|
I see no reason why mankind will be any different than any of the other collections of carbon-based life on the planet. Yes, we have the capacity for reasoned thought, but we don't use it on the international scale. We will consume, exceed the carrying capacity of the planet, then reach a point of relative homeostasis after some tough times. The only variable is how much human ingenuity can make the tough times less tough/long.
Developing countries like China have a much better chance of leading the charge than developed countries because their leaders don't have to deal with "accustomed to." Americans have gotten pretty petty and divisive lately largely because we have reached the point that steady growth is expected, and any shortfalls in prosperity lead to finger pointing. In China, quality of life still has plenty of room to improve without reaching the point of conspicuous consumption.
Two issues I have with above arguments and the blog are a limit on population growth and with longer terms for politicians. Pushing for limits on childbirth is asinine and unnecessary. Population growth goes down as citizens' dependence on its children in old age goes down. The US would already be in negative population growth if not for immigrants. And longer term limits; really? Are the congressmen in the Senate any better than those in the House of Representatives? I would argue they are worse because the stakes are bigger for attaining that position, leading to greater corruption. Instead I suggest one term. That's it. Next contestant.
|