Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by mmm....shiney!, May 8, 2020.
The Adam Smith Institute is a good resource.
0:30 Driver-less cars. "Electric"
Great idea but, perhaps the stumbling box will be supply of "rare-earths".
Rare earths for magnets etc may be a problem.
@Holdfast, I don't know much about driverless cars and rare earths etc, but it's certainly exciting for humanity. If history is anything to go by then we're set to see an exponential explosion in the quality of life in the future. I'd love to be able to come back in 1000 years and see how we're all living then. Poverty gone, environmental degradation gone, conspiracy theorists and tiinfoilers gone.
lmfao @ that one. Probably not till the 1000th year at this rate, too
... Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature
Where have I heard these things before?
No idea, I don’t listen to nutjobs.
Happy for the planet’s population to be anywhere from 7 billion to 20 billion or whatever. Population growth will slow though as the world’s economy grows, together. That means increasing globalisation, a much larger middle class and longer life spans. And of course societies built upon the liberty of the individual.
It’s really quite simple because its inevitable. So everyone should stop worrying.
No, but you seem to be repeating their ideology about a wonderful man-made future for earth.
Keep worrying about the right things.
As I said I have no idea because I don’t listen to nutjobs. I’m sure my vision of the future shares a number of similarities with many narratives, whether it’s whatever that mob is you linked to or the writers of science fiction novels.
The big difference is that my vision of the future is evidence based. It’s rational. It’s logical.
You’re a pessimist, you worry about everything. Unnecessarily.
How can anyone predict the future using evidence? Evidence can only confirm past events. It’s not logical.
Because the history of humanity is one of increasing cooperation, health and longevity, social standards, freedom, compassion, rationalism... Do you want me to go on?
And because it’s evolutionary it’s inevitable. We are programmed by nature to satisfy our needs and wants and we are programmed by nature to do so in an ever more efficient and effective manner.
No one has ever been able to stand in the way of this evolutionary march to freedom and higher living standards, not monarchs, not the Church, not dictators and neither will the State.
Yes, it would be fantastic to live in a Golden age where alternative narrativists (conspiracy theorists) are no longer necessary.
They’re not necessary now.
They’re just the domain of the desperate, the lost or the feeble seeking explanations for what happens in the world because they don’t understand, take the central bank conspiracy theories or the hand sanitiser theories as examples.
Your vision seems to be of a world where everyone thinks the same, and no room for dissent or alternate views?
It's all too easy to make sweeping generalizations. Bundle up all theories under one convenient label and call them crazy. Conflating central bank, hand sanitiser and 5G into one big basket. It's easier for your mind to accept. Because the alternative is to investigate.
The Nazi party also tried to blame all of society's problems on one group of people. I think I've reached the point of Godwin's law.
I haven't got a problem with alternate views, they just need to be rational.
I'm not conflating the three theories, I've listed them simply as examples of theories that have no basis in fact.
I would have thought WW1, WW2, the numerous other wars, and the fact democide is the leading cause of death is enough evidence that humans aren't cooperative.
As for health and longevity. I suspect there are more obese people, more heart disease, more cancer and other chronic conditions than in the past. Poor diet and an abundance of processed food with low mineral and vitamin content ensure we're going in the wrong direction.
But please, go on.
Does this mean you're a subscriber of Darwin's theory of evolution?
Higher living standards are subjective. Modern society means we can do more with less effort. Is that a "higher" standard of living, or simply a more convenient way to be lazy?
It mostly fills the void for which science cannot provide hard, empirical evidence. Human minds are pattern-seeking and so will fill the void with creative pattern referencing. The main tool science has for filling the void are 'theories'. And these can only be applied after multiple scientific studies have been tested and peer-reviewed. The more dense the science the more work required to understand the theory (i.e. kick the tires and understand whether it holds up to the best of our understanding). Evolution is the best example I believe. It sounds absurd at first but the more scientific knowledge you accumulate the more the theory makes sense and the more studies are undertaken to support it. On the other hand, if you are non-scientific and only looking for patterns in the conclusions derived from the science then one will likely determine that it is all BS and the science requires more faith than the alternative. Flat Earth does well to scoop up everyone with a low IQ or those that stopped using their brains after puberty and empowers them to think they are on a level intellectual field. Quantum mechanics is an unfortunate case because alternative beliefs often make more sense to the untrained mind for just about anyone alive (logical patterns).
Science has pushed so far into the limits of human understanding that there are so many other faculties of civilisation that need fine tuning to raise the consciousness adequately enough that we can still progress and move forward with consensus. How is it ethical to move forward as a species with 90% of the population confused and lacking complete understanding of anything going on in the world? Really, maybe it isn't. I think this is the wall we're at now and the ethical dilemmas are enormous. Maybe, like viruses, conspiracy theories are a part of evolution and a natural way of warning us when we've gone too far? Maybe we have a responsibility.
It's been said that the Chinese do not even have enough rare-earths for their own production needs for electric cars.
I'd like to know where the rest of the world is going to get their Tantalum, Lithium and especially, Neodymium?
"the more scientific knowledge you accumulate the more the theory makes sense".
Or the less it makes sense.
There are educated people who state that the more we know about DNA, the more impossible it is that randomly changes could influence development of simple species to more complex species. An analogy would be randomly changing bytes of your computer operating system's binary files. It won't make a better operating system. And no amount of time will solve this.
Separate names with a comma.