Pages:
Author

Topic: Economic Devastation - page 20. (Read 504813 times)

hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
July 21, 2016, 03:39:39 AM
We ceased living as a part of nature and began to dominate it.


And it the process we destroy nature, and all our enviroment. Human domination of this planet is really like every monopoly, humans become arrogant and think they are better, and then comes some natural disaster and then everyone starts crying.

Humans cant know their limits, which is both a gift and a curse.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
July 20, 2016, 09:31:30 PM
Religion is just an excuse to do or dont do things.

Better give it up and think rationally.

I would argue that, by the definition of religion quoted above, since you are not (on the evidence of your post) sessile, you are manifesting a religion.


Illogical. You cannot say that rational thinking is irrational, or that non-religious thinking is a religion.

If you find the consequences of the quoted definition to be absurd, perhaps you should clarify and/or adapt the definition, lest the dissonance overwhelm.

Rational thinking can be irrational, if it is applied outside of its domain.  More importantly, arational and irrational are distinct concepts.  An irrational line of thought is inconsistent with a valid rational line of thought.  In contrast, an arational line of thought is orthogonal to the variational dimensions of reason.  

For that matter, without clarification regarding the criteria of rationality, there will inevitably be possible inconsistent models of rationality.  The postivist cum formalist paradigm is typically treated as the ideal and asymptote of rationality, but there are uncountably many logics, and what is rational in one model may be irrational or arational in another.  
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 20, 2016, 09:26:45 PM
Interesting, but non-civilization had also it's benefits, humans, although had to fight hard to survive, lived a much free-er life than in society with many people all with their crazy ideas trying to force them on one another.

When Earth's population was under 100,000 it was literally paradise on Earth.

If it was not, then how the hell can the idiot marxists believe that they will create paradise with 7-8 billion violent people, if the 100,000 people were not able too?

To find a time when humanity was in harmony aka in equilibrium with nature you have to go back at least 70,000 years ago. Humanity appears to have been on the verge of extinction at that time.

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/
Quote
According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.

It is the survivors of this near extinction who appear to have made some form of fundamental technological, social or evolutionary leap that allowed humanity to break the prior constraints which had kept its population small and limited to Africa.

http://blog.23andme.com/news/the-first-population-explosion-human-numbers-expanded-dramatically-millennia-before-agriculture/
Quote
The authors found genetic evidence for a surge in human population size about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. This period, just after humans first set foot outside Africa, is of great interest to archaeologists because it coincides with a dramatic increase in the sophistication of human behavior. People began crafting tools from bone, burying their dead and fashioning clothing to keep themselves warm in cool climates. They developed complex hunting techniques, and created great works of art in the form of cave paintings and jewelery.

The archaeological record also shows that during this time, humans began hunting more dangerous prey and more easily exploiting small game like rabbits and birds. They traveled farther than they had before, perhaps due to the growth of long-distance trade routes – the first of their kind. Jared Diamond, author of The Third Chimpanzee, calls this period “The Great Leap Forward,” when humans burst forth culturally – finally separating themselves from their evolutionary cousins.

The exact cause for these changes in human behavior may never be known. Some believe a simple genetic mutation or that the evolution of language could have sparked such a dramatic change. But what we do know now, thanks to this new genetic research, is that like the (much later) invention of agriculture this explosion of innovation was accompanied by population growth.

In the Biblical story of Adam and Eve Our ancestors are warned not to eat of the fruit of the “Etz Hadaath,” the “Tree of Knowledge” for as long as They did not eat of it, they were like angels who do only good. The fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge,” however, changed this.

People interpret this story in different ways but I tend to view it as instructive parable. A primitive species in a natural competitive equilibrium can be thought of as living in a garden. Breaching this equilibrium requires knowledge. Sometime around 70,000 years ago our ancient ancestors acquired the knowledge needed to explosively overcome the constraints that had previously kept our numbers and progress in check. We ceased living as a part of nature and began to dominate it.

This breakthrough led to the spread of humanity throughout the world and possibly made inevitable the later agricultural revolution. Having broken our natural constraints we are now compelled to continue our relentless climb up the tree of knowledge until we grow knowledgable enough to voluntarily establish new ones for ourselves.
legendary
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
July 20, 2016, 05:19:23 PM
Religion gives clarity to some people in their thinking, it can give perspective and understanding of others situations and a wider view of what is an influence in others as well as yourself.   It can easily be viewed as fairy tales and obstructive, even destructive with current events it is constantly repeated as a reason for violence but I think its generally more a phenomena towards understanding not hatred or ignorance

My take is that all religions are built around a cataclysmic event that wiped out most of humanity - the Great Flood. This was not a fable or myth but an actual full scale event, and the advent of religion was a construct of survivors attempting to explain why it happened - see Plato writing that Atlantis was destroyed because the people had become materialistic etc etc. Of course the tale survives as myth as the most reliable way to pass down memory of such events was through story.

Now however, religion is used for a different purpose, as you mention above.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
July 20, 2016, 04:23:42 PM
Religion is just an excuse to do or dont do things.

Better give it up and think rationally.

I would argue that, by the definition of religion quoted above, since you are not (on the evidence of your post) sessile, you are manifesting a religion.


Illogical. You cannot say that rational thinking is irrational, or that non-religious thinking is a religion.


Civilizations that equated gods with nature—a characteristic of all primitive societies—or that worshipped nature did not evolve.


Interesting, but non-civilization had also it's benefits, humans, although had to fight hard to survive, lived a much free-er life than in society with many people all with their crazy ideas trying to force them on one another.

When Earth's population was under 100,000 it was literally paradise on Earth.

If it was not, then how the hell can the idiot marxists believe that they will create paradise with 7-8 billion violent people, if the 100,000 people were not able too?
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 18, 2016, 10:26:04 PM

Religion gives clarity to some people in their thinking, it can give perspective and understanding of others situations and a wider view of what is an influence in others as well as yourself...

I would go far beyond that and argue that ethical monotheism is the single greatest contributor to human progress from any source since human culture emerged from the stone ages. This force which emerged first in Judaism and and spread throughout the world via the mediums of Christianity and Islam continues to shape human destiny even in a time when much of the world foolishly rejects it as irrelevant.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/mono.html
Quote from: Dennis Prager
Nature is amoral. Nature knows nothing of good and evil. In nature there is one rule—survival of the fittest. There is no right, only might. If a creature is weak, kill it. Only human beings could have moral rules such as, "If it is weak, protect it." Only human beings can feel themselves ethically obligated to strangers.
...
Nature allows you to act naturally, i.e., do only what you want you to do, without moral restraints; God does not. Nature lets you act naturally - and it is as natural to kill, rape, and enslave as it is to love.
...
One of the vital elements in the ethical monotheist revolution was its repudiation of nature as god. The evolution of civilization and morality have depended in large part on desanctifying nature.
...
Civilizations that equated gods with nature—a characteristic of all primitive societies—or that worshipped nature did not evolve.
...
Words cannot convey the magnitude of the change wrought by the Bible's introduction into the world of a God who rules the universe morally.
...
ethical monotheism suggests more than that God demands ethical behavior; it means that Gods primary demand is ethical behavior. It means that God cares about how we treat one another more than He cares about anything else.

Thus, ethical monotheism's message remains as. radical today as when it was first promulgated. The secular world has looked elsewhere for its values, while even many religious Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe that Gods primary demand is something other than ethics.
STT
legendary
Activity: 4102
Merit: 1454
July 18, 2016, 07:16:54 PM
Religion gives clarity to some people in their thinking, it can give perspective and understanding of others situations and a wider view of what is an influence in others as well as yourself.   It can easily be viewed as fairy tales and obstructive, even destructive with current events it is constantly repeated as a reason for violence but I think its generally more a phenomena towards understanding not hatred or ignorance
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
July 18, 2016, 01:55:58 PM
Religion is just an excuse to do or dont do things.

Better give it up and think rationally.

I would argue that, by the definition of religion quoted above, since you are not (on the evidence of your post) sessile, you are manifesting a religion.

legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 18, 2016, 01:23:19 PM
Just an answer for the unknown and revolves around the sun mostly...

"All the powers in the universe are already ours. It is we who have put our hands before our eyes and cry that it is dark." - Swami Vivekananda

Modern society is a mechanism for inculcating bad habits, especially the habit of seeking instant pleasure, intoxications and distractions; a habit of regarding ourselves as passive recipients for ‘entertainment’. A devout life is not so much about a flash of understanding but is mostly a matter of using insights into truth in building-up good habits; and this can be influenced by our will. A devout life enables one to build these habits and most importantly successfully pass them on to our children.

Quote from:  Terryl and Fiona Givens
Whatever sense we make of this world, whatever value we place upon our lives and relationships, whatever meaning we ultimately give to our joys and agonies, must necessarily be a gesture of faith. Whether we consider the whole a product of impersonal cosmic forces, a malevolent deity, or a benevolent god, depends not on the evidence, but on what we choose, deliberately and consciously to conclude from that evidence… If we decide to leave the questions unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer that too is a choice: but whatever choice we make, we make it at our peril.

What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.
legendary
Activity: 2044
Merit: 1005
July 18, 2016, 02:31:06 AM
That is fooling yourself, how can you be happy when the influence of your happines is only to fool yourself with magic sky deities?
...

Religion is just an excuse to do or dont do things.

Better give it up and think rationally.

Your tone tells me that you have either not put sufficient thought into this issue or are too young to have examined its deeper philosophical underpinnings.

Rational thinking honestly applied and taken to its conclusion dictates the embrace of religion.
However, it is intellectually far easier to dismiss the issue entirely.

Regardless, this thread is not the place for a debate on religion. I have outlined the logic elsewhere for those interested in reading it and will leave you the last word.
Just an answer for the unknown and revolves around the sun mostly. Its kinda like how gold is cherished because of its sun like appearance.. seems we are tuned into cherishing anything related.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 18, 2016, 12:52:49 AM
That is fooling yourself, how can you be happy when the influence of your happines is only to fool yourself with magic sky deities?
...

Religion is just an excuse to do or dont do things.

Better give it up and think rationally.

Your tone tells me that you have either not put sufficient thought into this issue or are too young to have examined its deeper philosophical underpinnings.

Rational thinking honestly applied and taken to its conclusion dictates the embrace of religion.
However, it is intellectually far easier to dismiss the issue entirely.

Regardless, this thread is not the place for a debate on religion. I have outlined the logic elsewhere for those interested in reading it and will leave you the last word.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
July 18, 2016, 12:26:48 AM

In the Health and Religion thread I looked at the data on correlations between happiness and religion. Most of the benefit is associated with the highly religious. Being nominally or moderately religious had little benefit.
That is fooling yourself, how can you be happy when the influence of your happines is only to fool yourself with magic sky deities?


Praying for divine intervention to passively "make your life better" without activally changing anything is an obvious recipe for failure. Praying for improved self discipline to affect change or for insight into how to change is far more likely to be beneficial.
That is like taking painkillers for cancer. It doesnt solve the problem, but it makes them feel good.



Religion is just an excuse to do or dont do things.

Better give it up and think rationally.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 18, 2016, 12:22:13 AM
I argued that faith provides the best chance of success on this front.

C'mon faith and religion can be both bad and good.

I know personally a dozen people that pray everyday to Jesus to make their lives better, but never really do anything about it, only drink alcohol.

It's only thing to have positive attitude, and have this sort of religious support on your shoulders, but it's another thing to really fix your life independently even if you are in a bad situation.

In the Health and Religion thread I looked at the data on correlations between happiness and religion. Most of the benefit is associated with the highly religious. Being nominally or moderately religious had little benefit.

Praying for divine intervention to passively "make your life better" without actively changing anything is an obvious recipe for failure. Praying for improved self discipline to affect change or for insight into how to change is far more likely to be beneficial.

For the devout and observent religious individual the odds of ending up in a situation where it becomes necessary to "fix your life" is probably much lower.  

hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
July 17, 2016, 11:01:50 PM
I argued that faith provides the best chance of success on this front.

C'mon faith and religion can be both bad and good.

I know personally a dozen people that pray everyday to Jesus to make their lives better, but never really do anything about it, only drink alcohol.

It's only thing to have positive attitude, and have this sort of religious support on your shoulders, but it's another thing to really fix your life independently even if you are in a bad situation.
legendary
Activity: 1946
Merit: 1055
July 15, 2016, 02:33:59 PM
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
July 14, 2016, 03:03:13 PM
I think you are just misdirecting your intellect, which seems above average, on a wild-goose chase.
Power distributions are a fact of nature, whichever system you will build, if it is valuable to humans, power over it will be unfairly distributed. If it isn't, that just means there is a power vacuum waiting to be claimed by someone with the means to.
But I suspect you know this already and you might be on some high level trolling or something.

Bottom-up organization is also an aspect of nature, because if it was not then it would require that a top-down omniscience was possible, which is impossible because it would require an non-finite speed-of-light, which would collapse the future and the past into nothingness (read two pages of my posts following the linked one in order to capture my complete reasoning).

There are systems in nature which have successfully resisted top-down organization thus are not power vacuums, e.g. sexual reproduction. Their key trait is that they can't be top-down organized, because they have a local, real-time environment relevance that can't be managed nor captured by the top-down organizer. This was essentially the key fundamental insight of my famous essay about the Rise of Knowledge being that individually empowered (by the Internet) knowledge creation is individually serendipitous and accretive, not capable of being captured by top-down finance:

Economic Devastation

You will probably need a week or two of studying the thread slowly.

I will be the first to admit I needed a week to fully absorb the following works of AnonyMint.

The Rise of Knowledge
Understand Everything Fundamentally

Together these are quite simply the most insightful piece of economic theory I have ever read.

If the author is right and I think he is we are all in the midst of a tragedy of epic proportions.  It is sad unstoppable and will devastate the lives of much of humanity.

Edit:
This thread is now over 100 pages and too long to realistically expect a reader to cover from start to finish. There have been multiple requests for a roadmap or guide. In response to the latest request I wrote the following roadmap.

...

Satoshi's design was an attempt to create such a permissionless, trustless system, that unlike fiat and democracy, would not be captured by any top-down oligarchy. Unfortunately his design is a power vacuum that fails to power distribution of control (e.g. Bitcoin = ChinaCoin) due to economies-of-scale in profitable proof-of-work mining.

I have conceived of a design for unprofitable proof-of-work mining which I believe has the necessary trait to not be a power vacuum.

Note that even phenomena which are not currently a power vacuum, can later become one. CoinCube has been arguing that human reproduction is soon to come under the control of the State or Corporations due to advances in technology for reproduction such as In Vitro Fertilization and other factors. I don't completely recall his reasoning off the top of my head.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
July 13, 2016, 10:10:31 PM
Economic devastation will only occur if there is a world war or a major natural disasters that will affect the entire world. The recent reports that have occured about brexit and other conflicts that have uproared are not worldwide event. So theres no need to panic the present events in our world could affect selected economic commodities but will not place a major disaster on the economy.

What about the 1,600,000,000,000,000 $ derivatives?
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
July 13, 2016, 09:38:09 PM
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1009
JAYCE DESIGNS - http://bit.ly/1tmgIwK
July 13, 2016, 09:14:17 PM

Well theres voyager out there somewhere, space is so vast its like letting go of a helium balloon I guess or even more so really since earth is contained

Yea and the fucking probe they sent off with the coordinates of Earth relative to the milkyway and the local galaxies. And a golden disk that had human songs on it.

It's just fucking crazy how wreckless they are. Those objects emit EM waves, and aliens with good sensors can pick it up, and find us.

And when they come we will be peeing in our pants.



Quote

You might be right there, if we've developed then so will they have with millions of years I guess thats reasonable.  Any stable eco situation out there will have matured into a full range of species.    If we find them first, dont we have the advantage and likely to be superior

Yes the only advanced species that can survive that long are either:
-Predatory/Militaristic expansionist (expanding fast, and collecting resources from other worlds)
- Mechanical /AI based expansionist

In which case we are fucked if we meet them. Those idiot astro scientists think that all alien advanced alien civilizations are peaceful and utopic.

Well they might be proven wrong, but then it will be too late.
STT
legendary
Activity: 4102
Merit: 1454
July 13, 2016, 08:12:11 PM
Im not sure why people are so certain of AI when its so limited currently, all the intelligence lies with the originators of the program and while computers have advanced greatly in speed Ive not noticed anything special occuring in their ability for self development.
Im more optimistic near term for a leap forward via bio technology in algae, some kind of natural but human determined development branch like diesel producing algae.
Economically that changes many things

Quote
So that is why I believe the SETI project is an existential threat, and we should not search for aliens, because what we shall find will be very very ugly.

Well theres voyager out there somewhere, space is so vast its like letting go of a helium balloon I guess or even more so really since earth is contained

Quote
There wont be remnants left in space  just by themselves, you wont find some algae under a rock on Mars. You either find an entire alien civilization, or none of them. There is no middle ground.

You might be right there, if we've developed then so will they have with millions of years I guess thats reasonable.  Any stable eco situation out there will have matured into a full range of species.    If we find them first, dont we have the advantage and likely to be superior
Pages:
Jump to: