruntled 'commoners' adressing their fears and worries and promising change and improvements, while pointing out the 'flaws and wrongdoings' currently taking place ...Puh-Lease it actually shows how stupid we still are! If you want something honest, go find an interview with George Carlin who as a comedian bitches and moans about everything wrong in the (US) society (often hitting the nail on the head) but when asked the question why he won't become a politician, answers that if he did, he will have to become 'part of the problem', compromise, 'sell out' Problem with our current society is that we all act like sheep If we finally learn to stop following every new shepherd that comes along, just maybe we'll learn to take care of ourselves and cooperate with 'the other sheep'
__________________
|
2012-10-02, 15:25 | Link #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, England
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Food and oil prices Also another point to note is that whilst yields have increased throughout the 20th century these productive gains are barely keeping up with population growth in recent years. If population growth exceeds growth in yields then we can expect the price of food to rise further. The price of food globally is already reaching danger levels and there is a strong correlation between civil unrest and high food prices. Crop yield growth over population growth (red line): Food prices and riots The current prices are almost matching the highs of 2008 and with the major drought in the US, the biggest food exporter in the world, we can expect food prices to rise significantly going into 2013. How the poor will fair in the third world countries with these price rises is any ones guess. In addition to this agriculture is very water intensive and the regions which produce a lot of food such as the US, India, China are extracting water resources at unsustainable rates. These rates are unsustainable because they are depleting deep water aquifers which will not recharge naturally through normal rainfall. If these aquifers become depleted then food productivity will decline significantly exasperating the problems previously mentioned. Also another problem faced with farmers is that of soil degradation. Much of the modern methods cause the topsoil to be removed and its nutrients to be lost, as a result farmers are becoming increasingly dependant on fertilizers to make of for this dead soil, which has other negative consequences to natural ecosystems. What must be addressed sooner rather than later is that population growth and growth in food consumption must be halted otherwise we will truly face a global food crisis in the coming decades. GM foods could provide some respite but such technological advances do not address the fundamental issues so they cannot be seen as panacea. Also like most things I believe GM foods will suffer from the phenomenon of diminishing returns. I do think that in such issues the free market is poor at handling such problems for the simple fact that by the time price signals are sufficient to cause behavioural change it is already too late to undergo meaningful action. As a result of this some central planning is required to foresee these problems as the market will not offer a solution until it is too late. The delays in feedback are just too late to be useful and these delays can even worse if the price signals are distorted via subsidies or taxes which are heavily prevalent in the food industry both direct and indirect. |
|
2012-10-02, 15:34 | Link #26 |
Deadpan Snarker
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 46
|
Society?
You mean the society that want the less fortunate (read: people with low income) to die because they can't afford their healthbill because otherwise they can't afford a heavily overpriced Ipad 5? Or the society that buys off their conscience to charity because they can't be buggerd with actually going to help the less fortunate, without a good paycheck or it looking good on their resumé? (not to mention most charities going bankrupt the moment it wouldn't be tax-deductable) The society that prefers to have their coworker(s) fired instead of collectively taking a lower paycheck? The society that let's their children be brought up by strangers because their to busy getting ahead in life Oh THAT modern society? Which oddly resembles most of the old societies that have fallen already (the only thing being modern that you don't actually have to travel to the colloseum these days to see the gladiators fight, but still be able enjoy mindless entertaiment like they did 2000 years ago)
__________________
|
2012-10-02, 15:44 | Link #27 | |
Nyaaan~~
Join Date: Feb 2006
Age: 40
|
Quote:
1) Created the internet and has connected billions of people around the world 2) Encouraged and enabled international trade, allowing goods and foods to be available during any season 3) Allowed space flight and the creation of the international space station 4) Made advances in food production resulting in an evolution of wheat and grain production 5) Developed technologies that increase individual productive capacity many-fold through machines and mass production 6) ..Next stage technology allowing mass production level quality and cost on a customized basis (ie. 3D printers, etc) 7) A society that has allowed individuals to rise beyond their station and status from birth, that they wouldn't be allowed in ancient hierarchical societies 8) Incredible medical advances that have eliminated numerous fatal diseases and increased life expectancy Oh wait, we're talking about the same one.. Last edited by willx; 2012-10-02 at 16:01. Reason: So as not to presume to speak for anyone else :p |
|
2012-10-02, 15:46 | Link #28 | ||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
what, they're just gonna suddenly not grow as well? |
||
2012-10-02, 15:46 | Link #29 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Quote:
|
|
2012-10-02, 15:59 | Link #33 | |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Quote:
1. Genetic diversity might be threaten, which could lead to actually deficiency in growth. 2. It can be cost prohibitive to keep importing seed, and then the country can be ruined by not having any other sources to grow food. 3. The potential cost of solving health problems related to GMOs can be very high. That's off the top of my head. |
|
2012-10-02, 16:51 | Link #34 | |||
Knight Errant
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 35
|
Quote:
For all the over focus on the short term that free markets might seem to have, I think that our current "western civilization" probably has a better track record on agriculture then any other. We've managed to go a good 100 years without any major famines within our own countries. Furthermore, individual farmers tend to be pretty good at having a long term outlook, and they usually maintain good stewardship over there land. I would say things get worse the more land is collectivised into anonymous entities, be it a collective farm or a corporation. In a corporation or collective, no individual feels responsible for the land, and so they only concentrate on short term yields. An individual farmer, on the other hand, is tied down to his land, and is interested in maintaining it's long term fertility. Quote:
Quote:
1. This is already an issue without GMOs. It's something to bear in mind, but I'd say in the future you might see more "redundant" varieties of GMOs as more get designed. If you have several high yielding crop varieties, it means that the world food supply will be more resilient to sudden outbreaks of crop disease. Also, hopefully we'll keep up our building of seed banks in order to house genetic material. But building more high yield varieties is something that will obviously take time. 2. The Farmer is not being forced to buy the non-reproducing GMO. He has a choice between his old seed, the non-reproducing GMO seed, and even reproducing GMO seed. Don't forget, there's competition here. Farmers will choose what they believe is financially best, which will largely be the most resilient, highest yielding, lowest fertiliser using, best tasting crop. All these things are possible all at once. People seem to think you have to have tradeoffs. Like to have high yields it has to taste worse. Not true! You can have your cake and eat it! 3. A possibility, but to be honest, I don't see how GMOs are any more dangerous then a new crop bred using standard methods. If anything, in the long run it will be safer, as Genetic Modification is a lot easier to control then plant breeding. With plant breeding it's basically a lottery, with GM we can pick and choose exactly what we want. So we can take infuse our grain with the property of another plant that allows it to resist wheat rust, without risking accidentally taking it's property to cause people to break out in random rashes... The only limit on food yields is the amount of energy falling from the sun, along with the amount of carbon and other elements in the soil and atmosphere. We're pretty far from those limits. And anyway, our population growth is slowing. The big thing to me is that if we can really increase our crop yields, it means we'll be able to turn over more of our land back to being Jungles and Woodlands. |
|||
2012-10-02, 16:55 | Link #35 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, England
Age: 37
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for Japan, yes they have a demographic time bomb and this does spell economic trouble. But I will ask you this, our modern economies can only function on perpetual growth otherwise it will breakdown don't you think this can be a problem in a world of finite resources and energy? A declining population maybe bad but I argue that rising populations will ultimately pose the biggest problems in the future. What I meant by diminishing returns is the return on investment will be less. As you become better at producing a good more efficiently the amount of money needed to improve efficiently increases. However this increase in cost is not matched by a similar increase in production hence diminishing returns. It cost a lot of money in research in development to bring GM crops yet the benefits will be much more limited than what we gained from the green revolution thus GM food is another example of diminishing returns. Also like the green revolution there are hidden costs in the use of GM food some of which are not properly understood. These costs cannot be dismissed when making an informed decision on whether to pursue this new technology. |
||
2012-10-02, 17:02 | Link #36 | ||
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2012-10-02, 17:33 | Link #37 |
Gamilas Falls
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 46
|
I was under the impression that at least in the United States the methods of George Washington Carver were still in use (crop rotation and the use of crops that can put nutriants back into the soil).
The probem with a society falling, is that if it is large enough and the fall actually breaks the economy and things stop working, or the less advanced societies try to over run them and loot everything...that the world basically regresses a few hundred years in technology and in how they treat each other. Europe 900 AD was probably a terrible year for society and humans in general over 200 AD under Rome. The Middle East and Byzathium were in better shape (as was probably China) but the fall likely held us all (as a species) back for several hundred years. Even small things give us problems on a larger scale. Take the two space shuttle disasters. Blocked progress for at least a decade, maybe two from where scientists were expecting us to be in space in the 1970s and early 1980s. Some technologies were shelved, other ignored. Projects went different ways and the computer went rapidly to what we have today. But manned spacecraft being built today are basically Apollo types with better software and hardware.
__________________
Last edited by Ithekro; 2012-10-02 at 17:44. |
2012-10-02, 17:58 | Link #38 | |||||||||||
Deadpan Snarker
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: The Neverlands
Age: 46
|
Quote:
so much infact, that the concept of war has faded from our memories Quote:
Quote:
I can also give you a "We can put a man on the moon but we can't..." rant if you wish Quote:
Luckily for most who still don't know what internet or a spacestation are Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
and 'allowed' my ass it's still very much "who you know" not "what you can do" I also still don't see anyone passing up their promotion because their colleague 'needs/deserves it more than I do' Quote:
and most medical advances are being hampered because there's too much money to be made from chronic diseases (and the biggest killer every year: the Flu, still has no counter) also very nice we've increased life expectancy, ofcourse we stopped caring for our elderly and put em away in retirement homes so we don't have to bother with them anymore unlike those barbarians long ago Quote:
Quote:
and indeed, things are quite different in other parts of the world most notably being NOT MODERN things Quote:
Or are we more like the old Egyptians greeks, romans, vatican, pretty much every other old civilization, where we want power, resources, territory, fortune, admiration only with better toys? The value of life has only diminished by the increase in population the estrangement between people has become bigger even though the distances have been closed with modern transport, media and communication the more and bigger we encounter tragedy -which has become closer again thanks to media/communication- the more desensitized we're becoming ...with the sad knowledge that any feeling we have quickly fades after changing the channel I don't agree with the topic title of a cultural decline but there's no advancement either We're still letting people die needless deaths, we're still scewing eachother over to get ahead in life and the more we see, the less we care
__________________
Last edited by NightbatŪ; 2012-10-02 at 18:34. |
|||||||||||
2012-10-02, 18:24 | Link #39 | ||
Love Yourself
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Northeast USA
Age: 38
|
Quote:
Quote:
Is this sustainable? I don't think so. It's not that we don't have options, though. We could change our energy sources, and we could more efficiently manage our natural resources (fisheries, forests, etc.). Yet these things cost money and take effort. It's the "smart" thing to do, something that will likely be deemed critical as time goes on, yet it seems to get the absolute lowest priority that society could give it. There are even some people who are against such initiatives. It seems to be a problem of short-sightedness. It isn't a pressing problem today, and it may not even be a pressing problem in your lifetime. So, why should you care? That sort of attitude - the here-and-now, all-about-me thinking - is rather befitting of being termed "dumb monkeys willfully destroying everything." We may be building some impressive things, but if we're crapping up our fish tank to the point that we'll ruin ourselves and everything that we've built, how smart is that?
__________________
|
||
2012-10-02, 19:50 | Link #40 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: London, England
Age: 37
|
Quote:
I know today I have been acting like some kind of advertiser but I would highly recommend reading George Mobus blog on Question Everything. He delves much into the issue of human psychology and sapience. Most important he discusses much of the issues you described in this post. A most intelligent man and I feel you would enjoy reading his blog, in the free moments you happen to have. I have noticed in his recent blog entries his tone has taken a distinctive negative tone which is a bit trouble but still, if you delve into his many posts you are bound something that will engage your mind in perhaps way you had not even considered. |
|
|
|