25 years time?

< http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/electio ... ories.html >

ken

It is pointless to discuss money. In 25 years money will be useless, we will be too busy trying to survive looking for clean food and water.

There isn't a solution, or more accurately there is, but not one that would meet with unanimous agreement, or last forever. The outcome therefore, would likely be either mass genocide by one or other country's release of some form of toxin, possibly in the guise of a new strain of 'Bird flu' or whatever, or another world war.

The toxin solution may be tried first, as it can be done anonymously, and it saves infrastructures and buildings from destruction, the only downside to that method is that it isn't selective, so you also end up killing some of those you might like to have saved -Collateral damage.

World war is the traditional, tried and tested way of reducing the population, but it's messy, and costs a lot in reconstruction afterwards. The population of the globe can't rise above that which is sustainable so something has to happen, it's inevitable.

I was only thinking the other evening about the dinosaurs that died out 65 million years ago. I remember trying to imagine what a time period of 65 million years was like, it's a mind boggling figure, until you add to it that dinosaurs roamed the earth for 300 million years before the wipe-out.

Try and get your head around those numbers, it's impossible! Now ask yourselves why Man, who has been here in all his forms for a mere 150,000 years or so, has the arrogance to think that he always will be? Humanity will be gone in time, the earth will remain to heal and re-sporn the next life forms that will succeed us, there's a brutal inevitability about it, but no gods or men are stronger than nature.

I would think that it'll require a fundamental re think of how we live. It is reckoned that the US and UK alone waste enough food to lift 1bn people out of hunger the wastage in the rest of Europe isn't much different.

Look around at the cars we drive, most will easily carry 4 people, the vast majority carry just one.

The fundamental problem is that environmental responsibilty requires stable government, investment and consensus and "serious plague or some silly war" won't create that.

Anyone who thinks overpopulation is the problem could be first to "opt out" of course.

Doesn't work that way L. Usually the folks that think that way have you or I in mind as a way of reducing the surplus. Like they say, you may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.


Reduce it to it's simplest terms. When was the last time you had a group of people co-operate fully on a project without internal wrangling, squabbles and fall outs?

There are individual ego's, hidden agenda's, duplicity, greed and deceit in all walks of daily life, it's called human nature. Now try to get people of opposing racial, cultural, religious or political doctrines the world over to agree to work together for a common goal.

And for this to happen without the Jews suspecting the Arabs, or the Muslims suspecting the Christians, or the Chinese suspecting everyone. Ain't gonna' happen. We've all seen those films where two men are struggling for existence at the edge of a cliff, locked in mortal combat with each other to the bitter end. Most often they both take a dive into oblivion, still clawing at each other as they fall to their deaths.

The sensible option would have been for them to have stopped fighting and shook hands, that way they both would have survived, but they were human, and we humans do things a little differently than we would perhaps like to on paper.

So fare, Old Nail understand this issue. Throwing money after the problem won't solve anything.

However, having the super-rich in control means that they're more likely to maintain the status quo, doesn't it?

As long as they're in the stateroom, drinking champagne and with the band playing while the ship goes down, I doubt they give a damn...

ken

The super rich are the cause of most wars Ken, the arms industries depend on it, as do the stock markets and mineral companies. But they only want controllable wars, wars which leave the banks intact. What's coming is more than this.

Absolutely correct. It won't, but what will solve it (temporarily) is objectivity. There are thoughts too abhorrent to the mind, but they must be examined, and no doubt will be examined in the future. When mankind learns to face the unpalatable truth of where we're headed you will be surprised how feint those hither-too liberal voices will sound.

The key as I said before, is in how we behave as human beings, not as Muslims, Christians and so on. The sooner mankind loose this silly fixation with religion, and make their fellow man their religion, the better for all of us, and the more chance we have of surviving those challenges without the hindrance of war.

Yet were I to suggest that we cut foreign aid, which I consider to be the poor of a rich nation giving to the rich of a poor nation, I would be berated.
If I suggested that we sent contraceptives to Africa, instead of money which is then used to buy arms, which are in turn used to create misery, I would be ostracised.

We need to change the way we think. It isn't pretty, but nature is in charge here, and nature often isn't pretty either.

I may be very pessimistic here, thinking that is already too late. Since the industrial revolution, where we created a dependency of oil, quality of life went so quickly ahead. The waste products from it is ruin the planet, the air we breathe, water we drink, food we eat and lately buggering our minds too. Who on earth has the power and/or the will to say no to oil, nobody. We are obsessed with money and greed add snobbery, prestige and ignorance. I fear it is too late to change. Mother Nature will just change whether we like it or not. We are totally insignificant in this picture
I live every day as it was my last and very happy this way. I hope my kids and their kids don’t suffer living their lives.