451–460 of 666 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>food is largely a solved problem It really isn't...
Production of calories is a solved problem. Distribution of food to people in need on the other hand…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would really respect the hell out of the nation of China if it wasn't for the authoritarianism and imperialism.
I’m really curious to better understand what aspects of China’s government would hurt your day to day life. From what I read online the people there are free to rant and get things fixed. Their local government representative is held accountable if the people in his/her province are unhappy. Not too different from a typical democratic setup I guess? But this could be off because I don’t know anyone personally there.
I don’t know how it is in other countries, but nearly thirty years ago when I was in elementary school, a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Every part of that slogan has been put into action, continuously, for decades. Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. Xi Jinping may be a…
I'm envious of China's ability to define long term goals and execute them somewhat competently... In democracies politicians only care about reelection, and most people's voting patterns do not take long term strategy into account. Quite the opposite: short term profits and benefits are favored above all else.
There should be hierarchy. 100 men should vote for one who will rule over them. 100 level one rulers should vote for one who will rule over 10 000 men. And so on.
Imagine all Amazon workers to vote for Amazon CEO. It does not happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. They haven't, imo. I am from India, and I have been hearing for the last two decades how we have avoided same mistakes as China and the latter is headed for a demographic collapse. China is only marching forward, and focusing more on automation to hedge its bets. While overpopulation in India has choked almost every city in Ind…
The main issue with a demographic decline is that fewer people can live of their wealth. This is in particular a problem for the older generation. But if you are not a big believer in retirement, then there are no issues with demographic shifts.
There are partial solutions, ie adding some small fees for each visit (since a lot of retirees are lonely and go for the doctor visit just to talk to somebody or complain, and as I said they all have various mix of long term issues). Where we live healthcare isn't fully free and you have to chip in a bit, and this ain't such an issue (apart from wealthy old people).
I don’t know how it is in other countries, but nearly thirty years ago when I was in elementary school, a Chinese propaganda slogan stuck with me: “If you want to get rich, build roads first; have fewer children, plant more trees.” Every part of that slogan has been put into action, continuously, for decades. Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. Xi Jinping may be a…
I'm envious of China's ability to define long term goals and execute them somewhat competently... In democracies politicians only care about reelection, and most people's voting patterns do not take long term strategy into account. Quite the opposite: short term profits and benefits are favored above all else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are MANY issues with a demographic decline, "that fewer people can live of their wealth" is the least of it. Less productive hands (60 year olds are not as productive as 20 and 30 year olds, especially in any industrial and labor intensive field, but also in intellectual ones - who would have thought?). More older people in need of health support. Less dynamic society. Slowing economy. Beyond some (not very low…
From me what you mention seems to be derivative of the retirement argument where you clearly state that those not being able to work as much and have higher maintainance needs are the ones at disadvantage. Living of wealth does not only mean your own wealth. That is also state wealth as in getting services redistributed to you.
I state the opposite: the younger people, who are being able to work as much, are the ones at a disadvantage.
That's regardless if the older people live off their wealth, have state services redistributed to them, or are just left to die. You could even confiscate their assets and kill those old people, it wont fix most problems associated with a shrinking demographics.
The economy has fewer productive people, so the (fewer) younger ones have to work more, while at the same time the economy contracts around them because of fewer consumers. Infrastracture built at X level of population also can't be maintained (due to cost, political justification, and capacity) as the population drops far below X.
The younger ones have to live in a staler society, which an increased average age (in some countries the average person is already over 45 - used to be the average person was merely over 20-25 in the same societies decades ago), more decisions taken by people on their way out and not to their benefit etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm envious of China's ability to define long term goals and execute them somewhat competently... In democracies politicians only care about reelection, and most people's voting patterns do not take long term strategy into account. Quite the opposite: short term profits and benefits are favored above all else.
That's why democracy is wrong path. Crowd is stupid and easy to manipulate. There should be hierarchy. 100 men should vote for one who will rule over them. 100 level one rulers should vote for one who will rule over 10 000 men. And so on. Imagine all Amazon workers to vote for Amazon CEO. It does not happen.
I would add that rotate those every 2 years maybe. But then there needs to be mechanism for some long term efforts to sustain velocity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Although low birth rates have now become a problem, back then it seemed like a solution. They haven't, imo. I am from India, and I have been hearing for the last two decades how we have avoided same mistakes as China and the latter is headed for a demographic collapse. China is only marching forward, and focusing more on automation to hedge its bets. While overpopulation in India has choked almost every city in Ind…
The main issue with a demographic decline is that fewer people can live of their wealth. This is in particular a problem for the older generation. But if you are not a big believer in retirement, then there are no issues with demographic shifts.
Especially when basically every single thing is about money in politics
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Just like 1970s claim "overpopulation will destroy the planet" turned out to be exaggerated Seems to me like that prediction is pretty on track.
Partially, yes! Population is #1 strain on resources. However, the political climate around 1970s was more like population would create large scale food shortages, famines, and without interventions, population would keep on growing forever. We at least now know that population peaks with prosperity, and food is largely a solved problem.
Solved problem for now. A large part of world's agriculture is dependent on stable rainfalls and temperatures. If climate change gets bad enough, a big collapse in world's food production capability might happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, I think Rome, Greece and other conquering powers get more respect than they deserve. There's no actual reason so many people have to die for these countries' national ambitions. Feel free to generalize to the US, etc.
Didn't Rome save a lot of lives by pax romana? Perhaps it was actually better in terms of loss of life to be conquered by Rome than have endless wars among yourselves. Applies to the US too.