Is history the story of mankind slowly perfecting itself?
>>1008518
Nope. It's the unrelenting tale of how every effort at creating Utopia ends in genocide.
>>1008535
This.
>>1008518
History is stuff that happened that got written down.
So I take it the teleological view is bullshit?
>>1008535
If we keep killing each other there will eventually be so few people on earth that there will be enough resources for everyone
perfection isn't possible in this life
>t.Hegel
>>1010520
>if we keep killing each other
Sorry to break it to you, but
>>1010520
I guess that's the theory.
>>1008518
>mankind is more perfect than ever before
>nuclear weapons can end humanity
>literal barbarians can use modern technology to attack anytime, anywhere
>power is far removed from the common man
>people die from being too lazy
>environmental catastrophe likely
>>1010539
you are a retard, you can use such graphs all you want, but at the end of the day, economics will decide the plateau of our population. Rational, western countries are demanding higher and higher standards of living and that's why they are having fewer children and negative birth rates. As civilization develops prices will go up and this will occur. The only thing that might stop the natural regression of population growth that is already happening is leftist welfare programs. If you provide people with a UBI and allow them to not work at all and only engage in recreation, they will fuck like crazy and suck more and more from the government teet because there is no financial accountability for their actions. I am not joking when I say that in order for the long term health and happiness of the vast majority of the population, we need to let the homeless and those unwilling to work starve and die, not because they will do so, but because allowing that as a potential consequence will affect their behavior.
>>1008518
Yes. We learn more about how to work together with one another every generation, learning from our mistakes and improving the scope of our interconnection with technology.
>>1010576
>nuclear weapons can end humanity
Perfecting in a Buddhist sense.
Lol no. We are so cataclysmicly fucked. Overpopulation + global warming = death of civilization.
>>1008518
Perhaps more the story of mankind having ever greater amounts of resources, ever more efficient techniques, and states expanding their power.
>>1010587
This. The socialist/welfare state is the antithesis of evolution. Restricts the strong, preserves the weak.
>>1008518
>Is history the story of mankind slowly perfecting itself?
I really hope so but I'd imagine something goes wrong somewhere.
This is whig history territory though.
>>1010587
>seven billion people are going to just disappear because of economics
Not this time. Maybe economic crises could take out some hundred million people but there's no possible way that we are going to revert the last 200 years' worth of growth.
>>1011098
Can the future of humanity look like anything other than this? The only question is time
>>1011098
>seven billion people are going to just disappear because of economics
Terrible strawman. He never suggested anything of the like.
>>1011130
>Can the future of humanity look like anything other than this?
Yes, pic related. (dotted line is carrying capacity)
>>1008518
History is an extreme form of selective memory.
>>1011098
I did not say the population will reduce, I said the rate of the population increase IS already reducing and will continue to reduce. I also suggested that instead of reaching some equilibrium where population remains unchanged or growth hits 0, we may begin to decline in population if economic growth slows while humans continue to demand higher qualities of living.
>>1011145
Do we have actual graphics of human population over periods of time?
>>1011232
I forgot the image in this point
>>1011206
>>1011232
For most of the last 200,000 years I'd assume we were fluctuating around the carrying capacity in most areas humans lived, with a slight overall population growth due to colonising new continents. With the carrying capacity increased by the development of agriculture, yet still with the boom and bust cycle operating to some extent. while in modern times population growth seems to be heading towards a crash, I don't know whether there will be a dramatic crash, or whether technology will result in a gradual decrease, but in the long term the finite resources used to support our current population growth will become depleted, suggesting that the current population size is not sustainable indefinitely.
>>1011240
It's still positive growth, just decreasing relative to the earlier growth rate, we haven't yet reached the turning point of overall population size decrease.
>>1011265
Certainly, but there is no reason to believe that the population of earth won't at least plateau.
>>1011240
And I think the population will hit a newer high point in the middle of 21 century
We are nowhere near our carryng capacity if you take into consideration the poor management of resources.
There's more than enough land and food.
>>1011258
*With the carrying capacity increased by the development of agriculture, and overall population growth as agriculture spreads/ is developed around the world
>>1011271
>We are nowhere near our carryng capacity if you take into consideration the poor management of resources.
But the problem with this is in the long term, as you reduce soil fertility by heavy farming then the land becomes less productive, and many of the fertilisers that we are already dependant on are non-renewable, such as phosphate, which will have a peak-phosphorus, similar to peak oil. Even if we aren't at the highest possible carrying capacity yet, we reach it the carrying capacity will slowly decrease afterwards.
>>1011270
Even if we plateau rather than decrease there would still be minor ups and downs around the plateau. And the plateau itself isn't fixed, but rather limited by finite resources. So would we be able to sustain a population that plateaued at say 10 billion for 100 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years?
>>1011298
We don't have to plan anything, the market will always respond. If life everywhere is far too crowded, the wealthy will buy property for huge prices in order to isolate themselves from the masses. In turn, property prices go up, life for the poor becomes more difficult, children are too expensive so they have fewer, and those that cannot sustain themselves die. This sounds radical and awful because I am trying to respond to a hypothetical scenario, in reality this process is far more gradual, and can be seen in the rising property prices in new Yourk and san fran
>>1011298
Since when enviromental issues slow down human development?
>>1010587
This could reduce the birth rates but the expanding of human occupied territory is gonna be always expanding.
Face it we will drain every resource for as long as we can, and ask the Gods that we don't poison ourselves first.
>>1011340
The market will not respond in case of a natural disaster or a complicated enough war (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical).
They are gonna run as far as they can.
>>1011354
obviously the market (which literally means a large network if individuals making exchanges) can't compensate for world ending and instant natural disasters or nuclear wars, NOTHING CAN COMPENSATE FOR THESE THINGS SINCE WE ALREADY DEAD AHHHHH
In addition, you have just blindly ignored the point I made. The point is resources are scarce, as we use them they become scarcer, as they become scarcer prices rise, we will either stop using that resource and find an alternative, or (if the resource is necessary for life) have many die because their life can't be sustained. Again, gradual process, hordes of people won't actually die.
>>1010765
Overpopulation is not an issue unless you live in a country as small as Japan. The global population is already starting to peak. You've been meme'd.
>>1011354
>Since when enviromental issues slow down human development?
In the long term, population growth sped up with the development of agriculture and again with industrialisation. There aren't historical precedents, but the consequences in terms of biology seem inevitable due to finite resources. I'm not saying we'll go back to mud huts, possibly a smaller population with resource efficient technology being ubiquitous.
>Face it we will drain every resource for as long as we can
That's if decision making along the lines of more = better, unchecked consumerism, I don't care what happens after I'm dead etc continues to be the norm. Also perhaps the sense of urgency and importance in regards to sustainability will become more mainstream once situations clearly related to these problems arise (no idea how far in the future this may occur though).
>>1011364
I'm not talking of the case we all die just in the cases when enough people die or are trapped in areas with to much risk of contamination.
You get no market there, and with our current population density all of these could lower humanity numbers.
Resource are scarce but we don't live in a resource based society we will in a monetary society we are supposed to make money no things,
As long as something makes money they will keep on doing it, at any cost.
The solution for utopia is pretty simple.
Pic related.
History is our scores in a giant game. Why wouldn't you want a higher score?
>>1008518
People in power make the world suit their idea of perfection.
>>1010743
Genocide in 10.....9......8......
>>1013206
what kino is this
>>1013523
Utopia, Brit crime thriller show, only has two seasons but is definantly worth a watch, especially if you go in knowing nothing about it.
>>1013600
Sorry I should rephrase that more accurately as conspiracy thriller.
