matrixmann: (Thinking)
(Attention: This is highly speculative content and shouldn't be taken with scientific correctness!
Further down, it also shouldn't be taken as hatespeech or as a base to reason artificial interferences to execute population policy.
At first, it's just thoughts considering and philosophizing about a subject and it's meant as nothing more than that.)




World population grows every year, mainly in Africa and Asia.
Although in those areas, at least Africa the most, the common health care accessible to the normal people is far away from being satisfying. Still a lot of people die in their child years.
But even though, of those who are born, still a higher number manages to survive to make the population grow.
Is that so?
Population growth in Europe and other areas in the world counted as "developed" these days, it happened the most as technological and scientific progress appeared. As the influence of the Christian churches slowly declined, compared to the Middle Ages.
The increase in what health care could provide from the scientific viewpoint, and even the more as the distribution to the normal populace with low and average income for the time episode started to take place (for the sake of taking the soil away from social democrats and early communists), this is what is considered as the main reason for the explosive population growth that appeared between the 19th and the 20th century.
In Asia, this is partly the case, if you take a look at China which keeps increasing its capacities for provision constantly. But compare it to India. India is rich in population, but still the caste system is intact and richness and the deepest poverty both exist in this country without ever seeing light at the end of the tunnel to ever change. The normal population can't have that access to proper health care, otherwise it couldn't be one of the main research countries for medication tests on humans.
So, how would this rule apply there? Health care increasing the chances of survival of the individual, while people still tend to have families with many children born because of social reasons?
Is the population in the "developing" countries really the problem, if distribution of health care to everyone, as a base for survival of the masses of people born, is no topic in those despite economy experiencing growth all the time?

Taking a look at Europe and the already "developed" areas.
Population numbers in those areas have never been higher than today. Today is the max for these ever in history.
If those wouldn't live from getting people from other areas of the world moving into their territory, population numbers would already be in a noticeable decline. (Except for US because reproductive rights are under constant threat of clerical conservatives of being abandoned or killed by lack of funding, and people from the lower classes, who bear the most children there, depend on social programs to provide this to them, as proper distribution of health care to people from all states of wealth doesn't exist there.)
In the developed nations, about 95% of the population born survives into old age. Predators in the 5%-quota are diseases, malformations, accidents, pollution, man-made violence and psychic diseases caused by circumstances habored in this way of civilization.
So, population numbers in those areas remain constant with a slight decline in the long term. They get actively tried to be kept on the max. Be it home-bred population or through immigration.
And this through all the times.
So... basically, where does the point of attention lie really when it comes down to population policy?
In the developing countries, where still the least of the humans born survives until they're adults, and they die in a young age because of diseases damaging their health, or in those areas where nearly every person born survives until approximately 60 at least? And the number of people achieving this is being kept relatively constant at all times?
It may be worth picking up this hard constrast "95% survival" vs. "high mortality" for a closer look.
While the times of boom economic growth are over in the developed world, everything's build up that needed to be build up, now it only suffers from wrong proportion of the distribution, population decline in harsher numbers would be the logical consequence - as, in the phase of building something up, it needs more resources than when only maintaining and keeping up the state of things as they are currently. Also, there is not a need for "more" resources to be used as ante in the process.
Not even to speak of when the next stage of the technoligical age becomes reality and some more machines replace the human labor in the productive sectors, which makes the part of the population being employed in that sector become out of work and for sure also a part of them "obsolete" in the terms of the employment market.
So to say, the high population numbers of the developed world, in the long term, progress into a state of all of its population that it habors isn't "needed" anymore. It's like only in a position of consuming and sucking up resources, in a position of being a "consumer". Unable to give back or be of relevance to the integrity of the system. Others would call it drastically "trash", that's what they are then. - "Trash" that would need to be administered until its death and not be renewed / replaced by another person, to be exact.
So... when an area tries to keep its population number up in a state like before the big industrial boom at the beginning of the 20th century that it actually doesn't need anymore, it raises the question towards "How healthy for the planet is this strategy?"? How good in population policy worldwide is this actually?
And how much does it distort the numbers?
How much is it a factor that's part of the overall problem?
How much does that overclocked number cause in damage because a part of the population already exists in needlessness, but still they consume resources like all other people who are needed by the system to function?
To state something very clearly: The people who this applies to, they aren't to blame for what they are. If they have worked through a respective way of education and even performing an occupation for an amount of time throughout their lives, then there's no talking about "self-caused circumstances". Those people aren't obsolete because they haven't had ambitions and therefore were lazy and spoiled since a very young age. They've become obsolete because the system they live in doesn't need them anymore. In a certain span of time they were needed indeed, but now no more. - In difference to people who didn't even try for a decent school education and stayed away from it to hang out with friends, drink beer and destroy window glasses.
Therefore, because they're not to blame, they should at no point of the story be treated like if they were.
The solution for these should just be, plain and simple, to not to replace them in the next generation. Their life remains untouched, but as there is no need to have another person regrow into that position, there better shouldn't exist one to respawn.

When these obsolete numbers are being kept and maintained constantly, how much does it distort the real needs and the real functionality of the system that humans build for themselves to live in?
How much is it also responsible for overpopulation - for population that is there, but without a need of human civilization for them to exist?
What happens - how do the numbers look if that population doesn't exist anymore? In the developed world, as well as when Africa, Asia, South America only has the population number that it needs (considered, the economy of the "developing" areas also makes it to a state of things comparable to the so-called "industrialized nations" measured by what their environment allows)?
What if there are not that many people around anymore whose only purpose is to be there as a consumer because there is no task for them in this world?
And, what would happen to the yearly growth numbers if socially the issues of "children as security that supplies you in bad times / old age" would be adequately solved, in combination with that?
What would happen if mankind only grows or stays the same in such masses that it also has tasks for in its differing societies?

At least upon further thought it doesn't seem like the developed world is totally not to blame for the problem of the overpopulation. They try to keep up a number within their territories that's unrealistically high compared to the possible employment rate that it's able to supply when everything is run under fair circumstances (opposed to the current strategy of part-time work and letting the developing countries produce their food and their consumer goods).
When 95% of all humans survive until old age, you don't need people to have 2 and 3 children or more anymore. Better you should be happy if some people can't or don't want to have children because of certain reasons. Because that's getting closer to a realistic number, not even to speak of the children who would suffer for their whole lives as adults if there is no purpose in society for them.
And not even getting started to speak of the impact on the environment if there's one big resources-consumer less in the world...

It would be a drastic restructuring of society as it was to adapt to these circumstances with less people exsting again. But that process would be inevitable, as human civilization always finds a way of making work and production more effective than before, and by the time, this comes at the cost of human labor. No matter which economical system or system of world views it has in a century.
It is like one and only constant thread that keeps unfolding in history.

If not for those processes in mankind, which one can regard from one or another thousand positions, just think about the extinction of animal species: Animals vanished, as humans claimed the living space and bred like rabbits. Where humans live, animals have to go as humans want to live alone or even need the space for themselves.
One doesn't need to wonder about that process, as the earth has only a limited amount of living space.

Environment topics - overpopulation - vanishing of animal species - economy - social problems - all these topics are interconnected with each other. Each brick - another little factor in the other issue.
And when humans want to live up to the high goals they set for themselves in their enthusiasm, then they need to show a willingness to do something for this and to also adapt their societies to the links of the circumstances that are right in front of them.
There is no washing without getting wet. And no-one said it would be comfortable. Who thinks it would be, he lives in the world of a little child... Fairytales and unicorns.
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
"The land of the free never really cared about freedom. Not its politicians, not its oligarchs, not the people that really decide over the course of the country. It worked together with Nazis barely that they've fled from Europe just to bring down the Soviet Union because they were its political enemies. The United States - a Jew-friendly place? Open your eyes, by the time the Germans killed them by the masses in their concentration camps, nobody liked them anywhere either. Henry Ford was an anti-Semite, Disney was an anti-Semite - nobody thought about correcting their views or putting them to jail for it. Ford even had good trade relations with the Third Reich as long as it was possible. IBM delivered punch card machines for the bureaucratic administration of the concentration camps. If the United States really would have been so much against it, they had ordered those key technologies to be stopped to be delivered to the Nazis before they made the declaration of war. It would have just been a blow to them. Key technologies are always subject to the final OK of the state. If it doesn't happen, the administration doesn't want it. And the trail keeps continuing until the present. Fascists and butchers? As long as they're political enemies of an enemy of the states, they don't see reason why not making them their tool for a power change or to simply destroy the most promising competitor beside them.
One can't even tell how long in time this behavior goes back. It's been so much inherent to its system, it's like it goes back to the very early days - since the US was able to move on the international political parquet."
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
Information vanishes when the last one to tell it dies.
matrixmann: (Somebody called me?)
Ein Panzer hat keine Rücklichter und er piept auch nicht beim rückwärts fahren!

Tanks got no reversing lights and they don't beep while driving backwards!
matrixmann: (Thinking)
Die klassichen Arbeitsteilung von Mann und Frau der früheren Jahrhunderten sollte auch unter dem Aspekt der Arbeitsteilung betrachtet werden.
Ein Tag hat nur 24 Stunden; wenn einerseits Geld, andererseits aber auch Essen gekauft, zubereitet, häusliche Arbeiten wie Wäsche waschen, Putzen und sonstige Erhaltungsarbeiten als auch die Besorgung von Trinkwasser bewältigt werden müssen ohne Zuhilfenahme moderner Geräte wie Waschmaschinen, Herden und Autos, trinkbares Wasser ebenso nicht aus einer Leitung und einem Hahn, sondern aus einem Brunnen respektive durch eine Pumpe aus dem Erdreich geschöpft werden müssen, dann erreichen, allein durch das tägliche Zeitlimit bedingt, die Möglichkeiten eines Menschen die Grenzen des Machbaren für den Einzelnen.
Es müssen also mehrere Personen an der Bewältigung des Haushalts beteiligt sein und an seiner Aufrechterhaltung. Erst die Mittel der Moderne machen es möglich, dass jemand all dies allein bestreiten kann, und dass beide Partner einer Beziehung vollzeit arbeiten gehen können (noch dazu zu den gleichen Tageszeiten).
Es ermöglicht sogar, dass nicht die älteren Kinder (ab ca. 7 / 8 Jahren) einer Familie fester Bestandteil dieser Aufrechterhaltung der täglichen Lebensbasis mehr sein müssen und es lediglich noch eine Frage der Vorbereitung auf das Leben als Erwachsener in einem eigenen Haushalt sein kann.

Vielleicht eine gewagte These: Obgleich beide Geschlechter hätten jeweils den Part des anderen einnehmen können ohne dabei nach diskriminierenden Punkten vorgehen zu müssen, bildete sich diese Form der Arbeitsteilung heraus auf Grund der biologisch bedingten physischen Eigenschaften der beiden Geschlechter. Männer sind in der Muskelkraft stärker als Frauen, deswegen sind sie besser geeignet für physisch anstrengenden Arbeiten und den täglichen Broterwerb - der ohne die Zuhilfenahme moderner Maschinen, nur mit Hilfe von Handarbeit, größte Anforderungen an den menschlichen Körper stellt.
Frauen dagegen müssen zwar für die Hausarbeit ein stabiles Rückrat haben, welches für beide Geschlechter gleichermaßen wichtig ist, da auch sie Lasten transportieren und Muskelkraft aufwenden müssen, es ist dennoch leichter für sie zu bewältigen, Wäsche mit einem Waschbrett zu waschen als 30 Kilo schwere Gemüse- oder Getreidesäcke zu tragen. Oder Gemüse zu putzen, zu schneiden und einen Kesel Suppe aus ihnen zu kochen anstelle ein Feld manuell zu bearbeiten.
Wenn eine Frau keinen Mann hatte - weil keiner sie wollte oder ihr Mann bereits verstorben war und kein Sohn bereits reif genug war, die Rolle in der Arbeitsteilung zu übernehmen - konnte es ihr passieren, dass sie solche Tätigkeiten trotzdem ausführen musste aus dem Grunde, dass sie dazu gezwungen war, weil es niemand anderes für sie tat. Manche Exemplare - sowohl heute als auch in früheren Zeiten - waren dabei weniger, andere besser begabt und dafür geschaffen.
Für Männer galt dasselbe an dieser Stelle auf Grund des vorherrschenden Patriarchats einmal nicht, da sie sich wesentlich schneller wieder eine Frau nehmen konnten oder wenigstens ihre Töchter die Rolle der Mutter in der Arbeitsteilung übernehmen mussten, sobald sie groß genug dafür waren.

Für das Grundlegende kann aber gesagt werden: Ob es Diskriminierungsgründe gewesen sind oder nicht, sekundär, im Detail betrachtet, ergibt sich sogar aus dieser Form der Arbeitsteilung eine gewisse Logik, die einige Zweifel offen lässt, ob lediglich Diskriminierung an Hand des Geschlechts dazu geführt hat, dass Mann und Frau die Arbeiten zugeteilt bekommen haben, die sie erhielten.
Ohne die technischen Hilfsmittel der Moderne wäre es auch heute nicht möglich, anders zu leben als auf diese Art und Weise - die Arbeit zu teilen, Aufgaben zuzuweisen, je nach der persönlichen Begabung und den physischen Möglichkeiten des Einzelnen.
Arbeitsteilung ist sogar etwas, was in die Moderne überlebt hat - wenn auch nicht mehr ganz so ausladend wie es in früheren Jahrhunderten der Fall war.
An Stelle der freien Zeit, die durch die Arbeitserleichterung durch Maschinen entsteht, wachsen Hobbys, andere Verpflichtungen, soziale Verpflichtungen, längere Arbeitszeiten - generell oder aufgrund von freiwilligen Überstunden wegen des zusätzlichen Geldes -, Vergnügen, Unterhaltung und das Befassen mit dem Weltgeschene - sowohl in politischer als auch in sonstiger Hinsicht.
Es eröffnet auch den Raum dafür, sich schick zu kleiden, sich zu schminken, einen Duft aufzulegen, weil man durch weniger Schmutzquellen belastet ist, und balzen zu gehen, insofern man noch keinen Partner gefunden hat, oder gar den bestehenden - ganz übel - durch einen anderen auszutauschen.

Over

17 May 2016 05:36 pm
matrixmann: (Yuber Suikoden I)
One thing everyone needs to be ready for: If you tear down the current system, it means your current state of wealth is going to vanish too. The gadgets, the electronic devices, the oversupply that you use - is tied to the current economic and political system. If you make it go away, these things only keep existing as a remembrance of different times. There are no more of these things getting produced, the food chain needs to be rebuild from the basic local infrastructure.
There are going to be times of shortages and deprivation again over a certain amount of time.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Did capitalists think for a second - what if when they made all state property theirs? How do they increase their piece of the cake still then? What do they want to put on top of that? Going to space?
What if discovering and exploiting space still is impossible? What if if you have to be content with the resources you find on the earth?
What if if you can't go to the depths of the ocean if there are still no technical means for that business, or they overstep the profits you wanted to make?
What do you seriously do if you have conquered the last area, the last territory on earth, to increase your stack of richness that you have?
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
On the occasion of another climate summit: If you wanna do nature a real favor, mankind needs to stop living like a lord and draw on unlimited resources - and not just China, India and all those countries which now start to develop to the standard of the so-called "first world countries".
They also need to stop in the West to regard it as a self-evidence to use and throw away, to regard it as a justified measure to invent new things, cut out the old ones and produce the new ones like there is no end only because they can't reach new economic growth with producing the old equipment, and to produce worse things like energy saving lamps instead of regular bulbs made of glass, plate and tungsten only because some lobbyist with no specialized knowledge says they're environmentally more acceptable.
Above all, as radical and evil as it seems, mankind needs to put on serious thought to the fact that their wasteful lifestyle isn't able to be reached by all people in the world if the world contains more than 7 billion people. Either you can continue and have the least percentage of the human world have access to this standard of living, or you need to step down and live very basic from what the industrialized world currently calls its "normality", or there can only be at the most 2 billion people throughout the world which live like that so the resources they consume is enough for this mass taken from one planet. As it neither is healthy for the earth as well as for other planets to exploit their resources of metal ore, nor it is going to cause the world a lot of joy being contamined by radiation that exists throughout space.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
They draw borders on the moon,
borders on mars,
property in bloom,
when do they take the stars?
Anytime they draw them in the sky,
errect traffic lights,
call that "freedom of mine"
and still tell me "join the fights".

Even the mountains they turn into tourist attractions,
shift change on the roof of the world,
space enthusiasts can live their affections
as long as money is their word.
Doesn't matter if they're sick,
if they're old or half-past death,
bigness can buy every kick,
and fuel on all fantasies in their heads.

The world is an amusement park
for humans of all shades,
beware if someone starts to bark,
that's not calculated in their plays.
A golden cage, pretending thrills,
the last trial to escape is meth,
but drugs don't work, it kills
the cognition is solid, adventure is dead.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
War techniques change from army to structural war.
No area is restricted anymore.
From finances to markets to people to food to supply to natural resources, even to patents and to environmental standards, as well as known corruption, doping, tax evasion, known connections, drug traffic, weapon sales, international fraud - all of these territories have been approved to be used to cause another fraction damage which doesn't follow the desired order.
The ones fought on shall not realize what's going on until they're very much drowning in the soup. They shall be kept at a state until it's too late to notice. And, even if they understand whose fire they're under, they shall be kept too helpless to practically do anything against the scattered fire they've been put on.
Let them sleep until they've been surrounded and until they realize there are too many fronts to deal with at one time.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
WLAN is the Achilles' heel of every device.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Picking up something that had already been indicated here: https://matrixmann.dreamwidth.org/50445.html

Some specific professions already face problems in finding trainees during these days. The reasons for this are various, from too long working hours to bad payment, from factual missing of employee's rights to temporary contracts and from disability to lead a private life to quick replacement.
But, the most remarkable thing awaits in the details as often: The current system using and needing these jobs of this certain kind, it is under threat to break down because it mostly relies on legacy. People once apprenticed a long time ago are the main pillar to shoulder the system and they don't apprentice as many new trainees to replace the old ones that retire finally. More than that, they rather lay out the threat to automatize and replace by machines to answer the uncovered future needs, speaking of "modernization" and "to become more efficient".
What sly-feeling people on the managment floor never get in touch with or even don't calculate, machines are only as intelligent as their inventors could realize and as their masters can operate them, meaning they're far more vulnerable to errors just because they're missing human autonomous intelligence and mankind is not going to success too soon to imitate that. Besides, they may not claim a wage and social security, but they will require propellants instead to feed them and they will also need maintaining. In the case of a drone for package delivery, especially it's going to be ineffecient because one drone may only be able to carry one package at a time, a utility van loaded with packages for delivery can take a lot more. Including they will produce a lot of air traffic which needs to be coordinated suddenly.
So, if it is sold on the outside as an improvement of service, actually it is in fact a downgrade.
Also it avoids solving the homemade problem of relying on crops gained in the past and relying on education that other countries have done which pursue a different policy.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Why mankind is not getting anywhere?
Because it rather keeps looking down on its smartphones than taking a look at the stars.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Going out from these two: https://matrixmann.dreamwidth.org/43201.html,
https://matrixmann.dreamwidth.org/48862.html

In former times they recognized people can't do complicated work if they're kept on a level where they can't even neither read nor write, so they invested into education for the greater poorer masses.
Today it's like this all shall be reversed.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Somehow it is like most music being released these days is intended to play in the background. It babbles away and it's missing an outline.
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
The ballroom has opened,
we come here tonight,
dressed up like a peacock for mating season.
We arrive in a carriage
that is of a noble court,
the doorman lets us in
after brief visit of our faces.
Inside the show prepares,
or it already runs,
dancing minuet and drinking wine,
meat and drink at its best,
the newest craze in music and culture,
and some already fumble in the back.
The deejay puts his record on
and orders the audience to turn this night into day,
electronic sounds clang from the speaker
which makes the nobles spin around.

The night the ballroom building doesn't stand still,
splendid light, gaudy clientele, the selected society,
listening to sounds of the newest courtly composer,
dancing the newest dance.
The noblemen toast to themselves,
like there is no other day,
the noblewomen look for a good match
while they do the same.
The music keeps on playing
like there is no day and night,
when the sun rises up,
they will stroll home drunk.

Tracker

2 May 2014 07:46 pm
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
Why is it that for every single online service you need an account?
Even if you only use it once, you get forced to leave some more or less sensible data behind without it ever being deleted for inactivity. Forums or social networks perhaps may do this due to saving webspace on their servers which can be used again for active customers.
But the more important services where you leave behind the number of your credit card, the number of your bank account or the information where you live - they never seem to do this kind of maintenance.
The given information rots there until the very day, or until the service vanishes or something else radically changes on it.

On the other hand, registering and getting an account always was preached as a kind of "security method" to avoid anonymous hating, spamming, fraud and all other kinds of human ugliness.
If somebody wanted to use a service, he should leave behind who he is so that if he abused the platform the offerer could call him into his responsibilities.
It's a fallacy to think that this would stop anyone from committing misbehavior.
Sometimes, if you're unlucky, their discrediting words are even protected by the American "freedom of speech" and there's only the way left to the user to shut down all gates to make it impossible for the insultor to reach the person of his disgust.
Another time someone plays with false data and it would be hard to find him even if you wanted to. And if so, it would take a while.
And even if an insultor or fraud joined the game with honest personal data, it sometimes takes a while until the service reacts to his mischievous behavior.

So - what kind of use have accounts then except for business, if the security they should deliver is always dependent on the user who is behind it?
matrixmann: (Wasteland Ranger)
It is no wonder that humans spend more time before their video game consoles than in real life.
If each game was designed that way that one chapter takes at least 3 hours, it is clear that the player will invest a lot of time to see some visible progress - time he does not spend in his real life.

In earlier times, the same result seemed not to be reached by large contents, but through the addicition factor of playing the story over and over again.

If anybody wants to do something on that, my guessing leads me to the thought that you would need to direct your requests to the producing industry. Why they design video games the way they do it, why they always need to enlarge contents and if they do not guess it is slowly better for their own race to reduce the extent of their products.

July 2017

M T W T F S S
     1 2
34 56 78 9
1011 1213 1415 16
17 1819 2021 22 23
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Statistics


Free counters!

Free counters!
Page generated 25 July 2017 08:47 am