[Scifreak]

frookenhauer, on Aug 22 2008, 11:34 PM, said:

Scifreak;372992 said:

The pill likely hastened the end of a baby boom initiated by the war and hardship of the early nineteenth century. It cannot of course be the sole contributor, we have to also look at changing social attitudes...

Factor away all you want, but theres no way of getting around the fact that the pill was instrumental in ending the baby boom, it was the means, the method and allowed choice to enter the picture.

Scifreak;372992 said:

I don't have the stats to hand but I'm willing to bet that during late medieval periods British birthrates measured similar. A huge amount of these people are living in conditions we as wealthy western populations have not experienced for a good two centuries. The superior method you seek is fairly simple, Social Democracy run on Keynesian economic models actually produces surplus and keeps unemployment low. It doesn't allow wealth to travel upwards to a small powerful percentile (unlike our Glorious Pragmatic Neoliberalism). It really has no chance. Sadly we'll see big die-offs and resource drought before the Friedman mindset fades away:( . T

In late medieval periods average life expectancy was low, medicine was primitive and there were plenty of wars to keep the population down, so even if birth rates were similar, there would be no population explosion. Give it up man, a population surge would come to pass if standards of living are raised. As far as I can tell, we seem to be in living a social democracy right now and the economy seems to run on a Keynesian model or am I missing something?

Scifreak;372992 said:

I've smoked a few pipes of crack and a couple of opium laced spliffs before. I am not now a raving addict, in fact I leave them well alone because they are a shit buzz in my opinion. I was educated not to take any drug ever by the school and state, but educated by my parents that smack and crack are 'a mugs game'. These drugs do not automatically turn you into raving stereo thieving smack-rats upon contact. The reason I said earlier that crack and smack addictions are a sickness is because they ARE physically addictive. Once a habit is established it actually hurts to go without, makes one rattle and shake and puke etc.
To not have the ability to pull out of that intense desire once the body has shaken the addiction, then that is the mind. And a mind that needs the sweet oblivion of smack even though it knows it to be drastically self destructive is a damaged one that needs fixing with talking therapies and strong social support.
And yes alcohol is an addiction so are fags, they kill so many every year. But you don't see them in the same light? you have swallowed your propaganda well mate.

Most people have had a brush with exotic substances, to varying degrees. I smoked, but never inhaled for many years and was very happy while clubbing for some time too, it was all the rave, you see Like you say crack and smack are addictive in all areas physically and mentally, which is why I do not want them legalised. Its this very combination that makes them so deadly. Cigarettes are physically addictive, but do not alter your reality. Alcohol alters your reality, but is not physically addictive (It might be in extreme cases, however). I'm not going to argue about the health issue, but when was the last time you heard of anyone 'actually' killing someone for a cigarette? Until a decent easily administered neutralising agent is developed, prohibition is the only answer for the present.

Scifreak;372992 said:

If the SUN was offering free blowjobs and a bacon sandwich I'd still not buy it (I'd get a mate to collect the appropriate tokens of course)

The fact that its UKs No. 1 daily paper says something about the culture we live in. I'm a strict Reuters + Economist reader, but I pick up the mail occasionally to see what the enemy has to say for itself.

Scifreak;372992 said:

... it directly increases profitability and ends up being run by those already involved in ruthless muscle and gun led criminality. 1920's alcohol prohibition was a total object lesson that has never been learned.

You're forgetting the fact that smack and crack have never been considered socially acceptable by the general public, whereas alcohol was, is and will be...Addicts will always be at the fringes of society, by choice or pressure is immaterial, where they are joined by the criminals that supply them, and that is where both need to remain until a better solution is found. The prohibition argument is therefore not altogether applicable because it does not affect the whole of society. I'm not denying that there is an impact, but its not that important.

Scifreak;372992 said:

...What would you say to this catholic (non contraceptive taking, remember) woman?
'have another child and watch it starve'. And what if she pushed the kids chest down for a beat too long and supplied some more food by denying that one life. Who is the real killer here? her, who does a triage of starvation, or the power elite that live in indolence while allowing such to go on and blaming the individual.?

Fine, while its not always personal responsibility with regards to workers in Haiti and so on, but I would like to add that part of the problem stems from the fact that over a third of the population is under the age of 14. To the Catholic mother, I'd suggest she abstains (abstinence is very Christian) from sex or tries @nal as an alternative, both options are apt as far as I'm concerned, because murder leads to the hellfire.

Scifreak;372992 said:

...I think the dread hand of the IMF lies heavily on the situation and thats a grip that won't shift without violence in my honest opinion

I have not yet fully read up on the IMF, but so far its seems to be a tool that enables the rich countries to stay on top and keeps the status quo... (Note to self, investigate IMF)

Scifreak;372992 said:

I'm hoping you aren't taking freud too seriously after all he was a repressed vienesse wrong'un

He may have plagiarised Sophocles, but he had a good bedside manner apparently...I am brushing the surface regarding psychology due to the fact that I am no longer a student and time is now a valuable resource and am concentrating on influence, NLP, body language and pretty much anything that makes me more effective in front of clients. Do I hear a yawn?

Scifreak;372992 said:

It involves Socialism, direct democracy, democratic anarchism. If you really want me to expand I will tomorrow. Tonight multi quoting has exhausted me.

Care to elaborate? BTW All this camaraderie is stifling...You stink! And you're Lazy...

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

I suppose I may as well respond to some of this:

And so will I, because it would be rude not to, seeing as you've put some time and effort into the post...And also because there are plenty of points I can pick holes in with my trusty big hairy finger...

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

Water and arable land.

Which is waste of energy. Recent, and mostly experimental advances...based on co-generation plants where the excess heat from burning fossil fuels is transferred and used in the desalination process. Otherwise it's a fourfold cost difference. With much of the technology and expertise to build and maintain such plants needing to be imported, costs would rise even further.

It's also a waste as you are introducing the huge cost and transmission losses associated with an intercontinental energy grid. And solar arrays only produce energy half the time, meaning either huge storage capacity needs to be built or twice as many desalination plants do (which would require a more robust and expensive transmission grid). I also think you have little idea of the energy and monetary cost required to pump water over long distances and increases in elevation.

I do realise that water and arable land are an issue in Africa, which was why I proposed my idea, more water would lead to an increase in arable land. For someone who is worried about the damage to the planet by having too many people, you seem to be very quick to want to burn fossil fuels, but I think you are ignoring the fact that once the solar array is set up, the energy is free. After the initial investment these is no fuel cost, so in the long run everyone benefits. Running the desalination during the day and having 'normal' power stations that kick in at night to keep the systems idling along, or even use wind and wave and tidal and geothermal energy if appropriate.

I do not think you really understand much about transmission losses in terms of energy 'grids', the energy loss in the system is given by (current)squared times resistance, but distances greater than 4000 miles are not economical, which is okay because no point in Africa is greater than 4000 miles away from the coat. At present Europe already has a continental power grid and plans are afoot to bring power to Scotland via Iceland. By keeping voltage really high, current is kept extremely low and transmission losses are kept to a minimum. Sometimes I'm glad I did physics A level. In terms of pumping water around the place, it all boils down to whether or not it is necessary. Africa needs water as much as it needs fossil fuels to enable a stable economy and improve the standard of living. We build pipelines for oil and gas and its not too far a stretch to want to be able to do the same for water.

Once again its all down to the initial investment. The end product is worth the time, effort and money, because it really could change the face of Africa.

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

...at the point where infant mortality rates drop, and life expectancy rises in general, population growth occurs very fast...To reference the Chinese solution, it has not stopped population growth...And this is under a totalitarian system with lack of regard for human rights.

Agreed in terms of population growth. The chinese method did slow down population growth, which was the aim in the first place. Totalitarian, but how else do you manage a country of 1 billion?

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

Democracy is short sighted and inefficient. For the sort of sweeping societal changes and long term vision needed for real improvements, democracy may not be the best choice.

Would you manage it by democracy? Ah, but thats short sighted and inefficient, hmm, alas what to do?

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

I'm still shaking my head over India being held up as an example of improvement. A country that had plentiful water until it poisoned most of it and where infanticide is common practice. A country that spent vast sums of money, not on the welfare of its people, but on a nuclear arms race with one of its neighbours. India should be in far better shape than it is currently.

I'm willing to change my mind with regards to an Indian model, but you got to admit, they are developing into an economic powerhouse. A little subcontinent packed to the brim with hard working intelligent people.

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

I did like how most of the more serious questions were passed off to someone else though.

Which ones?

Gwynn ap Nudd;371986 said:

The question "What if the best thing for people in general is for large numbers of them to die off?" is a somewhat serious one. This planet does have a limit to the number of people it can continually sustain. We do not know what that limit is. Further, each region on the earth has a limited carrying capacity as well.

Forecasts show 9 billion by 2050, so hopefully by then we'll be living in Biomes, the new 'gated community'. By then GM foods will be the norm and we'll have fusion and all that, so I reckon we'll still be okay...sort of. (I'm hopeful, but understand that this is mostly wishful thinking)

It is silly to ask the question regarding letting people die off, because it is unethical, immoral and very unsportsmanlike. On a more serious note, what would actually be your criteria for judging who has to go?

I'm just responding to one point here cause my time is limited. Yes you are missing something keynsian economics went by the wayside during the thatcher/reagan era and Neo-Liberal economics as preached by Friedman et al got thier try. Look at the Washington Consensus. Look where the proponents of neo-liberal economics are now (non public retreat). You and me just gave a load of tax money back to the banks in order that they can continue and lend us that back at 7% later on when all is calmer. Alistair Darling just tore us a new one

Working well do you think? lol

the one and only benefit of financial crises like the current one is that I get to laugh in the face of those who preach about individualism. Fuck off out of it, the reality of the capatilist model has pwned you again.

This post has been edited by Scifreak: 09 October 2008 - 02:08 AM

[Mentalist]

wow
Fascinating debate you guys have here
btw, frook, Freud has been disproved as total pseudo-scientific crap. that's a curent psych student teling you this
for your purposes, you should pick up a book called "influence" by Robert Cialdini.

now, to try to put in my 2 cents
on the original topic:
1) i really don't know what I would wish for Canada. for my original homeland (Ukraine), my wish would be obvious and two-fold: stop thinking that corruption is socially acceptable, and elect people based on knowing exactly what the $&^# they'll do for you and how.

2) for the world: only way to get equality is through a massive re-distribution of everything, which is immidiately goes out the window.
so instead, get rid of the IMF, and for the love of god get rid of neo-liberal doctrine, please.

Specific points brought up by Shin earlier (though he seems to have departed this debate):
There was a Luther 100 years prior to luther. His name was Jan Hus. They burned him at the stake and Bohemia burned in wars for 30 years afterwards.

now, onto the frook/Scifreak/Gwynn debate

First of all, as I've recently mentioned elsewhere, wars are going on in Africa quite frequently, and between states as well
another point: provided Africa reverted from cash-cropping back to subsistance farming, they'd have enough to sustain themselves (though unknown for how long with a population growth)

Also, frook, I do find myself supporting gwynn in several arguments here. primarily, you guys seem to disagree on what is ethical. I honestly believe that you are sincerely trying to find a solution. but, as with the "homogenization" argument (where I totally disagree, btw--I am strongly against any cultural imperialism, and your "fusion" is essentially forcing Western ideas onto other cultures to replace theirs)
the question really does become "do the ends justify the means?" you suggest a dramtic change with Western world forcefeeding an incredibly painful social change (again, for the third time in history, probably) onto the Third world and Africa in particular.
Human beings are not always rational. It is wrong to assume they are. The schemes you suggest would often go against instilled traditions and values in the name of "progress". What you have to realize is that not everyone may want that progress. And that really, when it comes down to it, no one has any moral right to force it upon them.
I'm fairly certain i'm starting to ramble, so I'll stop now.

[frookenhauer]

Hi Sci! long time no post! I'll be back later to reply, almost set to go off to work. This time round can we possibly commit to smaller posts? It might be hard, but it was a lot of work last time round, but its a fascinating debate, so...

@ mentalist, yup, caldiani is just about ready for a re-read. as a financial adviser, the book is a literary goldmine. As for the arguments themselves...tonight

[frookenhauer]

okay, I'm energised-ish. I'm going to keep backing my water desalination and solar array market model until someone come up with a better idea. The whole homogenisation line was mostly me kidding, but it still has merit in the respect that the closer we bring the african nations to our standard of living, the better off they'll be.

Like you say, we can't be imperialistic in this, so how about we ask for volunteer nations and set up a sustainable model and keep adding to it until the hole continent is raised out of the shit hole it's in.

Oh and scifreak we're all still waiting for your social model, at least I am anyway.

[Mentalist]

hmm
well, some nations are trying--the creations of regional Common markets and the Organization for African Unity are attempts for that.
I never criticised your Economic model (don't know nearly enough to do that).
I'm curios to see which nation will voluntarily submit to the population control, though.

[frookenhauer]

Put like that, I'm sure no one will, but I do like the sound of that organisation for african unity, whats that all about? And feel free to criticize my 'economic model' because neither do I. It was just some thing I concocted quickly to be environmentally friendly while also able to give the africans what I feel would help them move forward. The whole lot of it is knee jerk reaction to people saying its best if we do nothing, which is the worst kind of rubbish. The old saying evil wins when good does nothing leaps to mind.

Any aid we provide that will affect the standard of living and therefore the mortality rate will increase the problem due to fact that a generation down the line there will just be even more mouths to feed, unless birth control measures are put in place.

Improving the infastructure and systems (Government and utilities and schools etc) will also affect mortality rate, but to a lesser degree than above.

Is education about what they need to do the answer to the problems?

I put forward the chinese method to control birth because I actually think it might work. Imperialistic? yes, but necessary? I think so over the short term. Once they are near our levels then other social restrictions (freedom and cost) will apply and birth control can be thrown out for the horrible, nasty thing that it was.

[councilor]

change about australia? hmmm. that's a hard one. i'd also say the rampany political correctness and the way everybody is so damn afraid of upsetting anybody.
as the joke goes, the only people you can be racist to is white people. everybody else is off limits because it's. not. right.

about the world? the human habit of thining about short term benefits only. if only people would see the big picture once in a while.

neither of those are going to happen though. meh.

[Scifreak]

frookenhauer, on Oct 10 2008, 09:21 PM, said:

okay, I'm energised-ish. I'm going to keep backing my water desalination and solar array market model until someone come up with a better idea. The whole homogenisation line was mostly me kidding, but it still has merit in the respect that the closer we bring the african nations to our standard of living, the better off they'll be.

Like you say, we can't be imperialistic in this, so how about we ask for volunteer nations and set up a sustainable model and keep adding to it until the hole continent is raised out of the shit hole it's in.

Oh and scifreak we're all still waiting for your social model, at least I am anyway.

Socialism, as seen through the lense of a liberal democracy. It's a sad fact that there are no credible leftist parties in the UK anymore. Any emeging, democratically voted socialist governments were crushed by CIA interventions in favour of your Pinochets. The galling thing is that you right wing types hold two debate cards, marked 'Stalin' and "socialism doesn't work'

The first card is a distraction, lennist communism and it's predeccesor mirror the tsarist roots they tried to overthrow. The socialism doesn't work card disregards the active and overt destibilisation of democratically elected governments by the cia.

Not to mention that it really devalues the individual as incapable of managining, of creating social structures without government intervention. The same mouth that will then talk about personal responsibility while simulteneously doing everything it can to destroy any sense of unity between individuals.

[frookenhauer]

Okay...How about this idea then: A liberal government that promotes socialism at community or council level. That takes 'Stalin' away from the ultimate power at the top and those in council positions can't get too power crazed because they got oversight.

Its funny about the whole capitalism is evil blurb in the papers these days. Greenspan is leading the way in denouncing the free market.

[Scifreak]

lisheoreallyrawks, on Oct 24 2008, 09:23 PM, said:

Okay...How about this idea then: A liberal government that promotes socialism at community or council level. That takes 'Stalin' away from the ultimate power at the top and those in council positions can't get too power crazed because they got oversight.

Its funny about the whole capitalism is evil blurb in the papers these days. Greenspan is leading the way in denouncing the free market.

I think we can agree there *shocked smilie*


It's wierd isn't it. David Cameron, leader of the Tory Party blamed capatilism for the recent bust. It's like they've decided the whole system is fucked and decided to blame that rather than their neo-liberal rimsucking

[frookenhauer]

I was just thinking that socialism should be applied where its going to actually work and I think when the numbers are small enough it will have the greatest impact. But how to promote the idea so its taken up is anyone's guess.

As for cameron, he's a shit eating smug bastard, but I hate him less that Boris. On his election posters did they just leave out his picture or something?

[Scifreak]

lisheoreallyrawks, on Oct 24 2008, 09:37 PM, said:

I was just thinking that socialism should be applied where its going to actually work and I think when the numbers are small enough it will have the greatest impact. But how to promote the idea so its taken up is anyone's guess.

As for cameron, he's a shit eating smug bastard, but I hate him less that Boris. On his election posters did they just leave out his picture or something?

The tories want to do all they can to distance themselves from a dangerous bufoon

I can't wait to see how badly his mismanagment of the 2012 olympics goes. At this rate the olympic village will be a load of second hand caravans and the opening ceremony will be the floppy-haired cuntwit with a starter pistol

[frookenhauer]

I actually hope they actually manage to make good of it. Even if they fall short of the chinese opener the standard is still going to be quite high. But it would be a lot to ask and as long as we don't end up with another dome...