4 ms·

Would you rather be poor or face the collapse of global civilization?

Haga 5y ago
Both at current course. Normally humanity would start a war and science it's way out of dilemmas with a economy research blockades removed.
oblio 5y ago
For most people it's: A) be poor now versus B) maybe face the collapse of global civilization in 40 years. They'll chose B) everytime.
- blackoil 5y ago
  Do you have any historical examples of this? As I believe in opposite.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Tragedy of the commons is a thing for a reason. Why do you think that a lot of people want "small government"? The state/government is by definition in those "commons". Regarding examples, they're countless. Think of petty tyrants fighting over the remains of the Byzantine Empire just as about the Ottomans were about to conquer it. Almost every falling empire had this behavior going on, selfish people "getting theirs" just before the fall. It's human nature, unfortunately.
    - mantas 5y ago
      And new regime is usually coming to get rich fast, not fight for a noble goal achievable in 100 years. Even if leaders are naive idealists, usually the masses get behind them for a quick buck. I love evolution of USSR for this reason. First the masses took down Tsarist regime to take property of the rich. Then masses took down Soviet regime to privatise the property. Both events happened because life was shit and people were looking for a quick way to live better.
    - pmiller2 5y ago
      The government isn't really part of "the commons" at all: > "The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all [on what becomes law]." https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem/ https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem/
      - oblio 5y ago
        It is of the commons. That's the problem. If the government were pmiller2's property, nobody could take it over, you'd defend it. But because the government/state is ill-defined and shared, it can be abused and it's much harder to do anything about it. Private property is selfish but efficient and clearly separated from the rest (in general) while public property is altruistic, not that efficient and generally not that well delineated from the rest.
        pmiller2 5y ago
        Our government has more characteristics of private property than the commons, then.
  - mantas 5y ago
    Take a look at any (r)evolution. Pretty much every time people took "get rich soon" over hippy paradise. French revolution, Soviet revolution, Dissolution of USSR, Hitler coming to power... Do you have any arguments to believe in the other option?
mantas 5y ago
Now that's a good fear mongering propaganda :) Destroy the bourgeois or face the eternal hunger and enslavement! Get rid of {insert your preferred ethnicity} or face the downfall of the nation! When in reality it's "be poor now (and likely to face the collapse of global civilisation and ecological crisis is still in roadmap) or maybe your grandkids will face the ecological crisis".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- pmiller2 5y ago
  So, because collapse isn't certain, you'd rather stuff cotton in your ears, cover your eyes and yell "lalalala can't hear you?" BTW, your suggestion that my post in any way represents or resembles a call for ethnic cleansing is in extremely poor taste and bad faith. Stop putting words in my mouth.
  - mantas 5y ago
    Not ethnic cleansing. Just a regular regime that pushes through using emotional calls. The problem is not that collapse isn't certain. The problem is that solution is iffy to say the least. So it's one possibly bad outcome vs another possibly bad outcome. On top of that, one out come may come much faster than the other.
    - pmiller2 5y ago
      There's plenty of good research out there showing that global civilization will collapse before the end of the century given the amount of warming we're on track for. You should read it. However, assuming it is coming, what is the solution? Besides "stop pumping greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere," I just don't see one. And, doing that is going to lower a lot of peoples' standards of living, i.e. make them poor.
      - mantas 5y ago
        I did read it and IMO it's emotionalised bullshit. Few cities may be vacated, few major seaside cities will solve it with expensive technological installations. But it certainly won't be {insert your favourite dystopian movie} style collapse. Solution is "stop pumping greenhouse misions and consuming so much crap shipped all around the world". But developed countries paying off developing countries won't bring us to that solution. The world as a whole has to consume much much less, yesterday. Developed countries can start by bringing manufacturing and agriculture back home. This will increase costs and lower consumption.

Haga 5y ago

Both at current course. Normally humanity would start a war and science it's way out of dilemmas with a economy research blockades removed.

oblio 5y ago

For most people it's: A) be poor now versus B) maybe face the collapse of global civilization in 40 years. They'll chose B) everytime.

blackoil 5y ago
Do you have any historical examples of this? As I believe in opposite.
- oblio 5y ago
  Tragedy of the commons is a thing for a reason. Why do you think that a lot of people want "small government"? The state/government is by definition in those "commons". Regarding examples, they're countless. Think of petty tyrants fighting over the remains of the Byzantine Empire just as about the Ottomans were about to conquer it. Almost every falling empire had this behavior going on, selfish people "getting theirs" just before the fall. It's human nature, unfortunately.
  - mantas 5y ago
    And new regime is usually coming to get rich fast, not fight for a noble goal achievable in 100 years. Even if leaders are naive idealists, usually the masses get behind them for a quick buck. I love evolution of USSR for this reason. First the masses took down Tsarist regime to take property of the rich. Then masses took down Soviet regime to privatise the property. Both events happened because life was shit and people were looking for a quick way to live better.
  - pmiller2 5y ago
    The government isn't really part of "the commons" at all: > "The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all [on what becomes law]." https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem/ https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem/
    - oblio 5y ago
      It is of the commons. That's the problem. If the government were pmiller2's property, nobody could take it over, you'd defend it. But because the government/state is ill-defined and shared, it can be abused and it's much harder to do anything about it. Private property is selfish but efficient and clearly separated from the rest (in general) while public property is altruistic, not that efficient and generally not that well delineated from the rest.
      - pmiller2 5y ago
        Our government has more characteristics of private property than the commons, then.
- mantas 5y ago
  Take a look at any (r)evolution. Pretty much every time people took "get rich soon" over hippy paradise. French revolution, Soviet revolution, Dissolution of USSR, Hitler coming to power... Do you have any arguments to believe in the other option?

mantas 5y ago

Now that's a good fear mongering propaganda :) Destroy the bourgeois or face the eternal hunger and enslavement! Get rid of {insert your preferred ethnicity} or face the downfall of the nation! When in reality it's "be poor now (and likely to face the collapse of global civilisation and ecological crisis is still in roadmap) or maybe your grandkids will face the ecological crisis".

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pmiller2 5y ago
So, because collapse isn't certain, you'd rather stuff cotton in your ears, cover your eyes and yell "lalalala can't hear you?" BTW, your suggestion that my post in any way represents or resembles a call for ethnic cleansing is in extremely poor taste and bad faith. Stop putting words in my mouth.
- mantas 5y ago
  Not ethnic cleansing. Just a regular regime that pushes through using emotional calls. The problem is not that collapse isn't certain. The problem is that solution is iffy to say the least. So it's one possibly bad outcome vs another possibly bad outcome. On top of that, one out come may come much faster than the other.
  - pmiller2 5y ago
    There's plenty of good research out there showing that global civilization will collapse before the end of the century given the amount of warming we're on track for. You should read it. However, assuming it is coming, what is the solution? Besides "stop pumping greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere," I just don't see one. And, doing that is going to lower a lot of peoples' standards of living, i.e. make them poor.
    - mantas 5y ago
      I did read it and IMO it's emotionalised bullshit. Few cities may be vacated, few major seaside cities will solve it with expensive technological installations. But it certainly won't be {insert your favourite dystopian movie} style collapse. Solution is "stop pumping greenhouse misions and consuming so much crap shipped all around the world". But developed countries paying off developing countries won't bring us to that solution. The world as a whole has to consume much much less, yesterday. Developed countries can start by bringing manufacturing and agriculture back home. This will increase costs and lower consumption.