Twelve Unsustainable Things That Will Soon Come To A Disastrous End

[Riedquat]

Rises in efficiency are a necessary requirement for raising the general standard of living, thats unavoidable.

The local detrimental effect to the workers whos jobs are made obsolete and/or deskilled as a consequence, is equally unavoidable so some way has to be found of mitigating that does not replace one inefficiency with another as is the case with a government created non-job (for example).

But what we've got is the lack of anything turning up to replace those lost jobs. Private industry has failed miserably to do anything with them; the government non-jobs are a (badly thought out) consequence of what you're promoting. They're temporarily propping up a failed philosophy.

[davidg]

You forget little things like wound infections, plague, famines etc.

Yes sanitation was a major problem; however dysentery wasn't exclusive to the peasants.

Oh that's alright then, where do I sign?!?

ffs

The major plagues of the middle ages were flea or tick carried. Take away the vector and you take away a lot of the problem. Unless your house is a flea infested rat hole you are not going to catch bubonic plague. Dysentry, cholera are water born, even kings had poor water supply at the time because there was little understanding of disease and its transmission.

The last big pandemic we had was spanish flu which is viral for which there isn't a huge amount your health service will do for you.

With a population of 10 million it would be possible to supply the UK population with clean drinking water and sanitation with current technology even without huge oil reserves.

[PopGun]

With a population of 10 million it would be possible to supply the UK population with clean drinking water and sanitation with current technology even without huge oil reserves.

You're right.

Problem is deciding who gets to live and/or doesn't get the snip?!

Who gets the meds, and who should be considered 'low priority'?

You may have stumbled upon the problem, but we need better solutions then advocating mass die offs.

Another problem is that in high mortality environments, people tend to have more children, not less. A subconscious method of spreading the risk.

[Realistbear]

link

It all seems so simple when written down!

...There's little question that our global fractional reserve banking system is headed for a catastrophic collapse. It's a system based on debt rather than sound money principles, and the laws of economics dictate that the global multiplication of money and debt is entirely unsustainable.

This system will collapse, and when it does, it will be so large that the economic devastation will be global. Governments have actually made this worse, of course, by bailing out the dishonest investment institutions that have made the situation worse. The coming financial collapse will teach humanity some hard lessons about honest money.

When it comes to money, banking and debt, Ron Paul has always been right, after all.

...When children are raised to be good little Americans (or Canadians, or Australians, etc.), they're taught to consume more stuff. In America, it was even called "patriotic" by former President George Bush. To support your local economy, you're supposed to go out and buy stuff that you don't need, then chuck it into the trash after you use it, then go out and buy more!

Virtually the entire first-world economy is based on this idea that people need to consume more stuff, then throw it away, then consume more. That's what all the corporate advertising is for, to convince people that they are inadequate unless they buy and consume more high-priced cars, designer jeans, electronic gadgets and throwaway home cleaning supplies. This system is insane. And it cannot continue indefinitely.

The above is a given.

The question now: who is best at conmsuming less without a revolutuion and chaos following suit? Who went ape-shit after the big bust of 1929 onwards?

How did Germany fare with economic austerity that followed WW1? How did China do after the economic collapse and the KMT attempts to keep things going? How did the Russians cope with poverty and the rule of the Csars?

[R K]

The above is a given.

The question now: who is best at conmsuming less without a revolutuion and chaos following suit? Who went ape-shit after the big bust of 1929 onwards?

How did Germany fare with economic austerity that followed WW1? How did China do after the economic collapse and the KMT attempts to keep things going? How did the Russians cope with poverty and the rule of the Csars?

Jeremy Grantham appears to think the US are well placed due in particular to plentiful agricultural land, water resources (ok, they may have to 'annex' Canada!) and plentiful coal. Once they get their heads around finally implementing Jimmy Carter's energy policy.

It'll be the (relatively) poorer nations and people who will suffer, unless the 'wealthy' are prepared to make do with less

http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetterALL_1Q11.pdf

[cica]

Relying on something turning up out of the blue plainly is incredibly dangerous. Get enough information to see that there's a good chance that the technology is even possible (and possible and practical within a useful timescale) before starting to rely on it. The biggest transformations have come when the technology has turned up that's allowed us to do more, not made it easier to do the same. The Industrial Revolution wasn't driven by lots of people being freed up to do new stuff and the technology appearing to let that happen.

I'm not relying on it, I just don't think the end of technology improving our lives quite drastically is here. I certainly don't think governments should be relying on it which is what they are probably doing. I'm simply saying that it's not the limits of technology / population that are screwing us right now, the people on this forum all know what the main problems we face are.

"The biggest transformations have come when the technology has turned up that's allowed us to do more, not made it easier to do the same."

I don't see the difference. Easier has generally meant more.

[thecrashingisles]

Twelve Unsustainable Things That Will Soon Come To A Disastrous End

Is Pete Burns on the list?

['Bart']

Is Pete Burns on the list?

My hairline certainly ought to be.

[Peppa Pig]

link

It all seems so simple when written down!

...There's little question that our global fractional reserve banking system is headed for a catastrophic collapse. It's a system based on debt rather than sound money principles, and the laws of economics dictate that the global multiplication of money and debt is entirely unsustainable.

This system will collapse, and when it does, it will be so large that the economic devastation will be global. Governments have actually made this worse, of course, by bailing out the dishonest investment institutions that have made the situation worse. The coming financial collapse will teach humanity some hard lessons about honest money.

When it comes to money, banking and debt, Ron Paul has always been right, after all.

...When children are raised to be good little Americans (or Canadians, or Australians, etc.), they're taught to consume more stuff. In America, it was even called "patriotic" by former President George Bush. To support your local economy, you're supposed to go out and buy stuff that you don't need, then chuck it into the trash after you use it, then go out and buy more!

Virtually the entire first-world economy is based on this idea that people need to consume more stuff, then throw it away, then consume more. That's what all the corporate advertising is for, to convince people that they are inadequate unless they buy and consume more high-priced cars, designer jeans, electronic gadgets and throwaway home cleaning supplies. This system is insane. And it cannot continue indefinitely.

What a load of clap trap.

[Saving For a Space Ship]

What a load of clap trap.

Makes sense to me, perhaps you would care to explain your specific criticism

[Riedquat]

"The biggest transformations have come when the technology has turned up that's allowed us to do more, not made it easier to do the same."

I don't see the difference. Easier has generally meant more.

There's a big difference. Easier doesn't mean doing anything new. Doing more, on the other hand, is technology that allows you to do something that you simply couldn't do before (I didn't mean being able to do more of the same). In reality there's usually some overlap between the two, but I think that it's a useful conceptual difference. Diggers and bulldozers aren't doing much that couldn't be done by lots of navvies, but radio enabled everyone to hear someone, which was simply impossible before.

[cica]

There's a big difference. Easier doesn't mean doing anything new. Doing more, on the other hand, is technology that allows you to do something that you simply couldn't do before (I didn't mean being able to do more of the same). In reality there's usually some overlap between the two, but I think that it's a useful conceptual difference. Diggers and bulldozers aren't doing much that couldn't be done by lots of navvies, but radio enabled everyone to hear someone, which was simply impossible before.

Using less people for a task meant other could go work elsewhere. Now I can tell you're tempted to say it doesn't work like that they'll just be unemployed but history does not give any validity to that.

The diggers meant people could go learn more about the actual building that was going in the holes that were dug. Easier meant more. Easier meant less health problems.

I really don't buy this whole idea that technology has created a overhang of labour. The problems at the moment are banks, governments, elitist inequality, and nothing to do with technology creating unemployment which people have been complaining about for centuries as we all get much richer.

I guess people on here don't like the idea that things can improve because it lets all these bank and governments off the hook but we can only get those improvements if these fools get out of the way.

[Riedquat]

Using less people for a task meant other could go work elsewhere. Now I can tell you're tempted to say it doesn't work like that they'll just be unemployed but history does not give any validity to that.

The diggers meant people could go learn more about the actual building that was going in the holes that were dug. Easier meant more. Easier meant less health problems.

I really don't buy this whole idea that technology has created a overhang of labour. The problems at the moment are banks, governments, elitist inequality, and nothing to do with technology creating unemployment which people have been complaining about for centuries as we all get much richer.

I guess people on here don't like the idea that things can improve because it lets all these bank and governments off the hook but we can only get those improvements if these fools get out of the way.

You're confusing things here. Sure, it may or may not free up labour for doing something else, but that's irrelevent to the idea of whether or not there's a difference between technology that immediately enables and technology that just automates.

If there's loads of new stuff just waiting for the workers to turn up and do it then why do we have unemployment? Are too many people simply no use for doing anything? There have usually been other spin-offs from the developments that have created new work (build a steam engine to pump out a mine and a few years later there are railways all over the place) - why is that an absolute guarenteed certainty to always happen?

The point is that even if something new has turned up to soak up the labour force and get us continual improvement it's foolish to think that it always will. It's almost like "Well, house prices always go up, don't they?" It's also foolish to have a system where the fact that we don't need to slog out in the mud and rain all day means we've got to find some other job to soak up all our time, instead of just having extra time to enjoy ourselves. Where's the choice to maintain the technological status quo and put out feet up for a bit of well-deserved relaxation? If there's only enough work needed that we end up doing three-day weeks that should be celebrated. Only a species of complete and utter idiots could turn that into a disaster.

[ccc]

Using less people for a task meant other could go work elsewhere. Now I can tell you're tempted to say it doesn't work like that they'll just be unemployed but history does not give any validity to that.

The diggers meant people could go learn more about the actual building that was going in the holes that were dug. Easier meant more. Easier meant less health problems.

I really don't buy this whole idea that technology has created a overhang of labour. The problems at the moment are banks, governments, elitist inequality, and nothing to do with technology creating unemployment which people have been complaining about for centuries as we all get much richer.

I guess people on here don't like the idea that things can improve because it lets all these bank and governments off the hook but we can only get those improvements if these fools get out of the way.

And today - for many - we have exactly the opposite.

[PrivateerMk2]

This is all rather depressing. The 'let's get back to nature' agenda in that link might seem quaint but it would require the death of the majority of the population of the planet - not quite so touchy-feely now is it?

We're smart creatures; we've got opposable thumbs and everything! Supposedly, we should be able to work away out of this mess that doesn't require foraging in the forests and killing off people in their billions.

Why is killing billions of people bad?

Explain.

[cica]

And today - for many - we have exactly the opposite.

Really? I was of the understanding that life expectancy is still marching on up. Sure things like cancer haven't been eradicated and there are new obesity problems but I'm surprised you're claiming human health is deteriorating.

[cica]

You're confusing things here. Sure, it may or may not free up labour for doing something else, but that's irrelevent to the idea of whether or not there's a difference between technology that immediately enables and technology that just automates.

If there's loads of new stuff just waiting for the workers to turn up and do it then why do we have unemployment? Are too many people simply no use for doing anything? There have usually been other spin-offs from the developments that have created new work (build a steam engine to pump out a mine and a few years later there are railways all over the place) - why is that an absolute guarenteed certainty to always happen?

The point is that even if something new has turned up to soak up the labour force and get us continual improvement it's foolish to think that it always will. It's almost like "Well, house prices always go up, don't they?" It's also foolish to have a system where the fact that we don't need to slog out in the mud and rain all day means we've got to find some other job to soak up all our time, instead of just having extra time to enjoy ourselves. Where's the choice to maintain the technological status quo and put out feet up for a bit of well-deserved relaxation? If there's only enough work needed that we end up doing three-day weeks that should be celebrated. Only a species of complete and utter idiots could turn that into a disaster.

But they haven't always gone up, and that's not even debatable if you're talking about good science. Every time we've hit a huge peak there's been a fall. I don't think it's foolish what I'm claiming since it is completely justifiable.

If it wasn't for unemployment we'd all still be living until about 35. Maybe you think that's ok. Maybe it is ok?

[Riedquat]

But they haven't always gone up, and that's not even debatable if you're talking about good science. Every time we've hit a huge peak there's been a fall. I don't think it's foolish what I'm claiming since it is completely justifiable.

If it wasn't for unemployment we'd all still be living until about 35. Maybe you think that's ok. Maybe it is ok?

|t's meant to be an analogy of the mindset - people get it into their heads that things as currently are will always be the same. We've only really had a noticeable march of technological change for the last 200 years or so, so any claims of "always" and "completely unjustifiable" aren't really justifiable. You've no good reason to think that it will carry on indefinitely. It will almost certainly come to an end (or at least massively slow down) sooner or later, but your guess is as good as mine as to whether that'll happen in 5 years or 5 million.

I don't understand where you're coming from with your last sentence. Where did I say anything of the sort? But with current standards of living in the UK, given the choice between further development and having more time to myself I'd be very heavily biased towards the latter.

[MinceBalls]

nothing wrong with fractional reserve....as long as the limits are enforced.

In the case of UK and US banking, we dont have a fractional reserve system...similar but different.

the problem came when the regulators were left "blub blubing" their mouths by clever quant speak and outright confidence trickstering by the oh so clever bankers.

Not wanting to appear dumb, the question of "should off balance sheet vehicles have been allowed to remain unaccounted for in a banks liabilities", was never asked, as the questioner would have felt foolish.

And as it wasnt asked, let alone regulated for, we have leverage on a fraction on a fraction on a fraction.

+ 1

Exactly the point. People blab on about FRB as if it is that which is the evil. It isn't, it's the fact that there was never a 'fraction' enforced and in countries where there was a fraction it was too small and too easy to circumvent.

[Traktion]

As far as future tech goes, we already have the technology to replace oil, it's not rocket science. Unfortunately, people seem to think that one person killed by nuclear power is much worse than, say, 10 people killed by burning coal. Or 1000 people killed in resource wars.

There is sufficient nuclear fuel to last for at least 1000s of years, assuming 10 billion people living to first world consumption levels, as long as we use a mix of breeder reactor technologies. And given sufficient primary energy, every other resource problem becomes basically an engineering problem. The death toll from accidents and pollution resulting from this would be very unlikely to exceed 10,000 per year, a tiny fraction of the toll our current energy usage takes.

Of course, following this course of action would be highly annoying for the fossil fuel industry as well as the official green lobby; and of course making the basics of life cheap and reliable causes problems for the rentier class (whereas a 'back to the land' approach is something of a wet dream). So don't expect it any time soon..

Agreed.

Additionally, technology like JTEC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_thermoelectric_energy_converter) which converts heat into electricity and the the Rossi E-Cats (http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/RossiECatPortal.shtml) sound like compelling solutions. Both seem to be looking more likely to be 'the real deal' by the month and have massive and positive implications.

Personally, the idea of a 60-70% efficient, solid state, heat-to-electricity engine, combined with heat generated from low energy nuclear reactions, interests me greatly. A small, high density, electric generator would be a wonderful thing.

How long will it be before burning oil becomes dirty and old fashioned? Less time than many think, IMO.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Traktion

[Traktion]

+ 1

Exactly the point. People blab on about FRB as if it is that which is the evil. It isn't, it's the fact that there was never a 'fraction' enforced and in countries where there was a fraction it was too small and too easy to circumvent.

Indeed and it is pretty much what Martin Wolf said in that Hard Talk video too. He went further to say that losses need to be born to the risk takers too. A combination of attempting to reduce the level of risk (ie. leverage), along with ensuring the losses are correctly appropriated on failure, are two key ingredients.

[ccc]

Really? I was of the understanding that life expectancy is still marching on up. Sure things like cancer haven't been eradicated and there are new obesity problems but I'm surprised you're claiming human health is deteriorating.

Yes - living for an extra 20 years whilst unable to wipe your own **** or remember what you did yesterday is a wondeful thing.

I think health is deteriorating for many due to the sedentary lifestyle 'enjoyed' by lots of people today.

Anyway I am just talking generally about health and how things are 'easier'. Easier is not always best. Being able to drive 3 miles everyday to work is most definately not good for people's health. However it is undoubtedely easier.

PS - I am talking about the 'developed' World here.

[kenzdawg]

It's fascinating to learn that people have to be taught to consume things, rather than it be a natural (and very healthy) instinct.

[cica]

Yes - living for an extra 20 years whilst unable to wipe your own **** or remember what you did yesterday is a wondeful thing.

I think health is deteriorating for many due to the sedentary lifestyle 'enjoyed' by lots of people today.

Anyway I am just talking generally about health and how things are 'easier'. Easier is not always best. Being able to drive 3 miles everyday to work is most definately not good for people's health. However it is undoubtedely easier.

PS - I am talking about the 'developed' World here.

So all the gains in life expectancy have gone into extending the senile stage? That's not my understanding. Some yes, but there are genuinely massive gains that have happened. Infant mortality has been coming down noticeably for instance. Cancer survival too.

[Bloo Loo]

Indeed and it is pretty much what Martin Wolf said in that Hard Talk video too. He went further to say that losses need to be born to the risk takers too. A combination of attempting to reduce the level of risk (ie. leverage), along with ensuring the losses are correctly appropriated on failure, are two key ingredients.

cant have losses in a diversity culture....no-one is allowed to lose.