[quote=LesPhelps][quote=Wildlife Tracker]
There was nothing humanity could have done differently.
[/quote]
We could have used the same intelligence we used to extract and exploit planetary resources to fashion a society and economy that controls procreation and consumption.
[/quote]
What model of government are you suggesting?
Chris, Mark and HughAustrian economics describes how markets work. The subjective issues of endless growth or sustainable development lie beyond what it directly explains. However, it does clearly show how the current interventionist system leads to unsustainable and capital destroying practices. This capital destruction includes unsustainable degradation of the natural environment and the waste of natural resources.
Further, it seems all to common for people to point out problems with negative externalities that need to be addressed through the establishment of proper legal rights and obligations and link this to the invalidity of Austrian economics. Enforceable property rights are the realm of politics of which libertarianism or classical liberalism is the closest cousin to Austrian economics. However you can use Austrian theory to understand economics and not be a libertarian or classical liberal .
The Dao of Capital by Mark Spitznagel presents a wonderful comparison of how natural systems such as forests rely on negative feedback loops in a similar way to economics as described by Austrian economists. When these are interfered with either through the prevention of small fires in the case of forests or price controls and bailouts in the case of economies the result is even more damaging fires and larger economic calamities respectively. The empirical proof is not hard to find.
The way I see this thing panning out is that humans will fall off the economic train completely and end up as parasites that will be controlled with endocrine disrupters.
The machine will decide that there is no logic to war. The algos will over-ride the egos.
Paradise? It could be had with soma.
The trick will be to convince the algos that we give meaning to their existence.
[quote=Oliveoilguy][quote=LesPhelps]
We could have used the same intelligence we used to extract and exploit planetary resources to fashion a society and economy that controls procreation and consumption.
[/quote]
What model of government are you suggesting?
[/quote]
I am not suggesting that government limits on procreation were required. I knew about the exponential issue as it pertains to population growth in the 1970s, before I had kids. I was and am a believer in ZPG. I had two children in light of that knowledge.
Globally, governments could have educated the populations regarding the problem. It might not have entirely solved the issue, but it would have helped.
Another thing we could have done in the US, and perhaps elsewhere, is stop subsidizing children. The way we fund schools systems in the US is completely independent of family size. Most health care plans charge for children, but don't take into account the number of children. More children result in a greater need for government resources and yet they are a deduction off of tax returns. If you have more kids, you pay less tax. Welfare and food stamp systems subsidize children. What's up with that?
As I said, it was clear this problem was coming by the 1970s and yet we ignored it. Why? Actually, I have no doubt some people knew of this before the 1970s. Thomas Malthus brought the issue up in the late 1800s. His solution was to stop subsidizing excess population as a way to minimize suffering. Obviously, the term Malthusian comes from Thomas Malthus and is pinned on anyone who has the audacity to think that resources are limited.
If I am not mistaken somewhere it says, "Be fruitful and multiply". As long as religion turns a blind eye to resource limitations there will not be much progress on the population issue in many areas of the world. I'll bet you can tie fighting over limited resources to many, if not most wars throughout history.
LesPhelps said;
This brought to mind a moment during the question and answer period depicted in this video of Chris from two years ago where he schools an anti-Malthusian... watch the clip from 0:49 - 0:52 minutes; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBiTnBwSWc
As I said, it was clear this problem was coming by the 1970s and yet we ignored it. Why? Actually, I have no doubt some people knew of this before the 1970s. Thomas Malthus brought the issue up in the late 1800s. His solution was to stop subsidizing excess population as a way to minimize suffering. Obviously, the term Malthusian comes from Thomas Malthus and is pinned on anyone who has the audacity to think that resources are limited.
Thanks, Jim, and Chris, for this clip.I'm doing my best to try to engage a small number of high school students regarding this concept, and, of course, they don't have as many preconceived notions about the future, since they haven't lived as long. But, they still carry a lot of assumptions regarding comfort and abundance due to their experiences so far, and the increase of technology has probably decreased their conscious connection to the natural world.
Hugh
If there is no future, why the agonizing? Perhaps it is just habit. I'm too old to change now, so let me agonize away.
The future is not going to look anything like the past:-Agreed. Then why do we look to the past for the future performance of gold?
Come to that, why do we think that our future lies at the bottom of this, or any gravity well. Edit (4)
Why do we consider humans to be central to the economy when it can be argued that they are too expensive and not productive in comparison to automation,innovation and energy? (The mind dwells on the production of light, and the economic effects of installing LEDs worldwide, as an example.)
Why do we dwell on the issues of the past-such as the role of religion in wars and the birth rate when endocrine disrupters (2) (3) are more significant to the total world population? On the other hand Tony Wright asserts that our brains evolved in a soup of endocrine disrupters. (My level of belief in his theory has slipped downward.)
Why do we look to chemistry for our energy needs?- more habit.
Perhaps this continual casting over our shoulders to the past for guidance to the future is a maladaptive habit.
In any event, I am a creature of habit. And so I continue to look for a way past the bottleneck, assuming that there is a bottle.
Looking at the past provides an excellent tool to see what "worked" and what "didn't work" for humans and for other species. It teaches you how to learn from your mistakes. If not from learning from the past, you would still be touching a hot stove and your hands would be red and scared.Millions of years have gone by and the only SUSTAINABLE energy resource that has remained constant that living creatures utilize is the sun, and everything derived from the sun's energy. If there was another energy resource that mattered, you would see more productivity in the ocean deep rather than the sparse signs of life that survives by recycling marine snow and opportunistic hunting/scavenging. You would see more productivity in the winter months in northern climates when low-light conditions force most plants to go dormant because the EROEI is too low to continue to be productive. Also, the free-floating algae in outer space that have been found, specialize in harnessing solar energy.
Therefore the way forward is to learn how to harvest solar energy better, and we know that through millions (or quadrillions?) of years of evolution.
WE as a community here on Peak Prosperity are not like other people. Most people who are presented with this information that the future is going to be different would go into denial-mode because that is the natural human response. It's why this website has hundreds of regular followers and not thousands or millions.
Humans were never smart enough, and are still not smart enough to go against their human nature. There is not a creature on this planet that would have done things differently. Send a weasel into a chicken coupe and they will kill all your chickens without questioning it because that's the natural response and its in their best interest. Like the weasel, we have evolved to consume and save as if the same resource won't be there tomorrow. That's partly why we buy more groceries at a grocery store for more than a day's use. It's caching behavior, it's instinctual, and a natural survival response.
I teach high school history, and I've begun to gently weave elements of this "story" (the Crash Course) into the lessons I teach. I am attempting to get the students to be more skeptical, more analytical, and better critical thinkers. What boggles MY mind is that every student in all of my classes inherently seems to understand and know that the party is almost over. They know we are running out of oil, resources, and time. Yet they live in a society where the adults don't seem to care, and so to a certain degree they don't either. It's scary.
Today my fav classic vinyl station played "I'd Love to Change the World" by Ten Years After. Seemed incredibly relevant 43 years after.
Tried to paste a link to the you-tube recording but can't seem to get the link dialogue box to cooperate. 
Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me where is sanity
Tax the rich, feed the poor
Till there are no rich no more
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
Population keeps on breeding
Nation bleeding, still more feeding economy
Life is funny, skies are sunny
Bees make honey, who needs money, monopoly
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
World pollution, there's no solution
Institution, electrocution
Just black and white, rich or poor
Them and us, stop the war
I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do
So I'll leave it up to you
I'd Love To Change The World lyrics © CHRYSALIS MUSIC GROUP
It is pretty scary how people can so quickly fall into any kind of security ‘bubble.’ It would serve people well to take advantage of these offers and to look into the gold money that is available.
/*
<div */
Update: The future of online casinos
Australian casinos do utilize all of the types of advertising that are available to them, but there is one form of advertising that gets right to the heart of the matter. Simple postcards that are mailed to their club members generally do the most good in terms of getting the word out about special promotions, free play, events, and special entertainment. Most people who received a postcard from a casino online telling them that they have free play in their players club account will generally try to take advantage of it if they can. After all, a person can win money on free play just as easily as they can using their own money. Sometimes it may not seem like it, but it is definitely a possibility. Some casinos may find that sending out these postcards to their player's club members is a fairly efficient, as well as inexpensive venture.
Casino gambling in Australia is becoming even a bigger of a business than it has been in the past. New casinos are been proposed and many players are looking forward to these opportunities. Even still, there are people who are against such advertising because they feel that the country is breeding the next generation of problem gamblers. This may be true, but the reality is that every country is doing this. Gambling has been around for thousands of years and so have the people that become addicted to the prospect of becoming very rich, very quickly. It is not always easy for people to do what they know they should do, and for this reason many people are dead set against casinos been allowed to advertise.