Originally posted by Jiggyfly
Seriously though, I wonder how the idea of unbridled competition plays out with a global population level of 12 billion....when people actually have
to resort to literally fighting each other for low paying jobs. We're feeling pain already at 7 billion. The numbers are not good. Job growth has
already been surpassed by population growth, and there's no compelling reason to think that will change without intervention. That's akin to saying
the Cubs will win the World Series again, because they did it before. I'm not holding my breath.
The UN puts us as high as 14 billion in 2100 without a Malthusian check. How are we possibly going to create enough "job creators" to accommodate
that generation born in 2075? When every generation adds to the disproportion? Will the unseen hand of the free market make it so?
I think the answer is to aggressively pursue sustainability....but there's nothing in our current economic model that supports that.
Current population has all that it needs to survive. We have enough space, all humans could be fitted into Finland...It's all about re-allocating
resources. One ludicrous example is the burning of exec crop, so that it won't get rotten. Let's start by giving that exec amount away before it
even starts to show signs of getting unusable. The reason why it is not done, is because it won't make any profit.
I do agree with you, it is going to be one of those "# hitting the fan" situations, when the amount of population vs the resources exceeds the
capacity of our current political/economical system in place...
What can we do, then?!
Change in the general way of thinking towards "others before me" mentality is that could save us from the unpleasant consequences of collapse of the
system. There are two ways to solve major problems concerning society: The first way is the politicians way of eradicate poorness by eradicating the
poor. Not the way to please majority of the masses, poor or other wise, but gets the job done eventually. The second way is to "make" the already
rich ones to help to build healthier society by utilizing some of their resources. Both ways would mean the end of our society as we know it.
Determining a median in welfare among the whole population of the world and "help" poor and rich people to work towards it, would be one way to do
this. Goal would be the equal ability for every one to be able to pay their bills, to have roof on top of their heads, to have access to basic
healthcare and clean clothes, water + food...
Individual would be allowed to make as much profit as he or she could or wanted, but not with the expense of morality. I don't mind how rich you are
as long as you help me if i'm about to die because of lacking food.
An Utopian way of living, i know... Every Utopia is deemed to fail eventually, but then again in 15th century, our current way of living would have
been considered as Utopia- and based of the looks of it, it has reached the state when the collapse starts to show.
Then why should we start to pursue an Utopia, well we won't be able to reach it right away, if ever and secondly there is lots of time between now
and someday when the whole thing comes crashing down. being able to live better than now, for some time, until we get even higher standards for
everyone- is better than never even trying to live differently cause it might eventually fail, or it sound crazy.
Why are we so determined to wait for politicians and corporations to make the change, when they are the ones who don't want the change to
occur...Balanced income among all humans means less power and influence for the few in top of the food chain of monetary and political system.
Sorry for my English!