This makes the people lazy,I am talking about it general the new technologies will make the people more lazier.If we are in the 19th century we will be like that?And also we won't go through all the pages in the electronic books unlike the paper books (in my opinion).

It's not only not a big problem, it's not a problem at all in my opinion.  In fact, anyone can still own a physical book if they want to.  There's nothing stopping people from buying paperbacks and magazines or anything else.  Has anyone here had to move and they have boxes full of books?  It's a nightmare because of the weight.  Sort of like having to move boxes of vinyl records, which is another 'problem' that has been solved by technology.

This article is a puff opinion piece, much like almost everything else you find on the internet these days.  Very little thinking involved, biased, and designed to provoke some level of outrage.  Media has always been that way, but on the internet it's everywhere and on many sites there aren't even any journalistic standards.

If individuals ever think they are being stiffed by not actually owning their books, they will probably revolt and start buying them again.  This just isn't the problem the article thinks it is.

Saving trees can one advantage of involving into more internet stuffs for reading rather than go with the traditional books were saving trees and lot of man power expenses,but it has the disadvantage of making people more lazy and getting addicted to the internet by just looking at the internet for everything.So this has positive as well as the negative we need to use the advanced technology in more beneficial way.

Some social problems are blatantly obvious in daily life, while others are longer-term, more corrosive and perhaps mostly invisible. Lately I've been worrying about a problem of the latter kind: the erosion of personal ownership and what that will mean for our loyalties to traditional American concepts of capitalism and private property.

The main culprits for the change are software and the internet. For instance, Amazon's Kindle and other methods of online reading have revolutionised how Americans consume text. Fifteen years ago, people typically owned the books and magazines they were reading. Much less so now. If you look at the fine print, it turns out that you do not own the books on your Kindle. Amazon.com does.

https://www.afr.com/opinion/americans-own-less-stuff-because-of-the-internet-and-thats-a-worry-20180812-h13vkd

That's a pretty horrible argument in my opinion. With your logic, we could say that about anything. If kids are interested in math, they'll learn it. If kids are interested in science, they'll learn it. If doctors are interested in anatomy, they'll learn it. Of course people study things they're interested in. Some things are just very important and they should definitely be taught. Cryptocurrencies are becoming a more important part of today's world every day. Eventually somebody's gonna have to start teaching kids about it.

What of these do you agree with? What other beliefs do you have about money?

1 - Millionaires are greedy, that is why they become millionaires.
2 - Company managers just want to use the workers to make themselves rich and others poor.
3 - Having money is a question of luck, if not of "gods grace".
4 - Debt is always bad.
5 - To make money, you just need to have a great idea nobody thought off.
6 - Cryptos are the way to make money and be successful without having to put effort into it.
7 - To become rich I just have to believe in Bitcoin because many people have become rich doing that.
8 - To become rich I just have to be more clever and streetwise than everyone around to get my share of the cake.

Your turn to think ...

(EDIT: These are NOT my beliefs, at least not necessarily, is just a list to think. Is not the list by Robert K. either.)

It is sad that us humans keep destroying and abusing natural resources for our own pursuits. In a short span of time, we have seen new buildings being built in an old empty land so that people will have some place to live or visit. Population is growing every year. Will we ran out of food to feed ourselves with, you ask? Natural resources, perhaps, but with the kind of technology we have today, it is only a matter of time before someone comes up with something. One example of this is mycoprotein.

Population hits MaxQ.. Thats all. But people are also having more time to do other things and that creates both opportunities and challenges to soceity

i think the western world will become a growing one again.

there is no threat, i mean curoscant in star wars had several thrillion inhabitants, you would have to build such a planetary urban society, nature and other stuff would be something only for those that traveled or colonised there.

(humanist perspective)

At the rate we’re going, we are already using up the available resources of 1 ½ Earths, even though this planet is all we have at the moment. Unless we can find another Earth where we can move half of our 7 billion population, it’s very obvious that we are using up our finite supply of resources. The effect of growing population will be an increased demand for resources and space. Both of which we are running out of. The Earth just can’t keep up with us and our habit of wastage is not helping.

In my opinion tolerant people should tolerate everything, even if "everything" includes people who are intolerant People who define themselves as tolerants should tolerate intolerance.
I think that tolerant people who don't tolerate somebody because he is intolerant go against tolerance because they don't accept a way of thinking.
Tolerant people should in my opinion accept every point of view even if they disagree.
I know it's hard to tolerate intolerance but people who do it are real tolerant people and are in my opinion wise people.
Life is always easier when you accept all, you don't go against the things, you just let the things be like they are.

According to Popper, "The external environment is constantly changing. This means that new perspectives and ideas must develop in order to react and adapt to new conditions. An intolerant perspective is one that is incapable of acknowledging and adapting to external change. Failing to adapt to change means a failure of that society."
What is your take?

That is bullshit.  If you invest in the same stocks as the rich guy, you will be richer by the same percentage.

The system does not discriminate.  Your money is as good as the rich man's money.
If the stock market starts tanking, you can sell futures or buy puts (like the rich guys) and make a killing.  Load the truck near the bottom using margin, sell half later and let the rest make you richer...

Anyone who can open a bank account can open a brokerage account.

You can invest with as little as few thousands of dollars.  Who is stopping the poor people?  They are.

Fees?  That is the smallest variable, get your head out of the socialist sand.

Live below your means, spend less than you make, and over time you'll be financially independent.

Saving and investing is the only way.

BTW, being "rich' is relative.  You can be "financially independent" with as little as 500K.  It all depends how much you spend.

Global population is not going down, is stabilizing, but we are too many already.



The issue is that we, as animals, have had unnatural survival behaviour, so the world population grew exponentially from 4 billion in 1974 to 7.5 billion in 2018, almost a duplicated number:



So yes, it is an issue, though. If any other animal had this kind of behaviour, humans will, for sure implement a reproduction control in order to stop the (hypothetical) animal to become a plague.
So, in fact, and given the reproduction behaviour, humankind can be considered as one.

Yes, education can be absolutely something of value in stopping this incredible and crazy increment. But the humans have already altered the earth so much that is starting to be considered at this particular time as a new geological era: Anthropocene.