(March 30, 2019 at 6:48 pm)Yonadav Wrote:

(March 30, 2019 at 6:04 pm)Smaug Wrote: I get your point although I'm not sure it's correct to compare China and the U.S. head on in this respect. While China is one of the leading economies it still has much larger percentage of poor population with very low quality of life than the U. S. does. India is even poorer. I doubt that hardly anyone from Western world would want to live in Indian suburbs. It's not about excess but about basic commodities to live a healthy live - clear water, good nutrition etc.

In the more distant past the population growth was more limited by epidemics, lack of basic medicine and other such factors influence of which has since been reduced with the help of science and technology.

My point is that most people would naturally like to live longer and safer lives. I doubt that anyone who knows better would enjoy a life of a Medieval peasant where one could rather easily end up dead by catching a flu or having a light wound. But providing high-standard life conditions to ever-growing population would inevitably become a problem even if 95% lives 'eco-friendly' lives. Since 'natural' ways of population control are not an option it's only philosophy, ideology or legislation that is left. I wonder how this can be carried out without plunging into a dictatorial dystopia. Knowing that human societies tend to only learn from great catastrophes it's very interesting how handle all this in a reasonable way.

In a neo-luddite world like I am talking about, people wouldn't be living like medieval peasants. They wouldn't want for any of the necessities of life. They would have plenty of food, modern medicine, and they wouldn't live completely without technology. They would have access to digital libraries. They would have electric lights and refrigeration. And yes, there would be serious potential for it to become a dictatorial dystopia. It would have to be authoritarian. Probably not ruled by a single individual, but probably by a council that has a pretty firm grasp its objectives. They couldn't be elected officials. They would have to be chosen through some type of well regulated meritocracy.

Population can't increase that much from longer lives. If everyone is limited to two children, then there will be a gradual reduction in population once we pass through equilibrium and then deaths start to very slightly outnumber births. Here's an interesting TED lecture about why the population of the earth is unlikely to become greater than 11 billion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI

The thing is, with our current economic ideology being predicated on continuous economic growth, we develop more and more of the undeveloped world. With global warming being an imminent threat, we can't possibly have billions more people living the way that we do. But that's exactly what our economic model is pushing us to do. Since everyone can't live like us, we probably need to live more like them. We live lives that the rest of the world aspires to, but the world can't take that kind of growth in consumerism. But since we do set the standard that others aspire to, then we should live our lives in a way that would be possible for all.

So it basically has to be something like Federation from 'Starship Troopers'. Meritocracy is very problematic though. I can't name a single country that truly had it. I wonder what is a practical way to make this society work.

The Authoritarian regimes have a major problem - they are fundamentally unregulated. Even if we consider that such a society starts off with the best of the best in the ruling class, it's highly possible that in several generations the elites become hedonistic, abusive and generally corrupted to the core.

(March 30, 2019 at 7:19 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I agree.  If we have to force it on people by surprise, it'll be shit.  If we can incrementally establish it...then people will probably find that it's pretty nice.  I've been doing this with my own family and my customers for years.

We live in season, and they get whats in season.  I grow things out of season..and they see that....but I do that for extension research to cover the cost of what I do for their dollars.  There are always a few people who can't get that, and we lose their business every year.  Oh well.

That's pretty freaking cool.

Right?  It's not easy, people get upset.   My field romas failed last year.  It happens.  

I had a whole greenhouse full of them producing like gangbusters...but I couldn't sell them or add them to my shares (because I didn't technically own them).  Sucked, my wife sells shares based on romas, largely.   We'll make less money this year because the weather was shit last year. Subs are down for that and other reasons.

(March 30, 2019 at 7:21 pm)Smaug Wrote:

(March 30, 2019 at 6:48 pm)Yonadav Wrote: In a neo-luddite world like I am talking about, people wouldn't be living like medieval peasants. They wouldn't want for any of the necessities of life. They would have plenty of food, modern medicine, and they wouldn't live completely without technology. They would have access to digital libraries. They would have electric lights and refrigeration. And yes, there would be serious potential for it to become a dictatorial dystopia. It would have to be authoritarian. Probably not ruled by a single individual, but probably by a council that has a pretty firm grasp its objectives. They couldn't be elected officials. They would have to be chosen through some type of well regulated meritocracy.

Population can't increase that much from longer lives. If everyone is limited to two children, then there will be a gradual reduction in population once we pass through equilibrium and then deaths start to very slightly outnumber births. Here's an interesting TED lecture about why the population of the earth is unlikely to become greater than 11 billion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LyzBoHo5EI

The thing is, with our current economic ideology being predicated on continuous economic growth, we develop more and more of the undeveloped world. With global warming being an imminent threat, we can't possibly have billions more people living the way that we do. But that's exactly what our economic model is pushing us to do. Since everyone can't live like us, we probably need to live more like them. We live lives that the rest of the world aspires to, but the world can't take that kind of growth in consumerism. But since we do set the standard that others aspire to, then we should live our lives in a way that would be possible for all.

So it basically has to be something like Federation from 'Starship Troopers'. Meritocracy is very problematic though. I can't name a single country that truly had it. I wonder what is a practical way to make this society work.

The Authoritarian regimes have a major problem - they are fundamentally unregulated. Even if we consider that such a society starts off with the best of the best in the ruling class, it's highly possible that in several generations the elites become hedonistic, abusive and generally corrupted to the core.

Agree that no country has ever had it. China and Russia should have had it. But sadly, they didn't. I think that Gae is probably moving in the right direction. Bottom up might be the way to go. When I lived in Chicago, I saw a lot of people for whom a system like I am talking about would have been a significant step up. I frequently think that they are the people to start with. They are high functioning disabled people who live on SSI. Their living conditions in Chicago are deplorable, since Chicago is fairly expensive. They are living on something like $780 per month in a town where an efficiency apartment costs at least $600 per month. But they can't really leave Chicago because their social workers are based in Chicago, and the only clinics that are available to poor people like them are there. So they are hostages to the social services of the big city that they can't afford to live in.

Their quality of life would be far greater in a little 'green' town in the countryside, built on some low value real estate. Buy a couple of square miles of cheap rural real estate. Grid most of it out for 1/4 acre residential lots. Put well insulated and energy efficient tiny homes on the lots. Use composting toilets instead of septic tanks. Set up a solar powered mini grid. Put a grocery store with no parking lot right in the middle of the little town so that everyone can get pretty much everything that they need right there. Put in a nice modern clinic so that the residents have decent healthcare. Recruit residents from the large cities who are living impoverished lives on disability. High quality of life, affordable, good services, low carbon footprint. A town with three to four thousand residents, no cars, and solar electricity.

It would be a good demo project, because it would allow people to see thousands of the nation's poorest people enjoying a high quality of life that's far healthier for the environment, and largely free of consumerism. And then work on making it better. And encourage the development of other demo towns that are even better. More and more of them. And then they're not just for poor people. People start seeing a lot of sense in it. And it builds until there are enough people living responsibly that others appear to be irresponsible.