Main reason that society still exists?

[Synobun]

Yeah, in the west people are not reproducing. But we make up a small % of the whole population of the planet. We might not lead sustainable lives here in the west, but at least our reproduction rates are negative, for the most part anyway.

Right, but the rest of the world's population is modernizing. Their birth rates will go down as they progress.

 

[warpus]

Fully agreed. I think a good rule of thumb is, that if any kind of mammal makes it, so will some humans.

True. But IMO still pretty hard. Sure there may be more or less political integration, more or less socialistic elements, more or less authoritarianism and so on, but in the end, I don't see a plausible threat even lurking beyond the horizon that would, I don't know, throw country after country in anarchy or establish a radical new order of things.

Oh you get ready, because the next couple decades are going to see more and more unrest around the world, more mass migrations, refugees, etc. I'm not going to sit here and say that it's all going to lead to the downfall of society as we know it, but.. it could. Just a million migrants in Germany is leading to some unrest, imagine how crazy things will get once we have millions of refugees all over the place, countries having to deal with it all, anarchy in some places, etc. I don't really have much faith in the civilization we've built up and the individuals running it to deal well in any sort of way with the upcoming climate change migrations & the associated chaos. And wait until we start running out of water.

The most radical thing I can see happening is a free basic income. The philosopher Richard David Precht insists that in a few decades it will be an unavoidable step because of the 4th economic revolution, the digital revolution, which in contrast to previous revolutions, allegedly, will not replace lost jobs with new jobs, to which a basic income was the only remedy.

That's not radical at all, that's already being tested in a couple places. It's something that will have to be implemented at some point in the future, if it's done properly it doesn't have to be radical at all. I don't see a scenario in which free basic income leads to the downfall of anything really.

 

[warpus]

Right, but the rest of the world's population is modernizing. Their birth rates will go down as they progress.

Imagine how many resources we'll need and how much pollution we'll produce if the entire world starts living at American standards of living and consumption.

It's not feasible to do that. It would take decades if not centuries anyway. I mean, it's not like we're not trying to improve living standards around the world. We're already working on it. And we're moving at a fairly slow pace overall.

Even if that was the answer to overpopulation, it wouldn't kick in early enough for it to do us much good. The road we're on instead is more and more people with a disposable income entering into a materialistic economy and turning into consumers, all while most of the world is still popping out babies like rabbits.

There are no easy solutions here, all while more and more people begin leading unsustainable lifestyles. Knowing humans this won't really be fixed by means of people sitting down around a table discussing the issues, but rather by means of a world catastrophe and some sort of a re-shaking of human civilization.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Society still exists because megalomaniacs can't work together effectively and there hasn't been one clever enough to destroy it by themselves...yet.

 

[Zelig]

I'm not really following your argument warpus, are you claiming population projections are flawed, or that the world can't survive with 10 billion people?

 

[warpus]

I'm not really following your argument warpus, are you claiming population projections are flawed, or that the world can't survive with 10 billion people?

I'm saying that getting the world's population up to western standards of living is a horrible way to try to fight overpopulation.

The world can probably survive with 10 billion people, but the more people you add, the worse off the bottom of the barrel is going to be. And the more strain it will put on the whole economy and planet and everything. I mean, the world would survive with 20 billion people, assuming that 15 billion of them live in absolute poverty, but no matter how you cut it that will affect us here in the west. If there are more people, we will have less resources to split amongst the rest of us, even here in the privileged west.

 

[Commodore]

unless we destroy the whole thing with nuclear weapons or worse.

Even then, I think the survivors would reestablish some sort of society pretty quickly out of a desire to return things to a state they would see as somewhat normal.

 

[Narz]

There are rhinos living in India whose species is said to be 14 million years old. If a rhino manages such a feat, I am not worried about the survival of the human race for the next decades

Not sure what rhinos have to do with us.

Sure there would be some chaos and death, but regardless of our dependencies we are also the most adaptable we have ever been.

How are we any more or less adaptive than any other time?

I thought it was widely known by now that population growth is on a steady decline.

No, it's projected to increase for another 30-40 years at least (barring catastrophe). The rate of growth is slightly slowing but still we're getting almost ten thousand new humans per hour (beyond the death rate).

https://www.google.com/search?q=humans+born+per+day

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

In the final story by Kafka i had to translate, there is a minor discussion on this. Apparently the conclusion offered is bifold, namely that society is the next stage of a previous condition which is impossible to return to, and moreover that if something exists it won't die easily but will fight to the end so as to keep existing, regardless of possible inherent traits that make it non viable in the long run.

I disagree it is impossible to return to the stage before society only the majority isnt atracted to it and for most it would mean many great disadvantages. But individuals has undoubtedly done it. To come to this point in civilization it has taken not only a great deal of time but also unimaginable amount of constant sacrifices during all that time. But the lessons with dinosaurs teaches us that nothing is impossible - including the total end of civilization.

I tend to agree. As an introverted person i rarely see much connection between people. Biological urges can and do connect, yet it seems that the overall structure is loosely constructed, and gaps can appear if one has the intention to look into it or stare for too long.

As a society and civilization we are still developing and I am of the opinion although we are likely beyond the point of infancy we are still a children. I think what you call a loose structure are in fact yet unrealised possibilities. The instinct are there, the affinities play they role but to make it all more solid and efficient some maturing of the "human material" is necessary.

Apart from that, the progression of life can seem pointless; thousands of years of civilization and still the same crap (wars; both on a massive scale, and an interpersonal one).

This is a very old problem at it would seem that the answer is that the progress isnt linear. We are circling about some point of progress which is in constant movement. And although great deal of the same old crap is going on we have achieved some greater subtlety and can support previously impossible big population.

I tend to agree with Kafka's narrator in that story (who happens to be... a dog ), that, at any rate, if something already is in existence it will not go away easily, it will fight to the end, in whatever manner, and lack of interest in noting the pointlessness is itself a way of fighting; perhaps even the most common one.

In case of civilization what seems to matter is some form of plasticity and adaptability. Although monarchy is a thing of past some of these systems survived in form. Although decadence of the West seems to be a thing for a decades yet there is some kind of openness and subtlety which allowes it to go on and prosper for now. But if the old structures do not reform there is no way they can stay in existence no matter how nice they fight for their existence.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Biological thing. Society exists and will always exist because we are a gregarious species. Simple like that. It can be small like tribes o big like countries depending on disposable resources.

 

[warpus]

Even then, I think the survivors would reestablish some sort of society pretty quickly out of a desire to return things to a state they would see as somewhat normal.

You are right that some people would survive in undeground bunkers I suppose, and some of those people would have self-sustaining bunkers that will allow them to live there for a decade if necessary. So yeah you are right, but then those people would have to be intelligent and lucky enough to survive re-establishing civilization on the surface, once it was safe again to go out there. That wouldn't be easy but I guess either way someone would survive, you're right.

 

[Kyriakos]

Society still exists because megalomaniacs can't work together effectively and there hasn't been one clever enough to destroy it by themselves...yet.

Which may be crucial to the question, given one has to suppose that some kind of virus/bio weapon able to wipe out all humans wouldn't be that hard to devise with current tech (?).

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Oh you get ready, because the next couple decades are going to see more and more unrest around the world, more mass migrations, refugees, etc. I'm not going to sit here and say that it's all going to lead to the downfall of society as we know it, but.. it could. Just a million migrants in Germany is leading to some unrest, imagine how crazy things will get once we have millions of refugees all over the place, countries having to deal with it all, anarchy in some places, etc. I don't really have much faith in the civilization we've built up and the individuals running it to deal well in any sort of way with the upcoming climate change migrations & the associated chaos. And wait until we start running out of water.

Migration is only so long a problem as you give people reason to assume that to migrate is a good idea. It is relatively easy to change that. The only thing shattered by that would be values.
I suspect a possible future water shortage is the same as food is nowadays. There is more than enough, but some people aren't served because they can not pay. Sucks for them, maybe can topple a corrupt government here and there or cause local unrest, but much more I don't see.

That's not radical at all, that's already being tested in a couple places. It's something that will have to be implemented at some point in the future, if it's done properly it doesn't have to be radical at all. I don't see a scenario in which free basic income leads to the downfall of anything really.

Just saying that it would greatly change our economies and employment markets and that I don't see a bigger change on the horizon. But I would be careful to compare some small-scale tests-runs which actual full implementation.

I'm saying that getting the world's population up to western standards of living is a horrible way to try to fight overpopulation.

Well it suffices if they live in the same basic ways but on a lower level of wealth.

Not sure what rhinos have to do with us.

They are large mammals. We are large mammals. We are, by now at least, a million times better in surviving as a race than rhinos. Because of our insane adaptability. Yet rhinos can survive for millions of years without changing much at all. Well so far anyway. Now we may kill them.

How are we any more or less adaptive than any other time?

More individuals, more technology, more knowledge, more organization.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They are large mammals. We are large mammals. We are, by now at least, a million times better in surviving as a race than rhinos. Because of our insane adaptability. Yet rhinos can survive for millions of years without changing much at all. Well so far anyway. Now we may kill them.

You don't get to be top of the omelette without breaking a few rhinos.

 

[warpus]

Migration is only so long a problem as you give people reason to assume that to migrate is a good idea.

That's exactly what's going to happen as the climate changes and makes certain parts of the world less habitable than they are now. Coupled together with resource shortages, leading to more internal strife, we are going to see a lot more migrations and refugees around the world in the decades to come.

Just saying that it would greatly change our economies and employment markets and that I don't see a bigger change on the horizon.

It will only lead to chaos if it's done all at once or not done at all. If it's done bit by bit and planned well, there should be no "show-stopper" like impacts.

 

[timtofly]

That is the problem with mixing anthropic principle with scientific predictions. Assume nothing.

It would still seem that worrying about the future is logically opposed to evolution itself. The question is not, why does society still exist? Should it not be, why does it exist at all? I am not sure we can point to a time it did not exist other than the point beings did not exist. I do not see the two as inseparable. There is some societal tendency in other animals that do not seem to consider themselves beings nor attempt on asserting that fact on the rest of us.