Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scott Bergquist who wrote (16025)	3/2/2002 9:59:57 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Scott, if there are too many people, you can always reduce the number by one. In the equation, there was 'civilization'. Without civilization, there's no wealth. India doesn't have too many people, it has too little civilization. Same in Afghanistan. Same in Zimbabwe. < All our innate thinking, enjoyment, etc. is set for "small tribe" numbers. What we have now, every where, borders on a teetering mass hysteria. In fact, the idea that you embrace =more= people is symptomatic of the "mass mania".> If that's true, how come people leave the village for the Big Smoke? People can always live in a village, or alone in a hut in Montana. They don't because they are NOT happier in some rotten little village with some totalitarian chief. They like the potential for wealth, glory and mod cons which Big Smokes create. <Too many people lead to conflict, command-and-control religion, mental illness...all our humankind woes can be traced to the overabundance of people. =All=, without exception > Yeah, that damned longevity we suffer now by the billion. Oh for the good old days of the 17th and 18th century when command and control religion was unheard of. When mental illness didn't exist. When there were no woes and all was light and harmony. Or, we could go back to 5000 and 10000BC when things were totally hunky-dory and there were few people on earth, happily hunter-gathering and nobody knew how to kill or attack others and had no reason to. I don't get the biggest flaw in my argument, that there are only 23 hours and 56 minutes in each day. Where did the other 4 minutes go? All living things get 24 hours a day [or your truncated time]. But that doesn't mean they all are equally wealthy in the normal usage of the word though I can understand the metaphysical argument that they are. I like this bit: < No one can gauge true "humanness" anymore, because our overcrowded environment precludes it. You think "inventing" is the essence of "humanness"? It simply is not.> The definition is certainly getting a good working over and that process will accelerate. We might be at the end of human history before the 22nd century the way genetic engineering, cyberspace and a lot of things are going. But right now, the thing that primarily distinguishes us from everything else is the big bump over our eyebrows containing the DNA which enables Stephen Hawking to avoid being dinner and conceptualize the stuff he does. There's always the 'capable of reproducing with another of the species' definition, which is the most accurate definition right now of humanity. But that leaves out a lot of people, so it's inadequate too. How about the 'free will' definition of humanity? The more the merrier, [that's something papal infallibility has right - well, for another few billion anyway]. Mq

To: Scott Bergquist who wrote (16025)	3/3/2002 12:14:11 AM
From: LLCF	Respond to of 74559

<If you really, really, really, really like a lot of people, above everything else, then move to India. > I see they are contemplating limiting family size as well. DAK