So, predictions. If I am correct that all the social ills and psychological and behavioral problems of our time is primarily caused by overpopulation and life being too easy for generations at a time, then there are only a very small number of possible future outcomes.
The first one that a lot of people will probably jump to is that we simply wait for the boomers to die and then everything will be fine after that. Not going to happen. Things always change, and always towards the left over time.
Population growth has slowed and reversed in many countries. https://aleteia.org/2019/01/17/american-fertility-rate-plummets-to-below-replacement-level/I'm less worried about population than I am about "life being too easy for generations at a time". There have always been times of great problems out of which the most prosperous and decadent civilizations arose. Ease of life then appears to lead to less resilience and increase in arrogance (hi Toxic), which leads to dumb solutions to problems that may or may not even exist. And then things inevitably end up going south once a critical mass of stupidity, laziness, ignorance and arrogance is reached. If technology progresses fast enough, then a tiny subset of people might be able to save us by employing it to find solutions. But right now, the problem people are trying to tear down those that create solutions by being retarded entitled arrogant ignorant brats. If humanity falls it'll be because of those who seek to take power from those that create and funneling it to those that consume. Consumer drones can't create, they've never even created a sandwich. But they're the loudest and increasingly outnumber the rest. |
|
|
|
So, predictions. If I am correct that all the social ills and psychological and behavioral problems of our time is primarily caused by overpopulation and life being too easy for generations at a time, then there are only a very small number of possible future outcomes.
The first one that a lot of people will probably jump to is that we simply wait for the boomers to die and then everything will be fine after that. Not going to happen. Things always change, and always towards the left over time.
Other than that, the only option is a violent reduction in numbers. War, pestilence or famine. Given the current understanding of the amygdala, war is most likely to come in the form of a soviet-style collapse. The states will continue to become ever more tyrannical until we have an economic collapse, which will result in lowered food production and a lot of dead people.
So if soviet conditions are the most likely near-future outcome, what to do about it?
Flee. Simple as that. If you stay, odds are you will be locked up or have all your property stolen or simply end up shot. Let the disease burn itself out, and when the rebuilding begins in 10-30 years it might be time to come back if you feel like it by then. But staying through it is simply too dangerous and there is no reward.
On a side note, I have gained a new appreciation for the importance and role of religion during these studies. Maybe a topic for another time.
I agree with overpopulation to become a real world issue..... and i belief many NEW Born kids or their newborns Will be kids living in a world of much suffer and etc Even for very rich people kids, i think the world needs big changes to see it become Nice again, cause all day seeing suffering in all those places (even while your not there) is something hard to always see or hear about But but when you live @denmark or what was it ? And still live their Then what are you talking about to flee while your not doing it Act first how you think Then tell others to do the same  (and where are you gonna go to.....? If you ever flee?)This question has been keeping me busy for a while, as there seems to be no simple answer. |
|
|
|
Aren't China and India much more polluting? Can't even stay healthy in some of those places without oxygen masks. |
|
|
|
In this particular instance all I see is hypocrisy on your part. You fling ad hominems around without contributing to the discussion whatsoever. The hypocrisy of yours is a direct result of you bold quoting "willful ignorance" while completely ignoring every single thing I've said.
Again, the only problem are people like you. I'm providing objective points of concern from both sides, while you attack people from a perspective that you've picked up in MSM that you clearly don't know shit about. Otherwise you would have a civil discussion instead of attacking me.
You are correct sir..I am calling your character in to question...flat out. If people like me are the problem then I thank the Lord that we still seem to have the majority and the World continues on its merry chaotic way. I hear nothing objective from your opinions other than a sense of bloated self-righteousness bordering on megalomania. Be that at as it may, I believe everyone is entitled to have an opinion and its completely obvious that you have yours and I have mine. Do not think for a second however that I wont call bullsh*t on you when and where appropriate as I have in the past and will continue to do so in the future. That you call my perspective main stream is laughable and truly shows how little you know and gives insight as to where you think you are. If you want to have a civil conversation fine, but I can not get over the feeling that you have almost zero real world experience in the things you talk about. With nigh 4 decades working out in the field in heavy industry and to have literally watched the sky burn and cry tears of oil I can tell you that from my perspective, humanity is impacting the planet. Your blasé attempts to provide "points of concern" appear disingenuous and frankly argumentative. Climate change or environmental change, whatever you care to label it is happening and waiting until hypothesis is proven out as fact in this case would be in my humble opinion nothing short of recklessness. Upon further thought I was not flinging anything around, this is just plain false. I specifically asked you to pick a direction with a expletive added in for vernacular. If you choose to take this as an ad hominem attack that is your prerogative. Honestly, it does not matter at this point as I do not feel I will change your mind with my opinions or experiences and we are pretty well off topic so why we dont we leave it with that. Good day. All you do is attack again and claiming that I'm not being objective. It is you projecting your own evil character into my posts. You are naive. So naive that it distorts your perception of reality. And as a result you're a force of evil. You haven't even quoted the literal scientific paper from a peer reviewed scientific journal that I've provided and keep attacking my person. And then you call me non-objective. You are literally the problem until you stop attacking and start discussing on neutral grounds. You're too deluded and emotional to even realize that I am not taking any sides you colossal fucking cunt. Your name is clearly a self-descriptor. Or maybe you're just too fucking old and used up to understand how to look at problems without appealing to authority. You fucking pawn. P.S. If you were actually objective you would've seen that I never denied climate change in any of my posts. I've even provided a fucking paper that shows evidence for climate change you fucking retard. So yes, you absolutely are the problem. Your laziness and intellectual dishonesty is the source of all evil and problems in this world. (By your I'm grouping you with all the morons that act the way you do.) |
|
|
|
we have the power to make the world what we want it to be and we should use that power.
Tell us why you are better off because the dodo and the passenger pigeon are extinct. Actually on second thought, don’t. Tell us why it makes you worse off. Except you can't. As usual. Even though permanent global species loss is a more dramatic phenomenon than regional changes in species composition, even minor changes from a healthy stable state can have dramatic influence on the food web and the food chain insofar as reductions in only one species can adversely affect the entire chain (coextinction), leading to an overall reduction in biodiversity, possible alternative stable states of an ecosystem notwithstanding. Ecological effects of biodiversity are usually counteracted by its loss. Reduced biodiversity in particular leads to reduced ecosystem services and eventually poses an immediate danger for food security, also for humankind.[1] In your own words, twat. This is about you personally as per your own play. While I've already mentioned that I don't personally like a potential loss of biodiversity, it's not necessarily a bad thing. It could provide humans with new challenges that could allow us to achieve new highs that we wouldn't have seen otherwise by tackling those. Just to name one spin on how the loss of biodiversity could be a good, rather than a bad thing. Eden's garden type situations and decadence have lead to the fall of many civilizations, and mediocrity, laziness and lack of willpower, which all could be contributing to the increase in depression rates, have lead to the fall of previous civilizations. In history it has always been great pain that created great things. This could be a natural phenomenon, just like the cycle of Bitcorns going up and down, just like climate going from hot to cold, hardship and prosperity could also be coming in periods. Of course, if that was indeed the case, then there is nothing that should stop us from realizing the impeding hardship sooner and combating it before it takes place. But if we want to effectively do so we need to stop pretending as if there were right and wrong paths. There are goals and ways to achieve them, and not everybody will agree on the solution, never mind the goal. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin & Blockchain Adoption Will Be a Lot Faster Than The Internet Boom of 90’shttps://blockpublisher.com/bitcoin-blockchain-adoption-will-be-a-lot-faster-than-the-internet-boom-of-90s/-Jack Lu, founder of Wanchain, certainly thinks so: “We are at a similar stage as the internet boom back in the early 2000s. Right now the whole industry is trying to build real world applications with increased funding. I think a life changing disruption would be a lot faster than it was back in the internet world. The reason is blockchain deals with two type of things: data and assets, which is also a form of data. Since these things are already digitized or about to be digitized, blockchain will gain traction a lot faster.” ... “Majority of financial assets are already digitized as they are in some form of data, like in banks. Putting them on blockchain and building applications such as smart contracts and decentralized applications will be a lot faster this time around than the old days of internet that revolutionized pretty much every industry.” ... -Maxine Ryan, co-founder of world’s first cash-in, cash-out blockchain remittance platform Bitspark, pinpointed how the data storing capability of blockchain technology can be utilized. She said: “I think that there is definitely space for blockchain to be adopted in areas where the technology itself can be treated essentially like a database, and in every single infrastructure built in many different verticals, a database is needed.” ... “I think it’s unfortunate that when the market is hyped, it attracts bad actors. At such a time, the market can make irrational decisions. I believe that investors should have sufficient knowledge of the field and understand how to do due diligence before they invest.” ... “I always take internet as a history book. Initially, people termed internet a scam back when it came out. In the second stage, some use cases were proven that revolutionized everything and in the third stage, the internet was everywhere. Same will happen with blockchain technology. It will be incorporated in pretty much every computer, mobile phone and pretty much into everything that has digital data. People wouldn’t even think that there is blockchain technology working inside every device, just like people don’t think about the technology behind internet.” It probably wouldn't hurt to make a distinction between Bitcoin [as SoV, MoE, UoA] and general Bitcoin adoption. Blockchain will penetrate society very fast and make legacy finance vastly more efficient. The former however could either precede, move along, or lag behind in pace. Possibly quite substantially. My hunch is that it'll lag behind, because banks and governments will be flailing around and the average person needs daddy government to tell them it's all going to be okay. |
|
|
|
According to HuffPost, on average people spend about $650 on Alcohol every month. That means if you cut your drinking habit by 50% and spent the money you saved on #Bitcoin, you could invest $325 or about .08 $BTC, at these prices, monthly. In 12.5 months, you’d have 1 BTC. 💡 https://twitter.com/mrmichaelnye/status/1105227653257314304?s=21But but what about me saturdayzzzz ?? Fucking filthy Billionaires are to blame for average people not building wealth. Tax them and corporations, that provide us with everything we use in our daily life, to death!  |
|
|
|
... total household debt increased by $32 billion (0.2%) to $13.54 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2018
 Everyone is drowning in debt because people aren't being paid for what they produce. Time to tax the billionaires. Billionaires repeatedly put their money at stake for returns. "Everyone" else is staking their money on iPhones. So fuck off you filthy thief. |
|
|
|
Haven't been this excited about emerging tech since the Nintendo sixty fouuuuuuuuuuur and the internet itself.
Oh come on, you can not compare the nintendo 64 with the internet, that is blasphemy  Not saying they're of equal magnitude or implication. Just stating that both equally excited me. |
|
|
|
In fact Internet is way older than that. It is just WWW what is 30 years old. Maybe the fair comparison would be with LN... which is less than two years old. Either way, yeah, it will need time... but not that much, because tech adoption is way faster in this age. The internet didn't disrupt the fiat system in the process though. So while adoption is accelerated by the internet, the fact that we're going up against a real beast could dampen the acceleration a bit (as compared to other technological advances). On the other hand, the internet didn't offer generous financial rewards to believers, which implies an acceleration. Who knows what the net result of all effects becomes. Can't wait to see how this plays out. Haven't been this excited about emerging tech since the Nintendo sixty fouuuuuuuuuuur and the internet itself. Although I know that I'll become incontinent once we start taking the last steps towards general AI, and not because of age. Memo to self: Stop meriting legendaries. |
|
|
|
One could think that the increase in debt is a direct result of increase in population. However, the debt per person has been on the rise as well:  One would have to correct this for inflation and income, among other things, to get a more accurate picture, but I'm too lazy to do so myself and Google doesn't seem to deliver on that front. |
|
|
|
If you don’t believe in science and math, how can you believe in bitcoin? I do believe in science and math, that's precisely why I don't believe in a man made environmental change. It's an unproven hypothesis. The whole argument is a fallacy, it doesn't matter if its man made or not. we have the power to make the world what we want it to be and we should use that power. It's natural for species to become extinct, should we not do anything and become extinct because its natural? Terraforming the world is a natural advance of any civilization if it wants to survive, it is no different than protecting that world from space born objects. It's natural for species to be replaced, often with whatever they evolve into. And we're clearly on the way to evolving ourselves by merging with technology and gene-editing. While I believe that there will most likely be subsets of humans that will remain such (similarly to current random tribes around the world), humans will mostly go extinct in the future. But not because we've "gone extinct". I'm all for terraforming and keeping animals around by the way, as well as reviving those of the past and making up new ones. All of which we'll hopefully treat better and/or leave the fuck alone once lab meat becomes commercialized and common sense. Either way, what argument exactly are you calling a fallacy? The notion that man made climate change is unproven is fact. Environmental change however is a different story, it's obvious that plastics and other trash is messing with oceans. And we have certainly displaced much of vegetation and wildlife. |
|
|
|
Accurate. Anyone sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable is out there creating real solutions to real problems, rather than creating fake problems to cry for fake solutions. Or just simply permanently intoxicated, which is still vastly preferable to wasting a lifetime in the circle jerk farce that is politics. |
|
|
|
I do believe in science and math, that's precisely why I don't believe in a man made environmental change. It's an unproven hypothesis.
LOL how? How could you deny the environmental pollution causing by the industrial smokes, cars etc? How could you deny the fact that we are destroying the environmental ecosystem by cutting the forests? How could you deny that we are killing animals and imbalancing the entire food chain? How could you deny the climate change? How could you deny the increased sea level? Do you know what will happen if the last bee dies? Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjID1ugr1foOne of the largest challenges we face is the constant erosion of aesthetic expectations. I sit here in middle age, aghast at the degradation I have seen in my short lifetime. People younger than me never even saw it before we logged off the Pacific Northwest, before we built out the strip malls, before the fisheries started to collapse. They have no reference point to know or value the beauty that I remember, and my recollections begin in the early 1970s when the accelerated decline had been well underway for some time. Anthropogenic climate change may or may not turn out to be significant, but the dystopian cesspool we are creating is very, very real. +2 WOsMerits I'm not trying to be a cunt here, but it's important not to talk about things you don't even remotely understand the scope of as if they were fact.
Try harder... and while your at it, try practicing what your preaching. Now gtfo and go invest some of those "millions" into an actual education. I don't think I need any more degrees. And I clearly state when I don't know the conclusion, which you would be able to tell if you read any of my numerous posts today. So how about you fuck off instead? Its not just about the destination..but also the trip along the way. See above. In this particular instance all I see is hypocrisy on your part. You fling ad hominems around without contributing to the discussion whatsoever. The hypocrisy of yours is a direct result of you bold quoting "willful ignorance" while completely ignoring every single thing I've said. Again, the only problem are people like you. I'm providing objective points of concern from both sides, while you attack people from a perspective that you've picked up in MSM that you clearly don't know shit about. Otherwise you would have a civil discussion instead of attacking me. |
|
|
|
Fourth-generation farmer here. Underground farming? Not gonna happen, unless there is an extinction-level event. It takes more than space. The temperature is certainly constant, but at some stages the plants will do better if it's warmer. The realities of getting heat, light and water in needed quantities greatly outweigh the benefits. Underground caverns also (mostly) don't have appropriate soil, though hydroponics could be considered.
"Real" farming beyond hobby gardening is going to take machinery to plant and harvest (at the least). Currently that is all internal combustion tractors and combines, fuel exhaust will be a problem underground.
Is heat, water and light still a problem with hydroponics? There's that gigantic automated indoor vertical farm in Japan that I'm pretty sure used hydroponics. Although I don't know to what extent hydroponics limit what you can grow, which would be another issue. |
|
|
|
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
Depends in what context, Tom Hanks had it all in the film ‘Cast Away’ in my opinion. Living off the land in beautiful nature. At times I wish I could do that. People are overrated, I love being on my own. Same (the being alone part). But I also love technology, entertainment and great food. So I guess I'd say that being around humans is overrated as opposed to people themselves. Also a good scotch tastes twice as good in good company, which also elevates the herb and listening to full albums. |
|
|
|
@JayJuanGee @ LFC_Bitcoin @bitserve I had a choice last year that should I buy a car or house. I invested in property and reinvesting remaining money in more important things. If everything works out fine in the next 5-10 year or so then, will buy Car with Driver  I am very happy with my under $100 bicycle and other than that I have my old "Royal Enfield classic 350" for road trips. You usually can’t go wrong investing in bricks & mortar. It’s probably what I’ll do if/when bitcoin moons (buy lots of houses & start a property management company or something) otherwise I’ll become an alcoholic or a drug addict or something wandering around with nothing to do all day  Great way to think about things. Most people only think to "moon" and then let things happen. And lottery winners have shown where that usually ends. |
|
|
|
...
While pictures like that look impressive, they're not necessarily significant. Humans only occupy some 10% of the land on earth, which just isn't much.
...
I see this one a lot and it strikes me as lazy thinking. Sure, we could fit the entire human population on a standard residential lot in West Texas...but we don't. Humans, of course, occupy and change the most productive areas. The areas we leave are generally inhospitable to us, or much of anything else. A good bit of the non ocean surface of this planet is rocks, ice or sand. The 10% that we are camped on is most of the best, and we harvest off of more than that. Do you understand what "not necessarily" means, or are you making up conclusions on my behalf again? You do raise a fair point, bar the deliverance. But with indoor farming we can turn just about anything hospitable with today's technology. Help we could turn those massive insane caves into massive indoor farms too. People often forget about how insanely large underneath us is. As well as above us. The original point though was that the planet likely doesn't give a shit about us pooping ourselves on minuscule portions of land. @jojo |
|
|
|
...
While pictures like that look impressive, they're not necessarily significant. Humans only occupy some 10% of the land on earth, which just isn't much.
...
I see this one a lot and it strikes me as lazy thinking. Sure, we could fit the entire human population on a standard residential lot in West Texas...but we don't. Humans, of course, occupy and change the most productive areas. The areas we leave are generally inhospitable to us, or much of anything else. A good bit of the non ocean surface of this planet is rocks, ice or sand. The 10% that we are camped on is most of the best, and we harvest off of more than that.  Do you understand what "not necessarily" means, or are you making up conclusions on my behalf again? You do raise a fair point, bar the deliverance. But with indoor farming we can turn just about anything hospitable with today's technology. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
