It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by enament
So if the elites think there is an over population problem.If so then why do we have a growth based economy.If they really think the world is over populated than why the growth based economy. If they really want to fix the overpopulation problem than redesign the system that is causing the problem the system they created.So fix it!
If an economy doesn't grow it begins to fail. Growth based economy's had there purpose at one point when there was lots of land to settle on and develop. But now things have changed there is less good land to develop on. A growth based economy is also very harmful to the environment. If we don't build we don't grow if we don't grow our economy collapses. The growth based economy has out lived it's usefulness.
So lets kill two birds with one stone get rid of the growth based economy solve two large problems overpopulation and the destruction of the environment.
Originally posted by enament
Also the growth based economy encourages planned obsolescence which is a real big problem on it's own.
I have an amplifier from 1970's that I still use today solid state circuitry lasts forever they used it on the moon lander. How many of today's modern amplifiers would i have gone through five or six?
Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Its not a problem , its a challenge. Its one we will meet headon and eventualy overcome. I think the "problem" is to many super rich people owning all the best land. In the end there will have to be a better ballance.
monohops, The myth of the
'vertical thinking is for using ideas - lateral thinking for changing them'
Edward de Bono
In more than one respect The Brodingnagian way of thinking resembles that of the monohops as described by Edward de Bono.
...- Monohop society was intensely logical. Early in the development of this culture, the sociologists had come to the conclusion that most of society's troubles arose directly from man's ability to attack his fellows and from his ability to run away. The former encouraged aggression, the latter crime. It was agreed that if man's mobility could be reduced at an early enough age society would benefit. Therefore soon after birth the left leg was amputated from each monohop child.
With its usual rapid adaptation, society soon organized itself into a monohop world. Bicycles had but one pedal, right shoes were the only shoes ever made, all staircase were abolished and replaced by lifts and escalators. In short so completely did society become monohop that no one noticed any inconvenience.
Whenever someone suggested that a two-legged society might be preferable, he was not met by hostility but by puzzlement. Why, they asked, should we change?
Everything is running smoothly. Wouldn't we have to go to great expense to make and buy left shoes? Wouldn't our bicycles become useless? And what about unemployment among surgeons and lift-makers? What about aggression and crime - we know there would be a great increase? Besides, can you prove that change would better, have you collected statistical evidence to show that two-legged monohops would be better than the usual variety?
But, said the revolutionary, is it not obvious that a man with two legs can do all that a man with one leg can do - and more as well? That may well be, they said, but monohops are clearly the best suited to this monohop world. We are concerned only with getting our people to hop as excellently as possible (we have exams, you know), not with how much better life would be if we had two legs instead of one. ...-
The monohops only use the logical left brain-half. They refuse to consider the use of both halves because one leg has proved to be the solution to what they regarded as a major problem and once a solution becomes the goal we tend to lose sight of opportunities.
Real problems can never be solved at the level they arose. (C.Jung)