The world was much better before money was created. If everyone would stop being so selfcentered, we'd probably already have people colonizing other planets and what-not, instead of spending time creating weapons. But I guess this is a bit off topic...
The world was much better before money was created.
That's an ummm...ignorant view. There's always been some sort of value system, whether it was material goods or a financial concept. Well, maybe not always, but at least since people started living together in more than hunter/gatherer family units.
If everyone would stop being so selfcentered
Human nature. It's best for survival to gather/hoard supplies/food, almost all animals do it. We've just taken it a step further because of specialization, without money you are unable to get anything, instead of being able to at least sustain yourself on crops/hunting.
we'd probably already have people colonizing other planets and what-not,
I doubt it. We might be closer, or further.
instead of spending time creating weapons. But I guess this is a bit off topic...
War has produced quite a bit of technology, and not just weapons. Communications, observation, chemistry and all sorts of things have benefited from research done for/during war.
The world was much better before money was created.
There was always greed in the world. People would barter stuff. The problem was that some people would have something of value that the other side of the table didn't really want or already had an abundance of, such as grain or pelts. All money did was standardize it and make exchanges easier.
War has produced quite a bit of technology, and not just weapons.
Even silly putty and slinkies. The biggest irony is that Chinese alchemists were trying to make an elixer of life and created gunpowder.
Population bases are shrinking in ALL developed countries, and countries such as the US are only growing through immigration. Look at population graphs, and then subtract immigration, you're looking at a gradual decline in almost all of europe, north america, etc. Asia countries (including the middle east), on the other hand, are growing faster and faster. Africa is on the fence, on the most part they're entering the developing faze and their predicting population growths are nigh impossible. Overpopulation won't be a problem in many places, but starvation will be abundent in others. Countries such as China completely rely on food imports for thier survival.
Well about the part of the conversation about the world without money: Have you ever seen animals in packs work badly together? No. They don't need money, they work as a team. But, I guess you're right. If we did this, we'd probably still be living in caves. (That's the sad part)
I agree somewhat with Roccess and EmporerPalpatine.
Animals work great together 99% of the time. They work together for everything they need: Food, shelter, protection, and mates.
But as Emporer stated they can and will get into disputes that can be detrimental.
Humans work somewhat like that but we'll never be like animals. We use money for what we need, are largely independent, and just generally don't share with "acks" other than our families.
When we were less intelligent we could survive like that but with as many people as there are on the planet and the deep rooted beliefs in how we should operate? We're stuck how we are for now
When we were less intelligent we could survive like that
It didn't have much to do with intelligence. It's mostly because now everything is convenient. In the days when people couldn't simply drive to Wal-Mart for everything, if you didn't have people to help you hunt or gather food or tell you which berries were poisonous, you died. Groups were much safer back then. If some major catastrophe happens (perhaps an EMP goes off in the upper atmosphere, disabling every electronic device in the country), people will revert to grouping up because the convenience is gone.
Notice this forum went from Overpopulation to bad things on the planet. Oh well, the discussion changed ;D
Ya I know how about we change it back to what this thread was posted for.
I think the world is not too overpopulated because if you compare the amount of land that is not inhabinated to the amount of land that is. There is still a ton of land left to live on. The world only seems overpopulated because there are urban cities were people live so close together that it is crowded.
I think the world is not too overpopulated because if you compare the amount of land that is not inhabinated to the amount of land that is. There is still a ton of land left to live on. The world only seems overpopulated because there are urban cities were people live so close together that it is crowded.
What you don't get is that overpopulation isn't a problem of space, and I think nobody ever claimed that. Overpopulation is a problem of sustainability, of an environment that cannot support all of the population anymore and/or is affected negatively by it.
..though actually space can be involved in the problem but certainly not as habitation space. Much more problematic are the agraric surfaces, all the surface we can use to produce crops. Those surfaces are already huge, and they will only be able to get bigger at the loss of environment. Which is a reason among many others why I avoid palm oil products (as far as possible/reasonable), because they need so much surface for their plantation that they destroy huge amounts of rainforest.
...which leads us back to the bad things on the planet
Notice this forum went from Overpopulation to bad things on the planet. Oh well, the discussion changed ;D
doesn't that always happen?
beside is the water and food shortage aswell as fuel shortage because of the overpopulation or atleast the great increase of the pupulation in the last 80 year it has grown from 2 billion to 7 billion
if you compare the amount of land that is not inhabinated to the amount of land that is. There is still a ton of land left to live on
i had a video a few months back that calculated the amount of ground 1 person needed in the usa, 1 person needed in india, 1 person needed in africa (mid i guess) and the total amount of ground all 7 billion of us would need if we all lived like people from those 3 places.
it turned out that we need about 5 earths if we all lived like 1 person in the usa does, about 2 earths if we all lived like people from india. and about 0.4 earths if we lived all like in africa.
Well though there is a lot of leftover space, they are taken up by farms. And, Russia wont have a problem with too many people. Soon Global Warming will set in and they'll be able to live in areas before too cold to live in. England will be able to grow grapes, and Canada will be mostly farmspace. The people who cant stop global warming have obviously spent time thinking about it.
Assuming that global warming is actual as extreme as you and many people I know say it is. Which I think is the same as saying that 2012 is real. Sure, the globe is warming, but by the time conditions are how you are suggesting, we will be extinct from war, or able to travel to different planets and solar systems. Take your pick.
