PDA

View Full Version : the 2 biggest myths in geopolitics


TSA
06-25-2011, 01:41 AM
1. Population problems. There's no such a thing. Some countries are just more populated then others. China doesn't have the population density of Hong Kong, which if you measure by ratio of land+resources+potential resources/human population, Hong Kong is the fucking disaster, but it's a lot richer then china per capita and it's people have more resources then the average chinese. Also, the entire world's population can fit in Texas..real shit, or in Australia with vast amounts of usable land for everyone. If China had the population density NY did it would still be good, we're no where near 'using up' the earth or 'over crowding' it.



2. Oil will run out. I don't believe that shit came from dinosaurs or dead beings, and if you see the measures countries that produce oil take to get rid of the excess as opposed to save for a rainy day you'll realize that shit is more then abundant. Plus we haven't explored oil in the deep sea and the world's oil supply as is comes from only researching a VERY insignifcant amount of the earth's land. a VERY insignificant amount. Like there could fucking be oil in germany for all we know, nobodies looked in the right spot. plus we can only dig and reach a very pathetic depth in comparison to the earths internal radius. we've basically decided that the we're only going to have sex with girls from out 4th grade art class for the rest of our lives and haven't even had a hawt summuh in florida where there a plenty of white women willing to allow us to breed mixed raced pandemics all day. that shit ain't running out bruh.

TSA
06-25-2011, 01:43 AM
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NvoJ5EQHQKE/TT49VIKaz8I/AAAAAAAAAFE/thI9OtnyWA8/s1600/saints+row+tranny+fight.JPG

RzaRectum
06-25-2011, 02:00 AM
1. Population problems. There's no such a thing. Some countries are just more populated then others. China doesn't have the population density of Hong Kong, which if you measure by ratio of land+resources+potential resources/human population, Hong Kong is the fucking disaster, but it's a lot richer then china per capita and it's people have more resources then the average chinese. Also, the entire world's population can fit in Texas..real shit, or in Australia with vast amounts of usable land for everyone. If China had the population density NY did it would still be good, we're no where near 'using up' the earth or 'over crowding' it.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljd3p8jThC1qixleeo1_400.gif

Except, there is a population problem; we're confined to existing spaces, hence the myth seems to be reality. But your right, there is plenty of room to build new cities, towns, neighborhoods. The real limit is our thoughts on how to create opportunities.

EAGLE EYE
06-25-2011, 02:12 AM
I've never agreed with the idea of over population, and nor does Ray Kurzweil ..who's offered solutions to the age old concept of supply and demand in some of his books. Like: (a universal constructor that arranges/creates/programs atoms into intelligent designs). Right now the general population is extremely short sighted about the coming innovations (because they are following Chris Brown Twitter BEEFS) and dismiss any ideas that will completely turn the fabric of society inside out for the greater good.


But this obviously wont come to fruition if DMX in fact joins the Maybach Music Group and dem illuminati niggaz who get their nails painted.

Clan Destine
06-25-2011, 02:52 PM
I'm not going to disagree with you in the hard sense, I'm just going to offer some different perspectives or facts. It may very well be true neither of these things are problems but I don't think you can just swear them off with some notions.

1. Population problems. There's no such a thing. Some countries are just more populated then others. China doesn't have the population density of Hong Kong, which if you measure by ratio of land+resources+potential resources/human population, Hong Kong is the fucking disaster, but it's a lot richer then china per capita and it's people have more resources then the average chinese. Also, the entire world's population can fit in Texas..real shit, or in Australia with vast amounts of usable land for everyone. If China had the population density NY did it would still be good, we're no where near 'using up' the earth or 'over crowding' it.

Population problems aren't a problem of space, I don't think you're arguing that. It is a matter of resources and consumption. The problem is using up arable land on a global level, maintaining a balance of the necessities, water, energy, labour etc. Ok, Australia and Texas have space, but they have problems with water, especially Australia. You can have abundance of things in different areas, but then you need to consider the energy and organizational will it takes to make it all work. I forget the factor of loss here, but we basically dump oil in agriculture and are constantly degrading soil fertility, we constantly lose energy on a global scale making food, compared to previous practices.

Like I said, population pressure is multiplied by consumption levels. The problem is, places like China and India are now expecting to consume on the levels of NA and Europe, which is fucked. Considering the amount of energy and waste and pollution that involves.

Population may not be a serious issue now, but you can't tell me, it doesn't matter how many people are on the planet, we're cool. You want to move to Texas, Australia? There's space, but its shit space and there's land but its shit land. And there's ways to live for sure, but they're shittier than what you're used to.



2. Oil will run out. I don't believe that shit came from dinosaurs or dead beings, and if you see the measures countries that produce oil take to get rid of the excess as opposed to save for a rainy day you'll realize that shit is more then abundant. Plus we haven't explored oil in the deep sea and the world's oil supply as is comes from only researching a VERY insignifcant amount of the earth's land. a VERY insignificant amount. Like there could fucking be oil in germany for all we know, nobodies looked in the right spot. plus we can only dig and reach a very pathetic depth in comparison to the earths internal radius. we've basically decided that the we're only going to have sex with girls from out 4th grade art class for the rest of our lives and haven't even had a hawt summuh in florida where there a plenty of white women willing to allow us to breed mixed raced pandemics all day. that shit ain't running out bruh.

OK. I don't know, that all sounds very scientific. Im not saying I'm a geologist either, but you're basically just saying the 'experts' are wrong based on some feeling that the supposed reality seems counter-intuitive. Sometimes shit is counter-intuitive. But sure, people who study it could very well be wrong or lying. I think the point is that the rate of oil 'strikes' have diminished, and you can't tell me the oil cats don't hunt for that black gold. Also, It isn't that we're running out of oil, its that we're reaching a point where the supply is beginning make the costs high. Both in the market sense and in the energy cost of obtaining the oil, where the energy in is more than the energy out. Once you reach a point where oil isn't that abundant (especially if the population increases and demands more luxuries) it becomes so expensive as to make it unusable as a source of energy in the economic sense (or you just have a scenario where the powerful have the means to becoming more powerful). It could make sense that 'vested interests' make it seem like Oil is always on the point of rarity, but then you would have to discredit the supposed 'independent' scientists who argue for peak oil. If you do so, then you have to explain how there are scientists which work against these 'vested interests' through the confirmation of global warming.

Anyways, it is entirely possible that these 'problems' can be circumvented by a technological singularity. I get that too. But I don't think you can disregard either of them flippantly using 'folk knowledge' or magic bullets. You can't grow indefinitely and you can't consume indefinitely without changing the coordinates of what growth and consumption are. Also, you can never disregard power and insanity and individual idiosyncracy when you think about these things. Cats think that technology will change everything, but they don't consider whose going to be controlling that technology, and what their motivations will be. I wouldn't hedge that they would be altruistic or even 'capitalist'. And, when considering how radical the level of technology might get, there is no guarantee against some random catastrophic global fuck up.

CEITEDMOFO
06-25-2011, 02:53 PM
^ THIS PARAGRAPH NIGGA & TSA IS IN THE HOMO CATERGORY WITH LOUIS CYPHERs FOR POSTING B PUMPERS GOOCH

3rd3y3
06-25-2011, 02:58 PM
The most baffling of the ancient paradoxes is probably the Sorites Paradox, attributed to Eubulides in the 4th century BC. The word “Sorites” comes from Greek sōros, “heap”, and the riddle is sometimes also called “the paradox of the heap”. The conundrum lies in two assumptions which, by themselves, seem totally reasonable, but combined together, quickly lead to a bizarre conclusion.

Assumption 1. A single grain of sand is not a “heap”;
Assumption 2. If some sand is not a “heap” initially, one more grain won’t make it a heap.
Conclusion: No finite amount of sand qualifies as a heap.


The proof is simple. Let N be any finite number, as big as you like. We claim N grains of sand don’t make a heap. By the first assumption, one grain isn’t a heap. Now apply the second assumption over and over: 2 grains aren’t a heap; nor 3; nor 4… after N-1 steps, we’re forced to agree, N grains of sand do not a heap make. Since we proved this for an arbitrarily large N, that means no finite graincount is high enough!
What can we learn from Eubulides’ puzzle? The most important lesson is that language is inherently vague.


We can apply this to world human population:

One human isn’t overpopulation, and a non-overpopulated world surely has room for one more person. Conclusion: no finite population qualifies as overpopulation. Another exciting breakthrough courtesy of The Riddler!



Do you blindly accept the overpopulation threat?

Do you question things?


http://www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104364

Frank Sobotka
06-25-2011, 03:11 PM
Your residence isn't the only space you take up.
The food we consume takes up a lot of space, especially all the meat-eaters.

beautifulrock
06-25-2011, 03:49 PM
The most densely populated country in the world is Monaco. I'd be willing to bet nobody who lives there is complaining either.