The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[Atheist-Lite]

Nonsense. Throughout the vast majority of our evolution we lived in mostly egalitarian communities.

Aye. Hunter gatherers have to move about, can't carry much in the way of possessions with them and need to co-operate if anyone is going to have mammoth steaks for tea. Such societes were generally less stratified. Well, at least according to the book I was just reading (Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade).

Unfortunately, the evidence seems to be they were also shockingly violent.

Like biker gangs these days. Nothing changes.

[Clinton Huxley]

Yes, link that book in my Ancient People thread please.

Will do.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...It is only in the last century that human ingenuity has had the capability to overcome world hunger without going to war and wiping out half of the hungry mouths. Things will only improve further if we acknowledge that fact, rather than harking back to the past.

How will things "improve further" once there are no more resources on the planet left to exploit, but there are still more and more hungry mouths to feed?

...Our love of stuff hasn't increased...

I disagree.

[Coito ergo sum]

Nonsense. Throughout the vast majority of our evolution we lived in mostly egalitarian communities.

Aye. Hunter gatherers have to move about, can't carry much in the way of possessions with them and need to co-operate if anyone is going to have mammoth steaks for tea. Such societes were generally less stratified. Well, at least according to the book I was just reading (Before the Dawn by Nicholas Wade).

Unfortunately, the evidence seems to be they were also shockingly violent.

They were also very small groups, and lived subsistence lifestyles. They were on the edge of starvation.

They also didn't have a welfare system or a safety net. If you wanted to eat, you had to work, and there was no free medical care and the human right to a college education was universally denied.

[Coito ergo sum]

...It is only in the last century that human ingenuity has had the capability to overcome world hunger without going to war and wiping out half of the hungry mouths. Things will only improve further if we acknowledge that fact, rather than harking back to the past.

How will things "improve further" once there are no more resources on the planet left to exploit, but there are still more and more hungry mouths to feed?

People will die if there isn't food to feed them. That much is obvious.

That's why we need a much bigger manned space programs.

The dinosaurs went extinct because they didn't have a space program. We ought to take a lesson from that.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...It is only in the last century that human ingenuity has had the capability to overcome world hunger without going to war and wiping out half of the hungry mouths. Things will only improve further if we acknowledge that fact, rather than harking back to the past.

How will things "improve further" once there are no more resources on the planet left to exploit, but there are still more and more hungry mouths to feed?

People will die if there isn't food to feed them. That much is obvious.

That's why we need a much bigger manned space programs...

Wait you're serious?

Whilst I couldn't agree more that we need much bigger manned space programmes, the idea of these programmes as a solution to world hunger is absurd! We could never bring resources to earth (or send people out to the resources) at anywhere like the rate that would be necessary to keep up with exponentially expanding demand. Not without somehow curbing that demand (which itself would either cause, or require, the death of capitalism in any form worth calling by the name).

The idea of humans like capitalist locusts, leaving a ravaged Earth to boldly exploit pastures new may make good science fiction, but it's lousy science fact.
If anything, the conquest of space would require an extraordinary laying aside of personal interest on the part of those involved to stand a hope of being a success.

[Ian]

Perhaps you've never seen WALL-E.

[Coito ergo sum]

...It is only in the last century that human ingenuity has had the capability to overcome world hunger without going to war and wiping out half of the hungry mouths. Things will only improve further if we acknowledge that fact, rather than harking back to the past.

How will things "improve further" once there are no more resources on the planet left to exploit, but there are still more and more hungry mouths to feed?

People will die if there isn't food to feed them. That much is obvious.

That's why we need a much bigger manned space programs...

Wait you're serious?

Whilst I couldn't agree more that we need much bigger manned space programmes, the idea of these programmes as a solution to world hunger is absurd! We could never bring resources to earth (or send people out to the resources) at anywhere like the rate that would be necessary to keep up with exponentially expanding demand. Not without somehow curbing that demand (which itself would either cause, or require, the death of capitalism in any form worth calling by the name).

Capitalism isn't the cause of world hunger.

Arguably, capitalism helps, because it is in the capitalist West where population levels are the most stable. In non-capitalist third-world countries, we get the highest increases in population.

The idea of humans like capitalist locusts, leaving a ravaged Earth to boldly exploit pastures new may make good science fiction, but it's lousy science fact.
If anything, the conquest of space would require an extraordinary laying aside of personal interest on the part of those involved to stand a hope of being a success.

It's just a fact that the US human race will go extinct much sooner if we stay cooped up on Earth than if we put some eggs in another basket. I'm not talking about a scale of years or decades to accomplish that. I would think we're talking about the order of a century or more. That isn't very long, though, in real terms. It seems long when we're young, but it's just around the corner. 100 years - 200 years - that's the time scale we need to be thinking about.

[Tero]

I think we will get to communal land soon. You can just rent it. Already happening in Japan.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Capitalism isn't the cause of world hunger...

Capitalism requires economic growth, 'economic growth' is ultimately a measure of the exploitation of the planets resources. The planets resources are limited. Do the maths.

...Arguably, capitalism helps, because it is in the capitalist West where population levels are the most stable...

The consumption levels of the population in the capitalist west are not stable - capitalism in the west would end if they were.

...In non-capitalist third-world countries, we get the highest increases in population...

Capitalism is very much present in most of these third-world countries you refer to. Indeed it needs their 'increasing population' to keep the sweat shops running.

...It's just a fact that the US human race will go extinct much sooner if we stay cooped up on Earth than if we put some eggs in another basket. I'm not talking about a scale of years or decades to accomplish that. I would think we're talking about the order of a century or more. That isn't very long, though, in real terms. It seems long when we're young, but it's just around the corner. 100 years - 200 years - that's the time scale we need to be thinking about.

That's all true enough (although I believe we can get a small Mars colony going in less than a decade if we really went for it), but it's totally irrelevant to the subject you originally raised of using bigger manned space programs to keep the population fed.

I'm not concerned about some globally catastrophic Malthusian crisis wiping out our species - there will be some surviving scumbags whatever happens. I just want to avoid such an event for it's own sake.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

...It is only in the last century that human ingenuity has had the capability to overcome world hunger without going to war and wiping out half of the hungry mouths. Things will only improve further if we acknowledge that fact, rather than harking back to the past.

How will things "improve further" once there are no more resources on the planet left to exploit, but there are still more and more hungry mouths to feed?

We have the only resource we have ever had (or will ever need) shining about 96 million miles away. All of the energy from our fossil fuels, biodiesel, nuclear reactors and wind turbines ultimately came from there. We don't utilise a tiny fraction of the sunlight that falls on the Earth.

There are artificially developed microorganisms that can produce diesel fuel directly from CO2 and sunlight. There are tanks full of them in deserts across the world running viability studies right now. The big oil companies are nearly all investing heavily in this technology (with the notable exception of BP, who prefer to drill safely in the Gulf of Mexico... )

This is a single example of how technological innovation can overcome the energy crisis - there are many others.

Read this book for more examples of what man's ingenuity can achieve when it has to!

Of course, if you would rather wallow in the comforting certainty of pessimistic doom and gloom, that's good too.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...Of course, if you would rather wallow in the comforting certainty of pessimistic doom and gloom, that's good too.

Nothing comforting about it.

And our resource needs go far further than Energy.

And also, even if it were (magically) possible to support an indefinite number of Homo sapiens on this here rock - who the hell would want to live in such a world?

[Rum]

Frank Zappa is in my top five favourite musician/composers - actually my top three. Make that my top #1 of all time.

But his politics were crude, ill thought through and really quite dumb. He didn't know what the fuck he was talking about most of the time in fact and embarrassed himself regularly.

People can and have organized themselves in all sorts of ways. Just because the prevailing model is about atomised individuals seeking and maximising wealth for themselves it does not mean other more utilitarian models won't inevitably replace it.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

...Of course, if you would rather wallow in the comforting certainty of pessimistic doom and gloom, that's good too.

Nothing comforting about it.

And our resource needs go far further than Energy.

And also, even if it were (magically) possible to support an indefinite number of Homo sapiens on this here rock - who the hell would want to live in such a world?

The population growth rate is reducing worldwide. In some countries, Russia for example, it is actually negative! The only places where it is increasing are the poorest, least technologically advanced countries - mainly in sub-Saharan Africa - and where theocratic regimes prohibit women's emancipation and reproductive control. As the level of technology rises and access to education (especially for women) improves in a country, the birthrate drops - there are no exceptions!

Like I said, read Mark Stevenson's book. I am merely paraphrasing. He makes a very convincing case.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

It won't matter if the population stabilises if it's consumption of resources doesn't.

And also I'm very wary of predictions regarding population growth slowing. Even if most people around the world start to have less kids, it only takes a few people still having large broods to eventually screw everything up - just as long as they culturally pass-on to at least a few of their offspring the tendency to have large broods themselves. Eventually 'big breeders' become the majority again.

...Like I said, read Mark Stevenson's book...

I tend not to read 'polemic' books by individuals on sociopolitical subjects ( particularly regarding "the future") - as they nearly always turn out to be a lot of highly subjective dross built on cherry-picked evidence.

Plus I can't think of a single such book from decades past that doesn't (at least in places or by it's omissions) look silly now that we've actually arrived at the "future".