A Turning point?

[Bricks n' mortar]

2 hours ago, onlooker said:

But with the recent vilification of the "Top 1%" by the British media and left wing politicians, few seemed to notice that the controversial report in question was about the top 1% in the World, and most UK residents belong to that group.

I don't know what the 'controversial report in question' was, but I'd challenge any notion that most UK residents are in the top 1%, globally.

I'll present this, from an LSE paper entitled "Who are the Global Top 1%", from Jan 2017.  I suppose this might even be your paper in question, but I don't read so much UK press, so I wouldn't know...

     "...the threshold for an individual to enter the global top 1% in 2012 is an annual income of about PPP$50,600 per capita household income, or

PPP$202,000 for a family of four. We find that for many developed countries it includes the top 4% to 8% of their national income distribution."

http://www.lse.ac.uk/International-Inequalities/Assets/Documents/Working-Papers/Working-Paper-8-Who-are-the-Global-Top-1.pdf

 

[Maynardgravy]

I think a borderless world is a surefire way to destruction. We have areas of the world that are using Europe as an overspill for their own reckless breeding programs often perpetuated by religious beliefs. Population control decisions have to be taken at a national level. Decide what the optimum population of your country will be and enforce it - even if there has to be a gradual decline to get there. 

Trying to control a borderless world will just lead to wars of the like we've never seen before with mass migration waves fighting for resources. We're on the precipice as it is.

Sure, have an international body to help poorer nations to get a grip on population control - I dunno, maybe the UN can do something useful for once. 

[hurlerontheditch]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

Well really there is no reason for age control.  Not until we have infinite lifespans anyhow.

But there is this fundamental conflict between sustainability and liberal capitalism and I don't know how it can be solved.

Apologists for the system contend that, as technology advances, substitutions for scarce resources are always found.  That may be largely true up to present, but even this solution has limited lifespan.

sounds like you guys want to live like Logans Run!

[onlooker]

29 minutes ago, Bricks n' mortar said:

I don't know what the 'controversial report in question' was, but I'd challenge any notion that most UK residents are in the top 1%, globally.

I'll present this, from an LSE paper entitled "Who are the Global Top 1%", from Jan 2017.  I suppose this might even be your paper in question, but I don't read so much UK press, so I wouldn't know...

     "...the threshold for an individual to enter the global top 1% in 2012 is an annual income of about PPP$50,600 per capita household income, or

PPP$202,000 for a family of four. We find that for many developed countries it includes the top 4% to 8% of their national income distribution."

http://www.lse.ac.uk/International-Inequalities/Assets/Documents/Working-Papers/Working-Paper-8-Who-are-the-Global-Top-1.pdf

 

I was referring to this https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/apr/07/global-inequality-tipping-point-2030

which was discussed in other papers and the BBC at the time.

Looking at your LSE report, in Jan 2017, 46% of the UK's population was in the Global top 10%, and 4.6% was in the top 1%. Since Jan 2017 the £ has risen against the dollar (from 1.1 to 1.4) , which would make a big difference to the comparison, probably doubling it. So 90% of the UK population in the Global Top 10%?

[janch]

A change of mindset is badly needed.  When you have reached "peak stuff" which many in the west now have, what is the point in wanting more and more (BTL springs to mind here).  It is the human condition to want to better oneself (or are we brainwashed into that?) but there comes a point when spending more and more on more and more doesn't increase happiness one jot.  We are greedy as a species and if we weren't, many of the world's ills would be cured and those in the developing world would get more of a chance. 

My father had a saying which we would do well to remember:  "Enough is as good as a feast".

I think there are some  people around who do think like this and to this extent I think we are at a turning point.

[Dogtanian]

Crucially, humans live extremely short lives at least compared to timescales of say geological ages.  Anyway the point being that regardless generation's and individuals only see at a relatively short time frame.  Arguably on a whole at a micro time frame... Ie. Just there single generation. 

I guess the point I'm getting is that even if we knew the world would end in 200 years then 90%+ people would carry on for at least 180 years as normal (the outliers being the Elon musks of the world looking to freeze our dna or something).  Maybe the last 20 years or so the younger generation would degenerate into some kind of mass of sex drugs brawl, or create different cults to give themselves up to. 

In fairly optimistic in the long run be it (at the moment far fetched) scenarios of AI solving our problems or genetic wizardry helping us say live off planet.  No doubt I too ignorant of any of these subjects so will continue in my relative bliss unawares! 

[HairyOb1]

43 minutes ago, hurlerontheditch said:

sounds like you guys want to live like Logans Run!

I was thinking about this a lot lately too. 

8 minutes ago, janch said:

A change of mindset is badly needed.  When you have reached "peak stuff" which many in the west now have, what is the point in wanting more and more (BTL springs to mind here).  It is the human condition to want to better oneself (or are we brainwashed into that?) but there comes a point when spending more and more on more and more doesn't increase happiness one jot.  We are greedy as a species and if we weren't, many of the world's ills would be cured and those in the developing world would get more of a chance. 

My father had a saying which we would do well to remember:  "Enough is as good as a feast".

I think there are some  people around who do think like this and to this extent I think we are at a turning point.

This is it in a nutshell.  I am not too sure if its some existential crisis I am having, but I have a birthday coming up and think I've got enough, I don't need or hanker after anything.

I have an old school mate I occasionally have a pint with who lives a simple life, without much, through choice.  We were talking about money once just before some of us left for uni, and 'making it',becoming rich.  He said he hoped he was never rich, as if you wanted for nothing in life, life would lose a certain purposefulness.  He had a point I didn't see at the time.  

[HairyOb1]

56 minutes ago, Maynardgravy said:

I think a borderless world is a surefire way to destruction. We have areas of the world that are using Europe as an overspill for their own reckless breeding programs often perpetuated by religious beliefs. Population control decisions have to be taken at a national level. Decide what the optimum population of your country will be and enforce it - even if there has to be a gradual decline to get there. 

Trying to control a borderless world will just lead to wars of the like we've never seen before with mass migration waves fighting for resources. We're on the precipice as it is.

Sure, have an international body to help poorer nations to get a grip on population control - I dunno, maybe the UN can do something useful for once. 

I think that's something that would cause a war, to be honest.

The main trouble is, as we're finding, you have to have population growth, as it stands, to have fiscal growth and a declining, and ageing populace would accelerate a retraction.  That's why we'll never have a shrinking population, it's why German opened its borders to be honest

Edited April 20, 2018 by HairyOb1

[kzb]

The current system IS sustainable.   Just not in a pleasant way.

We won't destroy the planet (permanently) or cause the human race to go (fully) extinct.

Population in the end is self-limiting.  The planet ecosystem will eventually force drastic human population cuts and drastic reductions in resource utilisation.

Already we are in a serious run-up to World War 3.  Failing that, floods and extreme weather events will take out more and more people as time goes on.

There is a report from the 1960's about the "optimum" amount of warfare.  This is the system we are living under.

[drunkincharge]

"This is it in a nutshell.  I am not too sure if its some existential crisis I am having, but I have a birthday coming up and think I've got enough, I don't need or hanker after anything."

 

I've been like this most of my adult life. I've had to make myself do everything by getting myself into a position where other people expect things of me, like wife and kids, otherwise I wouldn't have done jack sh1t!

There's prolly something wrong with me but most of the time I cannot understand why people do anything at all!

 

Edited April 20, 2018 by drunkincharge

[Bricks n' mortar]

12 minutes ago, onlooker said:

Looking at your LSE report, in Jan 2017, 46% of the UK's population was in the Global top 10%, and 4.6% was in the top 1%. Since Jan 2017 the £ has risen against the dollar (from 1.1 to 1.4) , which would make a big difference to the comparison, probably doubling it. So 90% of the UK population in the Global Top 10%?

Well, considering 25% of uk adults have no savings - i.e. no wealth - doubling it by dint of an exchange rate change doesn't really change things for them.
But also - the figures are PPP - purchasing power parity.  It's based on whatever amount locally would buy the same amount as the $202K would in the US.  So, as our currency got weaker, and we found our imports getting more expensive, I expect we'd have gone down, by that measure. - (happy to be corrected).

[kzb]

1 minute ago, Bricks n' mortar said:

Well, considering 25% of uk adults have no savings - i.e. no wealth - doubling it by dint of an exchange rate change doesn't really change things for them.
But also - the figures are PPP - purchasing power parity.  It's based on whatever amount locally would buy the same amount as the $202K would in the US.  So, as our currency got weaker, and we found our imports getting more expensive, I expect we'd have gone down, by that measure. - (happy to be corrected).

It's worse than that.  Most of the UK population are in net debt, when you include both private and state debt. 

They are actually poorer than someone in the Congo when debt is included.

[Maynardgravy]

40 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

I think that's something that would cause a war, to be honest.

The main trouble is, as we're finding, you have to have population growth, as it stands, to have fiscal growth and a declining, and ageing populace would accelerate a retraction.  That's why we'll never have a shrinking population, it's why German opened its borders to be honest

Then the lunatics are running the asylum. We have a choice: population control by design or by nature. I'd personally vote for the first party (of any colour) promising a population cap. It's that important.

[kzb]

In the long run, living in space colonies and on other planets will become realistic.

In the longer term we may even find Earth 2.0.

Eventually humans should fill the galaxy.  The eventual resource utilisation by the human race could be truly astronomical, the energy output of the entire Milky Way galaxy.

After that, the Andromeda galaxy will merge with the Milky Way, more than doubling the number of stars available to us.

[winkie]

1 hour ago, janch said:

A change of mindset is badly needed.  When you have reached "peak stuff" which many in the west now have, what is the point in wanting more and more (BTL springs to mind here).  It is the human condition to want to better oneself (or are we brainwashed into that?) but there comes a point when spending more and more on more and more doesn't increase happiness one jot.  We are greedy as a species and if we weren't, many of the world's ills would be cured and those in the developing world would get more of a chance. 

My father had a saying which we would do well to remember:  "Enough is as good as a feast".

I think there are some  people around who do think like this and to this extent I think we are at a turning point.

Amen.

[Maynardgravy]

3 minutes ago, kzb said:

In the long run, living in space colonies and on other planets will become realistic.

In the longer term we may even find Earth 2.0.

Eventually humans should fill the galaxy.  The eventual resource utilisation by the human race could be truly astronomical, the energy output of the entire Milky Way galaxy.

After that, the Andromeda galaxy will merge with the Milky Way, more than doubling the number of stars available to us.

We struggle to get to the moon. We haven't even been to Mars yet. Planets outside our solar system will take thousands of years to get to unless we invent some radically different form of propulsion. None of this will beat the problems of population growth on Earth.

[kzb]

5 minutes ago, Maynardgravy said:

We struggle to get to the moon. We haven't even been to Mars yet. Planets outside our solar system will take thousands of years to get to unless we invent some radically different form of propulsion. None of this will beat the problems of population growth on Earth.

No it won't solve the population problem.  I am giving a counterpoint to the view that the human race is doomed.

Eventually the Earth will become uninhabitable.  This is predicted to be in something like 500-700 million years, as the sun gets hotter as it ages.  In several billion years, the sun will enter its red giant stage. 

A that point it is game over unless our descendants have developed along the lines I suggested.  We'll be forced into it in the end.

[chronyx]

2 hours ago, Maynardgravy said:

I think a borderless world is a surefire way to destruction. We have areas of the world that are using Europe as an overspill for their own reckless breeding programs often perpetuated by religious beliefs. Population control decisions have to be taken at a national level. Decide what the optimum population of your country will be and enforce it - even if there has to be a gradual decline to get there. 

Trying to control a borderless world will just lead to wars of the like we've never seen before with mass migration waves fighting for resources. We're on the precipice as it is.

Sure, have an international body to help poorer nations to get a grip on population control - I dunno, maybe the UN can do something useful for once. 

'Bit racist mate'

[onlooker]

1 hour ago, Bricks n' mortar said:

Well, considering 25% of uk adults have no savings - i.e. no wealth - doubling it by dint of an exchange rate change doesn't really change things for them.
But also - the figures are PPP - purchasing power parity.  It's based on whatever amount locally would buy the same amount as the $202K would in the US.  So, as our currency got weaker, and we found our imports getting more expensive, I expect we'd have gone down, by that measure. - (happy to be corrected).

A constant annoyance to me about reports is that charts and tables are badly labelled, and this report is one of those. However, AFAICS the figures I quoted were for income, not wealth, though the authors slide effortlessly between discussing both, resulting in a right mix up.

"So, as our currency got weaker, and we found our imports getting more expensive, I expect we'd have gone down, by that measure"

True but then since Jan 2017, the Pound has rebounded (vs the $) so we have become better off in PPP terms, compared to the Global distribution (haven't we?).

 

[Simhadri]

46 minutes ago, chronyx said:

I think a borderless world is a surefire way to destruction. We have areas of the world that are using Europe as an overspill for their own reckless breeding programs often perpetuated by religious beliefs.

Sounds similar to the colonization of other continents by reckless invaders not so long ago.(Native Americans , Native Australians reduced to minority in their own land, South America still being exploited. African natural resources taken for throw away price by bribing the dictators.).

[Democorruptcy]

It's an Era of SoMe Discontent.

The SoMe is Social Media driven. Everybody wants what everybody else has and they are prepared to go into whatever debt it takes to get it. It's not keeping up with the Joneses, it's keeping up with the Royals. Plus the sense of entitlement is off the top of the scale.

[Bricks n' mortar]

2 hours ago, onlooker said:

"So, as our currency got weaker, and we found our imports getting more expensive, I expect we'd have gone down, by that measure"

True but then since Jan 2017, the Pound has rebounded (vs the $) so we have become better off in PPP terms, compared to the Global distribution (haven't we?).

I think I'm on the same page as you.  When I wrote "our currency got weaker",   I was meaning since 2012, which seems to be the date of their figures, even though they didn't publish their report until 2017.

I'm just leaving this point here.  I'll agree the reports are confusing, and we're kinda sidetracking from the thread.

[Maynardgravy]

3 hours ago, kzb said:

No it won't solve the population problem.  I am giving a counterpoint to the view that the human race is doomed.

Eventually the Earth will become uninhabitable.  This is predicted to be in something like 500-700 million years, as the sun gets hotter as it ages.  In several billion years, the sun will enter its red giant stage. 

A that point it is game over unless our descendants have developed along the lines I suggested.  We'll be forced into it in the end.

Fair enough, but looking 500 - 700 million years down the line is a bit optimistic seeing as we are barely 200,000 years into our species and all our leaders appear to be psychopaths. Still, I wonder if house prices would have crashed by then?

3 hours ago, chronyx said:

'Bit racist mate'

I hope you've cleared that plagiarism with TheWig. 

 

[locky82]

What is going on here? You start about ‘the truth’ and suicide on a rampant scale and end with observations about a new flavoured red bull and an orange kit kat, which sounds delicious by the way. So no I don’t think it’s a new era. Companies evolve and release new products. Think if Apple never made the iPod, there would be no iPhone, and everyone would be forced to use android and then suicide on a mass scale may have become a reality.

[leonardratso]

the orange kit kat is lovely, and im not really a choclate fan.

mass suicide is not an option, not with orange kit kats to live for.

Even pows dont commit mass suicide, they hate their jailer so much that they in fact feel the need to keep going for possible future revenge opportunities, or even escape.