Defining success without growth: this be a debate?!

[Heavy_monkey2.0]

Is it possible for mankind to succeed without growth?

While we havent reached the apex of overpopulation yet, many people, much more studied smarty-er than I, contend that overpopulation will happen to humanity on this planet and its something that we should try to avoid as it would create alot of problems, like death and an actual survivor Suvivor reality based television show.

Im not trying to solve a problem or perhaps i am, it seems to me that humankind needs a reordering of priorities. We as a species (and you could say 'all species of life') are hatched with the DNA encoded desire to thrive.

As a species we are a success (to date) we survive and continue to grow.

As a species we havent broke from that most ancient model of success, that we survive and continue to grow, we measure success and the value of all things like this. Our economys are growth based mirroring our ultimate and maybe flawed values as a species.

Limitless growth is an impossibility, eventually there will be too much of one and not enough of the other...and that will not be success

Can we define success without growth?

I guess im going to need someone to explain or define 'greater conciousness' to me, it got to be a bumpy bone-jarring ride(T.W.S.S)! reaching that that place because we seem incapable of learning, but the hardway.

sustainability = success....this should be the way of things.

we aint even close!

[dsolo802]

Is it possible for mankind to succeed without growth?

While we havent reached the apex of overpopulation yet, many people, much more studied smarty-er than I, contend that overpopulation will happen to humanity on this planet and its something that we should try to avoid as it would create alot of problems, like death and an actual survivor Suvivor reality based television show.

Im not trying to solve a problem or perhaps i am, it seems to me that humankind needs a reordering of priorities. We as a species (and you could say 'all species of life') are hatched with the DNA encoded desire to thrive.

As a species we are a success (to date) we survive and continue to grow.

As a species we havent broke from that most ancient model of success, that we survive and continue to grow, we measure success and the value of all things like this. Our economys are growth based mirroring our ultimate and maybe flawed values as a species.

Limitless growth is an impossibility, eventually there will be too much of one and not enough of the other...and that will not be success

Can we define success without growth?

I guess im going to need someone to explain or define 'greater conciousness' to me, it got to be a bumpy bone-jarring ride(T.W.S.S)! reaching that that place because we seem incapable of learning, but the hardway.

sustainability = success....this should be the way of things.

we aint even close!

Interesting thoughts!

Seems to me success for any species essentially means adaptation and survival.

Over population, in the sense of population levels that are not sustainable, as you point out, will create a natural backlash against us - our population will be pared down whether we like it or not.

Since we are in a position to see where "being fruitful and multiplying" is taking us - off a cliff - you would think that our instincts as individuals to have a good life, would eventually overtake the drive of the species to survive. The species "knows" of only one way to do this - by creating as many potential survivors as possible. Every now and again, you'd think as individuals we'd be able to raise our heads and horns above the herd's eye-view, and see reasonable ways and means of arresting the movement of the herd.

The 'will' of the species drives guys to scatter seed to the wind like the big oak tree. Maybe in the future we don't need to be as thick as the mighty oak? Only time will tell.

[Heretic]

The key for any species or ecosystem is an equalibrium. Over the short term there can be swings of population, but over time they should average out.

The reason humans are so quick to grow in population is due to two factors affecting our behavior.

1: Mortality rates only dropped in the last few centuries, and we've not yet adjusted with lower brith rates. The reason elders were revered and honored was because how rare it was to live long enough to get old and grey.

2: The human species suffered a huge decimation 70,000 years ago, and those few left might've numbered anywhere from 2000 to 10,000 individuals. The genepool has always been narrow since then. When a species has a narrow genepool that also spurs their behavior toward more reproduction in order to increase chance mutations and lead to greater genetic diversity. Despite our visible ethnic differences those variations are actually rather small. At best the estimate has been that less than 20 genes control what we consider racial characteristic, while over 300 genes lend toward invividual differences.

[ciaobox2007]

HM. you deserve post of the week since you actually wrote an interesting discussion topic yourself instead of cut and pasting an article from the huffington post.

IMaHO

can't wait to discuss this when not tired. for now i shall stick to the corner bar dick joke genre.

[BleedingPinky]

can't wait to discuss this when not tired. for now i shall stick to the corner bar dick joke genre.

Me too.

[Heavy_monkey2.0]

Interesting thoughts!

Seems to me success for any species essentially means adaptation and survival.

Over population, in the sense of population levels that are not sustainable, as you point out, will create a natural backlash against us - our population will be pared down whether we like it or not.

Since we are in a position to see where "being fruitful and multiplying" is taking us - off a cliff - you would think that our instincts as individuals to have a good life, would eventually overtake the drive of the species to survive. The species "knows" of only one way to do this - by creating as many potential survivors as possible. Every now and again, you'd think as individuals we'd be able to raise our heads and horns above the herd's eye-view, and see reasonable ways and means of arresting the movement of the herd.

The 'will' of the species drives guys to scatter seed to the wind like the big oak tree. Maybe in the future we don't need to be as thick as the mighty oak? Only time will tell.

what?!

we leave it to future generations....and you know "O'Doyle Rules!" is coming for your ass.

[dsolo802]

what?!

we leave it to future generations....and you know "O'Doyle Rules!" is coming for your ass.

Oh, I think "we" should be curtailing our frisky ways now. Personally - no children have been added to the planet on my account. I have a cat.

But you are not talking personally. You are talking about what "we" ought do if we truly care about the sanctity of human life on the planet. And there the problem enters . . .

For us to get all China-like with our population control, we'd have to amend our Constitution - pretty substantially.

In the nature of things, nothing will actually happen on any significant scale until people can see with their own eyes some part of the natural backlash against over population, including wrath of God climate change, and not to forget the four horsemen: Conquest, War, Famine and Disease. Very few people will change just from seeing the shadow of the whip.

So, I don't know who O'Doyle is, but I have a feeling he will have his way with us all!

[Rigged]

This conversation reminds me of this movie called: Idiocracy.

Where the stupid people continued to outbreed the smart people until civilization descended into big, stupid, chaos! Lucky Luke Wilson was there to save us 500 years from now.

[Heavy_monkey2.0]

Oh, I think "we" should be curtailing our frisky ways now. Personally - no children have been added to the planet on my account. I have a cat.

But you are not talking personally. You are talking about what "we" ought do if we truly care about the sanctity of human life on the planet. And there the problem enters . . .

For us to get all China-like with our population control, we'd have to amend our Constitution - pretty substantially.

In the nature of things, nothing will actually happen on any significant scale until people can see with their own eyes some part of the natural backlash against over population, including wrath of God climate change, and not to forget the four horsemen: Conquest, War, Famine and Disease. Very few people will change just from seeing the shadow of the whip.

So, I don't know who O'Doyle is, but I have a feeling he will have his way with us all!

no definative answers, that must be why this type question is such a motherMINDfOcker. You wanna supersize that can o'worms?

Are we equipped to be more than what we are? -I doubt it. We change when we have to and i cant even think of an example of what it should IDEALY be like.


future scenarios:
The thunderdome or gattaca?

either option seems horrifying to me, one just very stiffiling and plain old scary and the other one has tina turner.


I guess I could leave it at 'Interesting Thoughts'


though personally i would rather live 'beyond the thunderdome' than the ethan-uma world.

Our ability to innovate and adapt will help us to 'survive' as long as its possible on this planet, with set backs and success and even visits from the 4 horsemen and terrible 24-7 reality based television shows, my opinion.




* O'doyle from 'Billy Madison' movie.

[Heavy_monkey2.0]

Heretic has no status.
Banned

hey, assface!!

whos going to contribute to this thread now?


i was even going to comment about the limitations of capitalism and how an evolved socially concious society of humans' probably wouldnt have things like ownership...though theres another 'wiggily' in the can o' worms, because what would drive us?

what would be better than capitalism?

arrrghhh!!

BANNED!

WTF?! you go and do that for?

fucknutz!!

HM2