Moridin920 posted:

I don't disagree with that, but that's a point against global capitalism more than a point against the size of our population.

Spunky Psycho Ho posted:

Go into a Panera and they have self-order kiosks and no one uses them, even when the line is like 5 deep. Self-checkouts are prone to theft and also requires people to stand there helping anyway, it reduces labor somewhat but not absolutely

Guy Goodbody posted:

At the very least ring up organic produce as regular.

Moridin920 posted:

That's a whole big rear end crock of some capitalist ideology for you btw.


lol


double lol

cooperation is the ruin of Earth folks. Privatize everything! The solution to the tragedy of the commons is not to have a central regulator but instead to eliminate the commons!

quote:

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of −1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another... But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.

SHISHKABOB posted:

no its engineering.

GREAT SATAN posted:

Garrett Hardin says the only answer to this is "relinquishing the freedom to breed." How that in any way is a capitalistic notion is beyond me. Giving economic incentives, as you suggest, would simply mean less genes from people who give a drat about the world's future. If anything yours is the hellscape capitalist future (which is probably more likely).

quote:

Giving economic incentives, as you suggest, would simply mean less genes from people who give a drat about the world's future. If anything yours is the hellscape capitalist future (which is probably more likely).

Moridin920 posted:

As in 'it's an engineering problem?' I think you'll find that it is ultimately a capitalism problem tbh.

SHISHKABOB posted:

wut

Moridin920 posted:

What do you mean by "no it's engineering?"

SHISHKABOB posted:

I mean my "problem" is the question: how do you organize and distribute the resources of the earth to a population of billions.

U solve that using engineering.

Moridin920 posted:

Sure but you need motivation to solve that problem in the first place. Lots of people would say it isn't even a problem because you need exploited 3rd worlders to maintain our relative wealth therefore there must always be broke rear end miserable people because that's life and reality.

Moridin920 posted:

As in 'it's an engineering problem?' I think you'll find that it is ultimately a capitalism problem tbh.


The entire thing is predicated on an erroneous assumption about the tragedy of the commons and his solution is "only through 100% privatization is the tragedy of the commons avoided."

His point that the commons have been increasingly restricted because population increases is false, pretty much entirely.


Mine would actually work to discourage people having kids, though. None of that other stuff will. We don't need the genes from everyone; iirc the stable population size in terms of genetic diversity is like a few hundred thousand.

GREAT SATAN posted:

I really want to agree with you because the picture he paints is so bleak, but I'm still not seeing your point. There's a finite amount of resources on the planet. Therefore Earth has a maximum carrying capacity. The closer we get to that number, the less there will be for all us.

quote:

Garrett Hardin says the only answer to this is "relinquishing the freedom to breed." How that in any way is a capitalistic notion is beyond me.

Guy Goodbody posted:

This thread isn't about Trump anymore, is it?

Bulgogi Hoagie posted:

the joke is that there is probably enough oil deposits in the world to power all of humanity until the earth turns into Venus from the greenhouse gases twice

also lol maximum carrying capacity. that's a parameter that has been regularly upscaled by these interesting variables such as technological advancement and like sustainability as well as energy efficiency

Tiny Deer posted:

From Trump to eugenics, wow. This thread has it all!

P.S. any time someone complains about overpopulation you know they aren't talking about their sister's bouncing blue eyed baby, they mean those other people should stop having kids.

You know. Them.

Tiny Deer posted:

From Trump to eugenics, wow. This thread has it all!

P.S. any time someone complains about overpopulation you know they aren't talking about their sister's bouncing blue eyed baby, they mean those other people should stop having kids.

You know. Them.

Bulgogi Hoagie posted:

the joke is that there is probably enough oil deposits in the world to power all of humanity until the earth turns into Venus from the greenhouse gases twice

also lol maximum carrying capacity. that's a parameter that has been regularly upscaled by these interesting variables such as technological advancement and like sustainability as well as energy efficiency

Moridin920 posted:

e: I may have misread that post?

either way have a good night everyone

Guy Goodbody posted:

I can't believe that there are people who go through self checkout lines and don't steal. At the very least ring up organic produce as regular.

Toadvine posted:

I think many of you are vastly overestimating how fast automation is going to take over. Even food kiosks are buggy and aggravatingly slow, nevermind any automation that requires even the slightest bit of creative/reactive thinking.

I believe we have a few decades before automation makes serious and broad encroachments so if you're serious about the automated threat then now is the second best time to agitate for better social safety nets instead of waiting around until unemployment goes through the roof and overburdens a threadbare system.

Fog Tripper posted:

I think there will begin to be more communities that get back to noncomputerized living. Not quite no zippers like the Amish, but back to as many things that would survive an emp attack as possible. It is getting easier and easier to knock us back to the stoneages. Hopefully people will start to wake up to how fragile we are making our existance.

All that said, the best thing for the planet is for humans to die off and let it heal itself.

Fog Tripper posted:

I think there will begin to be more communities that get back to noncomputerized living. Not quite no zippers like the Amish, but back to as many things that would survive an emp attack as possible. It is getting easier and easier to knock us back to the stoneages. Hopefully people will start to wake up to how fragile we are making our existance.

All that said, the best thing for the planet is for humans to die off and let it heal itself.

Kjoery posted:

the McDonalds at which i purchase my monthly McFlurry(c) has three self-order touchscreens. virtually everyone uses them in lieu of the cashier (there's never a lineup at the till). not sayin' that this is going to be the rule, but its definitely catching on from what random hyperbole i can provide

Fog Tripper posted:

I think there will begin to be more communities that get back to noncomputerized living. Not quite no zippers like the Amish, but back to as many things that would survive an emp attack as possible. It is getting easier and easier to knock us back to the stoneages. Hopefully people will start to wake up to how fragile we are making our existance.

nigga crab pollock posted:

really cause i buy coffee from one a lot and they are so infrequently used they dont even bother turning them on anymore lol

Fog Tripper posted:

I think there will begin to be more communities that get back to noncomputerized living. Not quite no zippers like the Amish, but back to as many things that would survive an emp attack as possible. It is getting easier and easier to knock us back to the stoneages. Hopefully people will start to wake up to how fragile we are making our existance.

All that said, the best thing for the planet is for humans to die off and let it heal itself.

nigga crab pollock posted:

we're more likely to get that poo poo knocked out by a solar flare than human incident

thathonkey posted:

i believe that will happen too.

right after a nuclear war wipes out civilization as we know it.

thathonkey posted:

i believe that will happen too.

right after a nuclear war wipes out civilization as we know it.

GREAT SATAN posted: