|
| Thread: 3 Main Challenges in 2050 |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
posted December 25, 2010 11:41 AM |
|
|
Well according to wikileaks Arabia wanted Iran to be wiped out by the US. So Islam isn't all that unified as it tries to show.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted December 25, 2010 11:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Well according to wikileaks Arabia wanted Iran to be wiped out by the US. So Islam isn't all that unified as it tries to show.
You probably meant Saudi Arabia?
Since "Arabia" means the Arabian peninsula.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2010 11:57 AM |
|
|
Yes, that's right.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 25, 2010 12:30 PM |
|
|
Such pessimisum on here. We just found out we can solve one of the world's major problems just by teaching women to read.
For what reason must we loose hope so fast?
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 25, 2010 01:22 PM |
|
|
You're right, Rael, there's got to be another way.
Women who can read are the last thing we need right now.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 25, 2010 03:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well according to wikileaks Arabia wanted Iran to be wiped out by the US. So Islam isn't all that unified as it tries to show.
It's more unified than you think. Saudi Arabia - along with every other M.E. country - is a secular state, hence the name "Saudi" in Saudi Arabia, representing the royal family that was put into power with the assistance of British agents. It continues to exist today largely because of Western sponsorship. If the native people had their way, Saudi Arabia would just be called 'Arabia' by now, but it would also probably be a theocratic republic, and also less willing to spread its ass cheeks to oil buyers.
It's a nasty circle of special interests driving special interests.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 25, 2010 03:49 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Well according to wikileaks Arabia wanted Iran to be wiped out by the US. So Islam isn't all that unified as it tries to show.
When did they try to show they are unified?
Last time I checked every single groups disagrees at the least partially with the others, and if they did not have Ubernuker Israel too close, they would not care about each other in a loving way.
I assume you mean the medias vague representation of Arabia.
Salamandre: We have been screaming about running out of Oil since the 70's and perhaps earlier, its not my field. We won't run out, because if we run out, we will have reserves for perhaps another few years that is mined out, which means SUDDENLY everything will be polled towards getting up a working tech to replace it as a cheap power source.
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory We can not predict the next step, it is more or less a rule, we can only predict steps that are made out of the current steps. Back in the 90s nobody could predict that google managed to become something that made the internet usable, or that wikipedia was made and managed to break trough. At the best we could predict that the internet did become popular, but back then there existed no reason for that 
____________
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 01:15 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You're right, Rael, there's got to be another way.
Women who can read are the last thing we need right now.
I think I am being misunderstood here.
What I am saying is that solving the population growth problem seems suprisingly easy therefore solving other big problems might eaiser than expected as well.
As a side note I think Islamic fundalmentalism (and relgious fundalmentalism in general) is a problem, but with all do respect to Black Swan theory I do not think it would rank in the top three. At anyrate solving the problem may just be a matter of increasing communication between people of diffrent religions.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 01:24 AM |
|
|
I was kidding, man. Of course I see what you're trying to say.
It's just that I don't think it's really that simple.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 01:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I was kidding, man. Of course I see what you're trying to say.
It's just that I don't think it's really that simple.
Well you are right it isn't that simple because there is other factors at work. But you don't have to be a big time policy maker to teach someone to read, and you don't need to have alot of money.
Teaching someone to read is something YOU can do to help with the over population problem. It's just a matter of finding a woman or a girl who doesn't know how to read.
Other factors do require the work of people with great influence to affect, but even then overpopulation is not inevtable. Policies that help the elderly, and women's liberation can reduce population growth, which is why in Europe and America population growth is much less than in say the middle east and Africa where women tend to have less protections.
Also I found this documentary on Islam called "Who speaks For Islam". I think it is relivent to this issue of islamic fundalmentalism.
Enjoy: http://www.linktv.org/wsfi
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 03:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It's just that I don't think it's really that simple.
It is that simple, it is just that to do what is needed is a lot harder than it looks.
Lets say solving overpopulation:
*It requires the goverments of the respective countries to sit down(small problem), build schools(hard, it requires money), get enough teachers(hard, it requires there to be enough teachers availon), there to be a social moral or law for everyone to attend school(difficult depends on the country), getting trough the required reforms(very hard, money must come from somewhere), perhaps increases in taxes(consecuenses can happen), etc.
____________
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 04:45 AM |
|
|
A temporary obstacle to reducing the population is the consequences it can have on the immediate working generations. While we're here talking about the liberation of women and continued education to relieve the population growth, there are several places offering more and more benefits and assistance to families with children, with an underlying motive to encourage more population growth. When you have a substantially larger group of people going into retirement and leave behind smaller generations to fill up the workplace, that puts a lot of strain on national sustainability, and given the 2008 crisis, sustainability is already a concern.
It's also not so much the raw population, but how much the population is consuming. 100,000 Americans is an immensely greater burden to Earth than 100,000 Sudanese. One of them is driving an automobile not long after they get hair on their crotch, the other one lives in an unheated shanty. But there is a rapidly increasing middle class among China and India, and a more consuming lifestyle naturally goes with it. If the entire world lived the same way a Westerner does, we'd already be screwed. The fact that the vast majority of the world doesn't is saving us from disaster.
Of course, technology is bound to improve, but it's always a gamble of how much and how quickly, and how well it is incorporated. Homes are more energy efficient than they have ever been. So what has happened? The dimensions of newly constructed homes are on average larger than ever
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 26, 2010 11:39 AM |
|
|
The problem with excessive population is pretty much happening everywhere at this moment, it's not just deep Africa. Look at every bigger city. Overcrowded to the extreme, Warsaw alone, not being a massive city like New York, has ~3300 inabitants per km^2 (this is bigger than Beijing). New York has over 10000 (or OVER NINE THOUSAND if you prefer) per km^2.
This means massive buildings with many tiny flats, and overall life quality in big cities below "standard" - also extremely overpriced flats and almost impossible for non-millionares houses. For poor countries like Poland this is a MASSIVE problem because people can't afford flats and have to live somewhere, yet prices refuse to drop. So people are forced to take 40-year long debts which consume most of their earnings per month just to buy a tiny flat in a so-so location (thank God for metro).
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 28, 2010 04:19 AM |
|
|
Unfortunately, living in those small apartments in dense inner cities is a far greener lifestyle than living in a house in a town or in the countryside. I strongly prefer living in a house in countryside with tons of space, but individual living units are less energy efficient than large complexes, and transportation is much more involved. An increasingly large urban population is a good thing.
I'm not sure how much of a boon it is when it comes to happiness, considering it's probably not a coincidence that all the "happiest" places in the world are sparsely populated areas with lots of breathing room, but there you have it.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Raelag84
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 28, 2010 05:14 PM |
|
Edited by Raelag84 at 17:15, 28 Dec 2010.
|
Like many other people I also prefer to live in a rural area, but latly I have been living in a semi urban area in a small studio apparment and I got to say it's not that bad.
When one lives in a society that is so wealthy that owning a house becomes a "right" then living in an apparment while earning little more than what we consider minimum wage can seem like a disaster. But so long as you are able to procure everything you need for basic survival you come be a peace with being poor and sometimes you may even wonder why you even needed to be rich.
I realize this may not ring true for everyone and I am sure that as we learn to use resouses for efficently people will be able to become rich agian.
In the mean time the only way to solve the problem of limited resources is to learn to make do with less, and if we have our priorties strait that won't be such a bad thing.
|
|
moonlith
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
If all else fails, use Fiyah!
|
|
posted December 29, 2010 04:37 AM |
|
Edited by moonlith at 04:41, 29 Dec 2010.
|
You know what's pretty downright stupid?
People who have offspring claiming they think overpopulation will be a problem in the future.
It's hilarious, but stupid. As is human intelligence.
|
|
|
|
