It is currently Fri Sep 19, 2014 4:36 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Wealth Distribution of US
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:07 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
Quote:
The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2001, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 33.4% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 51%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%, leaving only 16% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth, the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 39.7%.


I was just a bit surprised by this.

Note: I'm not for redistributing wealth via taxes and gov programs. I'm not calling for socialistic policies, and do not agree with the leftist views of the source. But the data looks accurate :)

EDIT: good ---> accurate


Last edited by Trip on Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wealth Distribution of US
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 10:32 am
Posts: 740
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Trip wrote:
...the data looks good :)

Does that mean you like the distribution or that you think the information is reliable?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:46 pm
Posts: 58
Location: Seattle, Washington
I'll like that distribution when I've broken into that top 1 percent. Anybody have any inside information on stocks?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 11:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
I think some may go up, while others will fall.

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 5085
Location: UK
Quote:
which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 84%


This is not an unusual distribution of wealth; it is the so-called "Pareto distribution":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/80-20_rule

Quote:
The principle was suggested by management thinker Joseph M. Juran. It was named after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed that 80% of income in Italy was received by 20% of the Italian population.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

Quote:
The Pareto distribution, named after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, is a power law probability distribution found in a large number of real-world situations. Outside the field of economics it is at times referred to as the Bradford distribution.

Pareto originally used this distribution to describe the allocation of wealth among individuals since it seemed to show rather well the way that a larger portion of the wealth of any society is owned by a smaller percentage of the people in that society. This idea is sometimes expressed more simply as the Pareto principle or the "80-20 rule" which says that 20% of the population owns 80% of the wealth.


In general, even in the more socialist countries in Europe, a tiny minority holds most of the wealth, while the vast majority are either poor or have little capital. (cf. "the rich get richer..." etc)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 4:36 am
Posts: 497
Location: Linköping, Sweden
qviri wrote:
I think some may go up, while others will fall.
:lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Wealth Distribution of US
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:32 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
alleycat wrote:
Trip wrote:
...the data looks good :)

Does that mean you like the distribution or that you think the information is reliable?
I think the information is reliable. I believe I prefer a more equal distribution, but I'm not certain anymore :) I definately prefer the break up of monopolies, reduction of foreign workers, trade protectionism, protection of small businesses and family farms (esp reduction of inheritance tax that is breaking them up). Past that I'm not sure.

Jaganath I've read some stuff by Pareto, brilliant Machiavellian, but I don't recall seeing the Pareto Distribution. Interesting stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:14 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Posts: 867
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Candor wrote:
I'll like that distribution when I've broken into that top 1 percent. Anybody have any inside information on stocks?

Other than Warren Buffett, who made his money investing and turning companies around, all the richest men in the world make their money by starting a business that does something better than anyone else does it, or that provides a service no one else previously provided. Money is made in a capitalist society by means of making the world a better place, essentially. Take away capitalism and there's no motivation to ever improve anything because there's no money in it.

_________________
Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 6:25 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
I wouldn't say there'd be no motivation but far less.

Warren Buffet worked his life for money and then gave most of it away to the Gates foundation. I wouldn't say he was motivated by money so much as just doing something incredible. However, it's important that it was his choice to do so and his to give away. A scientist who is caught up in his work might pursue his research for the hell of it at near poverty. Or the head of a nonprofit might pursue what is best for his institution without considering money.

I think what people really want is power, vices, and to pursue what they love or what is best for what they love (family, nation, ideology, religion, ideal, land, etc.)

Under whatever system though morality and a uniting national myth seem to be vital. Also, a balance of power and some degree of upward mobility (which capitalism seems to provide)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:46 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Posts: 867
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Well if you break it down, the overwhelming majority of people are selfish, period. Name anything that you consider "wrong" and it almost always points back to selfishness. Hoarding money is an act of selfishness. Desiring fame or power is selfish. Walking past someone on the street who just dropped their things and not helping them is an act of selfishness.

What capitalism and democracy do is try to harness that selfishness and put a requirement on it that in order for you to gain your selfish ends, you have to provide value to someone else. You want money? Fine, get a job and provide work output and you'll be paid. Maybe you're in sales; if you want to be a famous and rich sales person, you'll need to treat people well and be helpful to them in order to get the most sales and make money. You want power through elected office? Many get there by lying, but it helps if you actually have an agenda that reflects what your constituants want and you actually stick to it - providing a public service lets you attain and retain your position of power.

It's an imperfect system, sure. The biggest risk of course is liars. People who say one thing in order to gain your trust, money, votes, etc and then do another. Of course, people aren't totally stupid and if you keep screwing people over they won't trust you anymore. Look at the many high tech vendors that have made high promises then failed to keep them and lost customers because of their broken promises. We've seen that happen even right here on SPCR.

Unless your full population is driven by moral reasons to do what they do, the current system will prevail. That's probably why democracy and capitalism have been so successful. It's a system that seems to work well both for devout Christians as well as ardant athiests. Since we're making zero progress in changing the thoughts in peoples' heads, we may as well continue to work to refine our governments that allow both to peacefully prosper.

_________________
Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 5085
Location: UK
Quote:
Money is made in a capitalist society by means of making the world a better place, essentially.


This is a very naive viewpoint, if you don't mind me saying so. Money is also made in a capitalist society by cutting down the rainforests, overfishing the oceans, from gambling, prostitution, selling drugs etc. Also I'm sure the obscene profits made by investment banks are filling the coffers of champagne merchants and Porsche dealerships, but I fail to see how this is "making the world a better place". For the few perhaps, but not the many.

Quote:
some degree of upward mobility (which capitalism seems to provide)


The key word there is "some". Social mobility has declined in both the US and the UK over the last 20 years.

Quote:
Hoarding money is an act of selfishness.


Not necessarily. You need people who have accumulated capital ("hoarded money") in order to invest in new companies, start-ups, infrastructure projects, etc; the condemnation of the "avaricious miser" seems more based in biblical scripture than rational economic thought.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 8:59 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
You've also got corruption with big business and special interest buying politicians who in turn do them favours as well.

Education is vital for upward mobility in our system, so perhaps online schools will continue to improve and weaken this barrier.

It's natural for parents to want the best for their children though. Those who can afford it will probably always get better training.

I was reading just this morning an article that the masses of third world states who have fallen behind the rest of the world are becoming jealous of the wealth gap thinking they've been exploited in the global economy. That's a new facet of globalism I hadn't considered, not that I was ever for it. Just as in Iraq even if we're doing some good, locals are going to tend to blame the foreign occupiers for problems, not that I was ever in favor of the Iraq war either.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:14 am 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2002 7:11 pm
Posts: 7369
Location: Maynard, MA, Eaarth
Hello,

I agree with what President Abraham Lincoln said on this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln

_________________
Sincerely, Neil
http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:31 am 
Offline
SPCR Reviewer

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:23 am
Posts: 1845
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
AZBrandon wrote:
Well if you break it down, the overwhelming majority of people are selfish, period.


Not selfish. Self-interested, meaning they will take care of their own needs before the needs of others. Once those needs are met, though, people need to find something to devote themselves to, and that is not always a selfish end.

Yes, the vast majority of "wrong" acts can be traced to acts of selfishness, particularly those that are done without regard to the well-being of others. However, that doesn't mean there are no selfless acts out there — many of which we consider "right".

I'll concede that capitalism does indeed harness self-interest very well, and turns individual self-interest into social benefits. However, it goes wrong when it says that self-interest is all there is. Once personal needs are met, self-interest stops, and our acts can be either selfish or selfless.

Capitaism goes wrong when it says that we should pursue selfish interests once self-interest is taken care of. By teaching that there is nothing beyond self-interest, it blinds us to the times when we are hurting others through our selfishness. We are taught that there is no alternative to selfishness, therefore we keep going when we actually have a choice to stop. We are taught to be Scrooges, telling ourselves that all we need to do is keep being selfish, and the ancillary benefits will help the less fortunate. "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

This attitude relies on the selflessness of others to help those in need — even supposing prisons and workhouses are a good solution, someone has to take the initiative to create and run them — regardless of whether there is profit in it. And, since capitalism tells us there is no such thing as selflessness, it must rely on those with a less capitalist mindset to do good for others.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 10:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 10:32 am
Posts: 740
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Nicely said, Devon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:48 pm
Posts: 21
Is fulfilling a want considered selfish?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:46 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
Libertarians and "anarchocapitalists" also assume we're individuals when we're not, as do many others on the left. We're members of families, communities, nations, religions, etc. We will act for others when we love others. This is one problem I have with the transient nature of modern societies: people move too quickly and communities change too quickly for attachments to be made and kept. I don't buy into the notion that many will come to love the world and all of humanity equally as a whole. We love particulars. That, to me, seems to be the essence of the left-right divide. Well that and that we're not equal individuals either but members of differing groups. I'm also open to a society of classes if there is mobility among them, though I don't understand classes well.

It's interesting the great lengths Plato goes to to ensure his Guardian elite is moral. They aren't allowed to listen but to two types of music and are to read only certain stories (I would add to that only certain stories of fiction - the truth should be revealed eventually I believe after the ideal is expressed and imitated). They aren't allowed too much corrupting and softening luxury. They are brought up to be both moral and fearless. They are the best from the nation as a whole.

Machiavelli stated that luxury leads to factions and self interest if I remember correctly. Pareto added that only the elite matters, it must remain strong and uncorrupted. That and the decline of religion which underlies the morality of a state and unifies it are the two causes of a state's decline according to Machiavelli and Burnham as well if I remember correctly. So in our society where the elite tends to be wealthy and religion is faltering, I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise they don't have our best interests at heart.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:22 pm 
Offline
SPCR Reviewer

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:23 am
Posts: 1845
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
crypto wrote:
Is fulfilling a want considered selfish?


Doesn't it depend on the want? "I want to make other people feel good" is very different from "I want to destroy anyone who doesn't acknowledge me as the supreme being".

I think it comes down to intention, not the specific acts or desires. There can be selfish acts that help society as a whole, and selfless acts that are harmful. However, on the whole, I would agree with the generalization that selfless acts are more likely to be helpful to society on the whole than selfish acts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Tragedy of the Commons
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:55 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
A libertarian might argue that selfish acts are good as long as no one cheats. You can create what you want and drive the economy by providing a needed service to the economy. I also hear them argue that the planet can take some global warming: wheat was once grown in Greenland (planet changes temperature naturally and should be able to take what we throw at it as well - not that I agree).

Tragedy of the Commons - search for the emboldened "Tragedy of Freedom in a Commons" in that article if you get tired of reading the beginning, but the entire article in incredible. Basically, a population won't voluntarily pursue the common good over its own. Those who do will be at a disadvantage to those who don't. Also, the concentration of people in our societies and planet as a whole demand changes to our tried and true laws.

It's easy to criticise something, but it's tough to offer up an alternative. A lot of mistakes seem to stem not just from self interest but also from misdirected philanthropy. The same article explains how feeding the starving leads, obviously, to greater overpopulation.

I don't like the conclusion, but I can't think of a rebuttal. EDIT: well, if each state minds its own affairs and doesn't help other states, or helps by resolving causes and not symptoms, then each will have a motive to correct its own problems. Enlightened self interest in a sense, but selfishness is not absolutely good. And... if continued down to lower levels could allow freedom of reproduction down to perhaps even the family unit (full freedom) or just a smaller unit than the state (or a smaller state) that controls population itself. Actions can be taken against states whose pollution affects others. I don't debate often so an article like this can easily throw me off balance.

EDIT: replies to Tragedy of Commons - it's a famous article.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:56 am 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Posts: 867
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Devonavar wrote:
Capitaism goes wrong when it says that we should pursue selfish interests once self-interest is taken care of. By teaching that there is nothing beyond self-interest, it blinds us to the times when we are hurting others through our selfishness. We are taught that there is no alternative to selfishness, therefore we keep going when we actually have a choice to stop. We are taught to be Scrooges, telling ourselves that all we need to do is keep being selfish, and the ancillary benefits will help the less fortunate. "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?"

This attitude relies on the selflessness of others to help those in need — even supposing prisons and workhouses are a good solution, someone has to take the initiative to create and run them — regardless of whether there is profit in it. And, since capitalism tells us there is no such thing as selflessness, it must rely on those with a less capitalist mindset to do good for others.

Indeed, I should have clarified that capitalism works best among those who feel a calling to a higher moral authority, since then the society is filled with people who feel compelled to help others based on their religious teachings. The alternative to selfishness is selflessness, giving at least 10% to charity, and going to heaven after death.

_________________
Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 5085
Location: UK
Quote:
AZBrandon@capitalism works best among those who feel a calling to a higher moral authority, since then the society is filled with people who feel compelled to help others based on their religious teachings.


Religious teachings? The biggest philanthropists of our time (Bill Gates, George Soros) are confirmed atheists; this is not to say that religious people do not do good work to help the sick and the needy etc, but you don't need to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or various Judaeo-Christo-Islamic variants thereof) to feel like helping your fellow man.

Quote:
Trip@So in our society where the elite tends to be wealthy and religion is faltering, I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise they don't have our best interests at heart.


Of course the elite doesn't have your or my best interests at heart, the only thing the elite is interested in is preserving its hold on wealth, power and influence (much like a corrupt dictator).

Quote:
Trip@I also hear them argue that the planet can take some global warming: wheat was once grown in Greenland (planet changes temperature naturally and should be able to take what we throw at it as well - not that I agree).


The planet Earth can take all we can throw at it and then some; it will still be here in 5 billion years time when the Sun reaches out and swallows it like a half-digested meatball; the really important question is how can we keep the Earth habitable for the 6 billion people who currently inhabit it, and no doubt the many billions more in the future. Wheat was grown in Greenland in medieval times, but the world's population then was a tiny, tiny fraction of what it is now (so not as many people to get displaced by rising sea levels etc).

Quote:
Trip@The same article explains how feeding the starving leads, obviously, to greater overpopulation.


This is an oversimplification, if not actually wrong. If you assume that population is positively correlated to food supply, then this is correct, but population does not correlate strongly with food supply; some nations with exceedingly abundant food supply (Italy, Japan, Russia) actually have declining populations; what causes the very high fertility rate in sub-Saharan Africa is poor education, high infant mortality and poverty. As countries become richer, the fertility rate drops to the at or below replacement rate which is prevalent in the developed world (the so-called "Demographic Transition"). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_Transition


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:36 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
Quote:
This is an oversimplification, if not actually wrong. If you assume that population is positively correlated to food supply, then this is correct, but population does not correlate strongly with food supply; some nations with exceedingly abundant food supply (Italy, Japan, Russia) actually have declining populations; what causes the very high fertility rate in sub-Saharan Africa is poor education, high infant mortality and poverty. As countries become richer, the fertility rate drops to the at or below replacement rate which is prevalent in the developed world (the so-called "Demographic Transition").


Different groups are going to reproduce at different rates. However, I have heard that even groups in the US that would be expected to reproduce more have reduced their rates albeit not down to the lowest rates. That said, the article I posted argues that the Demographic transition is only temporary. Read the article; it's famous and not right wing ideological bs: the guy is a progressive I believe.

The present solution to overpopulation seems to be slaughtering babies (abortion). Also, people get caught up with their careers, projects, standards of living, etc. However even if this continues, those who abuse the commons will replace those who do not. Eventually population growth will surge back upwards. Whether due to culture or due to genetics, those with the tendency to breed more will replace those who tend to not (incl those who breed more but abort their babies).

Some degree of racial differences can enter the discussion here, but it's not entirely necessary to break that taboo. Even in a homogenous society such as Japan (98.5% Japanese I believe though importing foreigners up to 3% of their population and probably more afterwards), those individuals who are favoured will replace those who are less favoured. And the welfare state or charity will support any babies who cannot be supported by their parents and relatives. So in summary, those who have many babies replace those who have fewer.

An interesting extension of this is if the government pays to correct genetic illnesses (symptom not cause - and I dread correcting the cause with science but such meddling is probably inevitable), having a genetic illness will not be or will be less of a hindrance on reproduction. As a result, more will inherit genetic diseases.

Quote:
Of course the elite doesn't have your or my best interests at heart, the only thing the elite is interested in is preserving its hold on wealth, power and influence (much like a corrupt dictator).
What you say of the elite is true according to the Machiavellians. I'd like to think they need to help their nation as a part of their justification to themselves though. Also, I want them to become attached to their nations. I'm not an expert on that school of thought, and in writing the following response I ran into some issues I haven't resolved. The entire elite isn't going to be power hungry, but most of it will though not conscious of it.

Ideally they should have some sense of duty to their people. If feeding the poor is wrong as has been argued, perhaps they could be neutered and then fed? - awful suggestion I know, then the elite should desire to help their people in some other manner. An entirely selfless elite is probably too much to ask for, but a local foundation has done a great deal with what it has. For this area, it's a part of the elite. Its driving force is probably attachment to the area and a justification to themselves for their power. However, the foundation wasn't created intentionally but as the result of two nonprofit hospitals selling (having to sell really - competition was too fierce though the playing field wasn't level) to a for profit hospital corporation. And the driving force for building the hospitals was probably 1. to become powerful and important but also 2. to serve the area. The area needed them or at least the first one... I was not around when they were built.

Oh, and one other caveat on overpopulation, disease naturally checks it. It looks like AIDS is going to cut global population severely. Other diseases will likely spring up as well though we might be able to fend them off using technology.

Quote:
but the world's population then was a tiny, tiny fraction of what it is now (so not as many people to get displaced by rising sea levels etc).
It will still be habitable is the argument I believe. Also, whatever fossil fuels exist will be consumed no matter what is done.

In addition to populations and capital having to be relocated, death, loss of capital, etc., I read something interesting at the Nature Conservancy. Important ecological areas will move as well. Even if preserves survive all of the change (powers that be prevent their being paved over), some will no longer be as important or as unique.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:55 am
Posts: 5085
Location: UK
I actually strongly agree with that Garrett Hardin essay; no doubt the techno-cornucopians will label him as yet another doom-mongering Malthusian, but he's absolutely right about reproduction; people should not be allowed to have 7,8 or even 9 children; the problem here in the UK is that the welfare system incentivises reckless couples or single parents to have as many children as possible, because for each additional child they receive more and more welfare handouts. China has already recognised that having to feed 22% of the world's population with only 7% of its arable land is like trying to get a quart out of a pint pot, and acted accordingly by instituting the "One Child" policy (although in reality couples are allowed more than one child); as Hardin predicted, what was needed was not a technological solution but a moral and societal one. Of course the feminists and the human rights lobby are up in arms, not thinking of the suffering that not instituting the policy would have brought to future children; they, like many in the West, are selfishly focused on "their rights" and not their responsibilities. It's an entitlement culture.

PS. I don't think the Demographic Transition is a temporary thing, but only time will tell on that one.

PPS. It's interesting to compare the position of China with that of India, which has no population controls and an ever-increasing population below the poverty line.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:15 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
I'm confused. Why wouldn't Demographic Transition be temporary?

The "Neo-Malthusian objections" section of your wikipedia article throws in the same argument I was using. And, though I don't have time atm to read through Hardin's article again, I'm pretty sure he was in agreement. Not... that he'd be infallible :P

The way I view all of this is that humans thought they could improve the world with technology, but each problem they solve creates a new problem. Somehow the genetic strength must be maintained as well as population control without reducing the value of human life. I prefer the environment to eugenics and eugenics to bioengineering, and I believe those 3 are the only means of evolution or preservation. As you might have guessed, I don't like abortion because I view it as murder.

It'd be fine for someone to have 9 children if they were somehow superior because in nature some produce 9 while others produce none. Sexual reproduction is a hit or miss system. But how are we to judge that? Put a tax on having children? Make economic ability the fitness test? But how would unlawful pregnancies be handled?

Another alternative I suppose is to end most medicine and to not even feed the hungry. To return to nature isn't feasible because such a society couldn't defend against modern power. It's troubling to say the least.

What you say of India and China is interesting: truly to get to stage 4 or 5 a social change must occur or government intervention.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:32 pm 
Offline
SPCR Reviewer

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:23 am
Posts: 1845
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Trip wrote:
Another alternative I suppose is to end most medicine and to not even feed the hungry.


Is this preferable to abortion in your view? Is killing through negect (not feeding the hungry) morally superior to killing with good intent (abortion)?

I'm not clear of what your position is, so please don't take this as an attack. I may not have understood you correctly.

If you are suggesting letting people starve is a good alternative to abortion, I am curious to know why you think so. Perhaps it has something to do with direct action?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:08 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
Involuntary abortion solves the population problem, but it leaves the fitness problem and is also direct action as you say. Also, the ones killed are the mother's own children. There is a greater responsibility to aid one's own child than any other.

Ideally there should be environmental and cultural checks on population growth and fitness that create a perfect equilibrium without cruelty. You figure how that could be established without genetic meddling, abortion, or eugenics, and that will become my position :P

Btw, even if a state managed to control births without abortion (managed to control pregnancy), the fitness issue would still exist.

EDIT: I misrepresented my position and corrected it :wink:


Last edited by Trip on Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:15 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Posts: 867
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Killing anyone isn't with good intent because the intentions are bad to begin with. State a goal. Let's say that goal is cut CO2 production by 90%. One person would say the best way to achieve it is to kill 90% of the population. Conveniently it would be the poorest 90% since governments cater to those with money. Unfortunately the richest 10% probably make up 30-50% of the CO2 output in the first place. Whoops! Law of unintended consequences strikes again!!

The proper solution would be to make CO2 emissions taxed. At a certain point you could probably still sustain 100% of the population but we'd all have to live in underground housing for the heating/cooling insulation in order to reduce our electricity, natural gas, and heating oil costs to an affordable level. Transportation would have to be radically optimized and switched mainly to electric travel since fossil fuels are the source of CO2 emissions and there's a limit as to how much biofuel we can produce before it displaces the food supply.

The end effect is that it's perfectly reasonable that we can achieve whatever the stated goal is on our current population, and in fact that trying to kill people as a fix is in fact the wrong way to do it since it reinforces that you should NOT change your behavior, just kill someone else instead. What's needed to have a clean environment is a change in behavior of the living, not a reduction in their number.

_________________
Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:23 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
So... apply that to the population problem, and we should apply a birth tax? Make economic ability the fitness test?

If pregnancies could be controlled then that could be a solution I suppose.

Btw, I never said anyone needed to be killed. I said not helping the needy was a solution or neutering them and then helping them. I was merely following Hardin's argument:

Hardin wrote:
If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if thus, over breeding brought its own "punishment" to the germ line -- then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families. But our society is deeply committed to the welfare state, [12] and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons.

In a welfare state, how shall we deal with the family, the religion, the race, or the class (or indeed any distinguishable and cohesive group) that adopts over breeding as a policy to secure its own aggrandizement? [13] To couple the concept of freedom to breed with the belief that everyone born has an equal right to the commons is to lock the world into a tragic course of action.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:25 pm 
Offline
Friend of SPCR

Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:47 pm
Posts: 867
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Trip wrote:
So... apply that to the population problem, and we should apply a birth tax? Make economic ability the fitness test?

If pregnancies could be controlled then that could be a solution I suppose.

Btw, I never said anyone needed to be killed. I said not helping the needy was a solution or neutering them and then helping them.

Hardin wrote:
If each human family were dependent only on its own resources; if the children of improvident parents starved to death; if thus, over breeding brought its own "punishment" to the germ line -- then there would be no public interest in controlling the breeding of families. But our society is deeply committed to the welfare state, [12] and hence is confronted with another aspect of the tragedy of the commons.

There is no population problem. How about you tell me what problem you're trying to solve? Do you think there is too much fossil fuel usage? Too much electricity used? Too much land mass covered with development? People are by themselves not a problem. People can cause problems, but people are not a problem themselves. Tell me what problem you're trying to fix and let's brainstorm here.

_________________
Phenom 1090T / 9800GTX+ / Antec P180 / Seasonic S12-600


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 12:36 pm 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 7:18 pm
Posts: 2928
Location: SC
So, a population that continues to expand is not a problem?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 153 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group