Population growth ideals, wealth distribution

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[aeroblade56]

it damages society. OR does it some society's benefit from wartime situations such as companies that mass produced items for the war effort.

[DarkSoldierX]

society =/= companies

All societies nowdays will be hurt by a war. Thats pretty damn simple. The only people who could have a gain are the companies that supply the weapons. And I emphasize the could, just because they sell weapons doesn't mean they will leave the war with gains.

[AmPM]

society =/= companies

All societies nowdays will be hurt by a war. Thats pretty damn simple. The only people who could have a gain are the companies that supply the weapons. And I emphasize the could, just because they sell weapons doesn't mean they will leave the war with gains.

Loss of life does not equal loss to society.

[Unkn0wn]

The damage to both society and nature is far greater from war than overpopulation...

That's bullshit, especially if you're talking convential warfare. Overpopulation combined with our mass-consumption (perfect cocktail) in particular is THE biggest disaster nature has ever faced. Unless you're going to claim Global Warming is a hoax and 'everything is fine'... in which case I will kindly guide my foot into your ass. Not to mention that even IF you did claim that, the impact wars have is MUCH MUCH MUCH less severe than the impact of just our industrialisation process alone... (poisoning the water supplies, oil leaks, waste, etc) ,all downsides to this 'beautiful' capitalist system that thrives on mass consumption and non-sustainability)

The ingenuity of Capitalism really is that you can't have the 'developed' world without having the much larger overpopulated and poor 'underdeveloped' part. This means that: 1. You can't lift everyone out of poverty and have the entire world be developed in our current system, 2.Attempts to 'develop' the overpopulated underdeveloped part of the world (as we are seeing today) will put a massive strain on our sustainability as a human race. (If this interests you, I would very much recommend you to read Wallerstein's world system theory as a start)

As for society... I am of the opinion that the capitalist system has had a massive influence on our society (both in terms of individualisation as well as in terms of glorifying material possession) While wars can certainly be disastrous for society, few wars in the last hundred years have actually had a similar impact the capitalist system has had on a human society. I don't think overpopulation has anything to do with this though, since it is not overpopulation that has pushed us into capitalism. (And overpopulation an sich, even today, is not a huge problem like it was before, thanks to the massive technological leap we've taken... we can essentially feed the world many times over. However, as I already mentioned, things get problematic when all those people actually start striving for a similar standard of living as people in the West)

[DarkSoldierX]

Loss of life does not equal loss to society.

I sure do consider losing people/resources + emotional pain to be a loss to society.

[AmPM]

I sure do consider losing people/resources + emotional pain to be a loss to society.

That's because you believe that individuals have a value. In reality, you are one of billions, and unless you are exceptional in a socially beneficial way then you are not a loss if you die. I'm not sure why you consider emotional pain a bad thing, as it has lead to most of the things you might consider societies greatest works of art and literature.

So all you have backing you up is your opinion that people dying is a negative for society, and feeling bad is bad for society.

As for resource loss, it's negligible, especially if you wage war as a colonial power. You gain more resources than are lost in most cases.

[PonySlaystation]

I think he's talking about large-scale war in which case there would probably be nuclear, biological and chemical weapons included.

[Mysthalin]

That's because you believe that individuals have a value.

Too bad that most people believe individuals have value. In fact, the British Government has determined a single statistical life is worth about £1,000,000 (what people will still pay to save a life) - and a day without suffering from pain or illness at around £100 pounds.

I'm not sure why you consider emotional pain a bad thing, as it has lead to most of the things you might consider societies greatest works of art and literature.

Sorry, but claiming that a piece of shitty poetry being written is more important than the happiness of hundreds of individuals is some of the most irrational and stupid filth I've ever heard in my life.

and feeling bad is bad for society.

Considering that the only point in life is to live happy lives - ensuring sustainable happiness within a society seems like a fairly prime fucking directive.

As for resource loss, it's negligible, especially if you wage war as a colonial power. You gain more resources than are lost in most cases.

While it may redistribute resources to make one nation better off than before - the other nation pays both it's own bill for the war effort, the bill of the nation that invaded it and the bill of whatever gains the winning nation took. Imagine me and you both had 5 apples. Then we had a war over the world's apple-stash. In the war effort we both ate an apple each, then I took 2 apples from you. I'm left with 6 apples, and you're left with 3. I'm happier - but are you? Society is worse off overall from the war.

[Baine]

Well, what do you mean with value. I'm pretty sure that everyone values things differently but nevertheless i believe that each and everyone of us has an impact.

[DarkSoldierX]

That's because you believe that individuals have a value. In reality, you are one of billions, and unless you are exceptional in a socially beneficial way then you are not a loss if you die. I'm not sure why you consider emotional pain a bad thing, as it has lead to most of the things you might consider societies greatest works of art and literature.

So all you have backing you up is your opinion that people dying is a negative for society, and feeling bad is bad for society.

As for resource loss, it's negligible, especially if you wage war as a colonial power. You gain more resources than are lost in most cases.

Society for one, is a group of people who share common beliefs.

And no society has billions of people, unless you consider all of the west and all of the east as a society. Which is way too broad and everyone knows the people in the US have difference beliefs compared to the many European nations, which have varying beliefs too.

Also, how can you say that bullshit about a individual have little no value in a society? Sure, that argument might have some merit if only 1 person dies in a war, but in reality tens of thousands die in a war.

And, if the men go to war, how many people are left to make advances in medicine/technology/culture? It no longer works like WW2, one cant just find advances alone in technology. It doesn't work that way anymore.

And then, for economy, how the hell does a society benefit from wasting billions of dollars on a war? Again, this isn't WW2 or modern conquistador, now days war is quite expensive and it hurts you both directly and indirectly. The people themselves can't build tanks/planes like in the old wars, they are now built with large machines. Not to mention a modern tank nowdays cost between 3 to 6 million not including the cost to maintain it. A apache cost around 18 million. A aircraft carrier cost billions.

Now, alright, you've won the war. Good job. But will the world let you annex your enemy and use thier resources? Most likely not. You would need a legitimate claim for the territory. For example, look at the bitching towards the US for invading Iraq. Can the US annex all of the oilfields and get back thier money? Hell no. As far as the world sees it, they have no claim to those lands at all.

But il be nice, lets assume the world is mad crazy and the US annexed the oilfields and is pumping $$$ back to the US. Know who gets the majority of the money? Weapons companies and Oil companies. How much of that trickles back into the society that helped fund the war? Not much. The companies know they can bullshit the people into keep paying those high prices.

Ok, now on emotions, myst seems to have said it for me. One belief most societies share is happiness. How did the society NOT take a hit when they lose people/became less happy?

[Unkn0wn]

Ok, now on emotions, myst seems to have said it for me. One belief most societies share is happiness. How did the society NOT take a hit when they lose people/became less happy?

It depends on the type of society to be honest. Some societies glorify warfare, i.e the example you use only really applies to a democracy, in which warfare is frowned upon and regarded as a 'last ditch only' kind of option. Losing people in war didn't hurt the Aztec society, nor did losing people in the great Crusades in Europe. There is always the emotional pain for the family of the casualties obviously, but there is no reason why society as a whole would be 'worse off'.

An extreme example of how warfare can damage a society is Vietnam, in the sense that it divided the American public, I'm sure I don't have to elaborate on this. Another good example is the aftermath of WW1, in which generations of young people were lost, this even ended up dramatically affecting the economies of some western european states in the 20s and 30s.

[DarkSoldierX]

It depends on the type of society to be honest. Some societies glorify warfare, i.e the example you use only really applies to a democracy, in which warfare is frowned upon and regarded as a 'last ditch only' kind of option. Losing people in war didn't hurt the Aztec society, nor did losing people in the great Crusades in Europe. There is always the emotional pain for the family of the casualties obviously, but there is no reason why society as a whole would be 'worse off'.

An extreme example of how warfare can damage a society is Vietnam, in the sense that it divided the American public, I'm sure I don't have to elaborate on this. Another good example is the aftermath of WW1, in which generations of young people were lost, this even ended up dramatically affecting the economies of some western european states in the 20s and 30s.

I obviously speak about modern day society. There is only 1 sizable society to this day which openly glorifies dieing for ones god in combat. I think we all know who I speak of. And just because they glorify it does not mean it doesn't make the society worse off.

When people die, the society takes a hit. That is irrefutable. Do they take a big hit? No. But it still effects the society. The only advantage of loosing ones people is a increase in resources for everyone still living because those people don't need their share in death. But ironically in today's warfare you end up loosing too many resources fighting that war for that advantage to be worth it anyway. Unless of course you plan on sending in hordes of prisoners/blights on society to fight the war for you   

[Vermillion_Hawk]

Perhaps instead of advocating a redistribution of wealth, Smokaz, you should instead work on fixing the consumerist culture which essentially keeps the hierarchical structure of society in place and causes all this.

[Smokaz]

How can I? I dont believe in imparting my ideas into others, convincing them to agree with me. A deep truth for me is that you can't really change the minds of others. They must change their own minds. You can make a as compelling argument as possible for any kind of action or view but people might still resist the idea out of reasons which you cannot fathom yourself. Discussion however can set people on the track of investigating and adjust their own view, but if they do not want to do this any argument is invalid. Convincing creates followers not people who pursue the real issues in front of them.

People have to wake up themselves by their own accord and if they start idolizing a less consumerist lifestyle I think that is great. No we can't all have limousines, lazy administrative office jobs. The two car, one boat, a house and a vacation hut and trips to Bali for everyone isn't necessarily the ideal to strive towards. We can't eat meat every day etc. bla bla, this is a sidetrack tbh

Cell phones is something I've never been a slave to for instance. I probably get a new one (other than replacing lost/damaged ones) every 2nd year. I have a license, but I don't have car since I live in a metropol where parking lots and private cars take up so much space and cause so much ineffective traffic.

The idea that expending less is a good thing is something to consider along with the idea of overpopulation. I don't like people being overly rich, nor do I like them being overly poor. Extreme economic class differences cause differences that have nothing inherently good in them

[Sachaztan]

That's bullshit, especially if you're talking convential warfare. Overpopulation combined with our mass-consumption (perfect cocktail) in particular is THE biggest disaster nature has ever faced. Unless you're going to claim Global Warming is a hoax and 'everything is fine'... in which case I will kindly guide my foot into your ass. Not to mention that even IF you did claim that, the impact wars have is MUCH MUCH MUCH less severe than the impact of just our industrialisation process alone... (poisoning the water supplies, oil leaks, waste, etc) ,all downsides to this 'beautiful' capitalist system that thrives on mass consumption and non-sustainability)

The ingenuity of Capitalism really is that you can't have the 'developed' world without having the much larger overpopulated and poor 'underdeveloped' part. This means that: 1. You can't lift everyone out of poverty and have the entire world be developed in our current system, 2.Attempts to 'develop' the overpopulated underdeveloped part of the world (as we are seeing today) will put a massive strain on our sustainability as a human race. (If this interests you, I would very much recommend you to read Wallerstein's world system theory as a start)

As for society... I am of the opinion that the capitalist system has had a massive influence on our society (both in terms of individualisation as well as in terms of glorifying material possession) While wars can certainly be disastrous for society, few wars in the last hundred years have actually had a similar impact the capitalist system has had on a human society. I don't think overpopulation has anything to do with this though, since it is not overpopulation that has pushed us into capitalism. (And overpopulation an sich, even today, is not a huge problem like it was before, thanks to the massive technological leap we've taken... we can essentially feed the world many times over. However, as I already mentioned, things get problematic when all those people actually start striving for a similar standard of living as people in the West)

I'm not sure just how you managed to read into so many things about me that just isn't true. Like where did you get the idea that I thought global warming was a hoax wtf?

Anyway you are not thinking about scale. What do you think is the most damaging to nature and society, a massive global overpopulation or a massive global war? It's all about scale man.

Even conventional wars can have severe consequences for the environment.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2012/02/how_does_war_impact_the_planet_.html

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/war-and-environment.html

[3rdCondor]

So is make money, not babies the new slogan?

[Demon767]

No babies = no pension when we all become old.

[Sachaztan]

No babies = no pension when we all become old.

Well this is where the thinking "nothing I do will matter because I am but one of many" becomes a problem.

Not having any children won't affect you directly when it comes to pensions, but if enough people do the same then there won't enough workers the next generation to pay for your pensions.

[Demon767]

Exactly.

[JustCarnage]

INB4 TLDR

Anyway you are not thinking about scale. What do you think is the most damaging to nature and society, a massive global overpopulation or a massive global war? It's all about scale man.

One must consider the likelihood of a massive war occurring. Nuclear deterrence effectively eliminates a large scale conventional war among developed nations (MAD also). For the sake of the argument, likelihood is the more significant factor rather than scale. Overpopulation is a greater worry these days than massive world conflicts.

A massive global overpopulation has no simple solution as you would have to forcibly reduce the population or consumption before we reach what is often referred to as the tipping point. Once we reach this point in consumption, there is no easy way to recover.

There is an example of a population collapse with the population of Easter Island. Short story is that it is believed they consumed all the wood (their source of fuel) on the island, which resulted in soil erosion and killing their agriculture altogether. Civil wars broke out among the population for resources and the rest of the tiny population was then killed off by smallpox. You could say overpopulation is a greater worry because it leads to the collapse of society and leads to global conflicts over resources.

Many security agencies have been forecasting that a large majority of wars will occur in underdeveloped regions over the lack of resource development and excessive resource consumption (I.E water).

You can also argue that a massive war is a good thing for society because it revitalizes the economy. It is how the U.S dug itself out of the Great Depression.




Enough of that. With respect to society, the average person is expendable. So long as you pay your taxes and play nicely with others, the government could care less of what you do or who you are. When you walk around your community, how many of you consider the random person next to you as a fellow peer? I would think not a single fuck would be given by most of you. Society itself is there to maintain the stability of general life.

Smokaz is correct for the most part. People are fine with the status quo in developed countries and aren't eager to seek change. The distribution of wealth has always been a prominent topic in all societies and it always will be. Communism itself was based on redistribution but it never really worked out because people always want more. They want more than the guy next to them, they think that they're special and more deserving.

The main issue with the distribution of wealth is that mass wealth brings power. That power is used to influence society so that certain groups receive benefits (corporations via corporate personhood) while others are burdened (general populace).

I don't have any significant issues with the distribution of wealth. Those who have worked blood, sweat and tears into their professions deserve what is owed to them. People bitch and whine that its not fair that they're not as wealthy as the guy next to them. Breaking news, life isn't fair. My only complaint with distribution is how emergency room doctors are paid less than athletes or actors, but that is more of a societal issue. One saves lives on a daily basis while the other sits in front of a camera while complaining that their job is hard.