You requested for a peer-reviewed report, and I presented it to you. You did not read it because if you did, then you would see that I'm not referring to nature.

Please read the report.

You requested for a peer-reviewed report, and I presented it to you. — ralfy

I just took a look above and do not see what you are referring to.

Regards
DL

Go to this post:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/281473

The link to the report is embedded in it.

"Is Global Collapse Imminent?" — ralfy

They are asking the question and giving the facts that they know.

Fact is, with the chaos we have in the environment at present, we do not know anything for certain.

We do know for a fact that the earth will look after itself as it has for billions of years and will not collapse. That does not mean that mankind will fare as well. If we are too slow to adapt to the new environment, we might go extinct but the world will just shrug that off and replace the ecosystem we dies in by a form of life that will thrive.

Do you like George Carlin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Miv4NHsDo&feature=related

Regards
DL

The report is not referring to planetary collapse.

We don't know that the earth will take care of itself. Evidence seems to point to the contrary. The solar system will inevitably fizzle out, and the only way we'll survive it is by manipulating ourselves and our environment in precisely the correct manner without any idea as to what that manner is.

The report is not referring to planetary collapse. — ralfy

Informative. Thanks.

Regards
DL

We don't know that the earth will take care of itself. — whollyrolling

We know that it will eventually die just as all things die by entropy but it sure looks like it will outlive most species that are here now just as it has done for millions upon millions of years. Any thing we do to not go extinct is only good for us as the earth will outlast us by eons. At least on this planet.

I think it a joke that we look to terraforming another planet while we cannot even terraform ours to a better condition for us.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Regards
DL

Why are you talking about a ball of rock as if it has a soul? And how is it "stupid" that a parasitic species would move on after destroying its host? It requires a host. If its present host is about to die, wouldn't it be "smart" to find a new one?

Why are you talking about a ball of rock as if it has a soul? And how is it "stupid" that a parasitic species would move on after destroying its host? It requires a host. If its present host is about to die, wouldn't it be "smart" to find a new one? — whollyrolling

I do not speak of the earth as having a soul.
Historically, we have personified the earth as Gaia of Mother earth.
You are rather intolerant of common practice of just had nothing better to say about the issue, which was terraforming.

I think that if more people thought of the earth in a personified way, we might not be passing it to our children a lot worse off that what we began with. No?

If you think man can destroy the earth, and terraform a dead worlds when we cannot even terraform this one, then, tell me what polite thing can I say of your thinking?

Technologically, we are decades, if not centuries, away from being able to terraform a dead planet as we do not even have the teck to terraform our 99% live planet. Mars will always be a satellite or way station for earth. It will never be a home.

Regards
DL

To complete my argument, re-distribution of only a fraction of the wealth of the 200 richest people in the world is enough to end global poverty. Even better, the rich can recover that wealth easily as the amount redistributed will be used to purchase goods and services from their businesses.

The problem is that the welfare of the world population is based essentially on material resources and energy, and those are limited by diminishing returns and physical limitations of the biosphere, not to mention affected by pollution and the effects of global warming. And that population continues to rise even with lower birth rates due to momentum.

True, but the numbers are due to level off and start lowering in 20 odd years or so.
I think we will level at 9.5 billion. The earth can handle it and with such a rich world, we can afford it.

It will be hell though if we do not get better organized in how we deal with the changes in where populations are as global climate changes our environment.

You are correct in your view of trickle up and also on the actual pittance that is required to end poverty.

Regards
DL

There is a flaw in the redistribution scheme. Before I continue... I believe that the severe disproportionality of wealth should and could be corrected. Be that as it may, though...

If you take the wealth of the richest 2000, 200, or 20 and distributed it evenly to the poor, they would be much better off, but not for long. First, inserting a few billion dollars into the economy of Kenya or Laos would cause an immediate inflationary surge (too much money pursuing too few goods). One could slowly infuse the poor Kenyan's or Laotians share into the economy, which would be better. But however it was distributed, when it was gone, it would be back to business as usual.

The really difficult task of redistribution of wealth is to use the proceeds to develop the economy of Kenya or Laos such that they would produce more of the goods (housing, food, health care... whatever) that they wanted. Further, the proceeds should be plowed back into the Kenyan or Laotian economy to further benefit the people there, rather than already rich people.

One can imagine this happening, but making it happen is quite difficult, especially if the end is to eliminate disparities of wealth.

I have no sympathy with the rich who would be dispossessed; that's fine by me. But actually changing peasants' and slum dwellers' lives takes time and expertise and a great deal of care (lest it blow up in everybody's face).

The development problem is the inverse of getting the American, European, and Asian industrial economies to stop producing and consuming so much so that the global climate won't be totally ruined for human habitation. It's damned difficult to get people to change, EVEN when changing means a better life in the future (or life at all).

That's not a flaw. Rather, there is a need to plan carefully.

The flaw is found in the second paragraph of my post.

That's not a flaw. Rather, there is a need to plan carefully. — ralfy

Right, I wasn't saying your thinking was flawed. What is flawed is the idea that a simple redistribution of wealth (a check arrives in 3 billion mailboxes) would fix everything.

I agree that a limited supply of material resources (exploitable metals, good soil, fresh water, stable climate) is a fatal limitation on both population and development.

That's not a flaw in my idea but in execution.

Right, I wasn't saying your thinking was flawed. What is flawed is the idea that a simple redistribution of wealth (a check arrives in 3 billion mailboxes) would fix everything. — Bitter Crank

https://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2

If you can visualize at all, just imagine how few bricks, so to speak, we would have to move from the extreme right of this graph to the extreme left before the ideal would be reached.

Just a few. Right?

Regards
DL

True, but ours can be manipulated by the U.N., for instance, if the majority of other countries and their coalitions are powerful enough.

There is also the U.N. court that has teeth. Little one. yes, but they can still bite. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

It seems reasonable to expect the trend toward multinational and global organization will continue, given the persistence of technological culture along something like its current trajectory.

I suppose the nation-state for now remains the primary political unit, at least in its role as primary administrative district; while the authority and power to administer these districts moves along supra- and super-national, as well as government and nongovernment, axes.

It seems reasonable to expect the trend toward multinational and global organization will continue, — Cabbage Farmer

I agree and doubt that it can be stopped even though the right wing nationalists are putting up a good fight.

Regards
DL

I agree and doubt that it can be stopped even though the right wing nationalists are putting up a good fight. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I wonder if that fight isn't just another circus sideshow, albeit an especially repugnant and dangerous one. It seems to me those nationalists are by and large just so many more unwitting pawns of the oligarchs. The trend of globalization continues as the powerful few marshal discord among the people of Earth, even promoting antiglobalist rhetoric as cover for their self-serving operations. The current rise of right-wing nationalism does not put that trend in check, but only helps ensure that wealth and power remain in the hands of the few.

I wonder if that fight isn't just another circus sideshow, — Cabbage Farmer

Of course it is all a show. It is all done for entertainment and to distract us from the reality that we will continue to be slaved to our oligarch masters until we finally take control of our various governing bodies from their control.
Only good tax laws can reverse our slave status but the oligarchs are controlling that like they control everything else.
Regards
DL

If governments controlled disposable income of the .1 %, would poverty end? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Less than 30 individuals own and control more than half the wealth in the whole world. If governments confiscated this wealth, and they used it to combat poverty, the there would be less poverty. Maybe even an end to poverty, if the wealth proved sufficient.

If all the millionaires money were distributed it would not do a single thing except cause massive inflation. A piece of pizza would cost $80, a new car $890,000...

What no one is talking about is that in today’s world most families require two incomes to get same lifestyle as one income did 50 years ago.

That’s inflation in itself. How can this be rectified? Start off by incentivizing a 30 hour work week. Which by the way Obama somewhat was attempting to do with Obamacare.

What’s also interesting is, if our politicians were so concerned about the income gap, why not start out reducing or eliminating the poor’s and middle classes taxes first?

Nothing can or will change anyway until our fiat money system goes away. As money is being created the very people that control it take their cut of the money first. Then, each group thereafter takes their cut until the rest of the money gets distributed to the masses.

if the wealth proved sufficient. — Pattern-chaser

From looking at the stats, I note how little it would actually take to reverse the trend of the rich stealing from the poor.

Crumbs from the rich table is all that is required to put our socio economic demographic pyramid into a moral state or shape.

Regards
DL

It would certainly help

Nothing can or will change anyway until our fiat money system goes away. — halo

You put nothing that I agree with and speculate on so many issues that I would not know where to start my critique.

You have already taken the defeated's position and are kowtowing to our oligarch owners.

Regards
DL

It would certainly help — Frotunes

I agree and think so by a long shot.

Regards
DL

Just taxation won't solve the problem. There are areas where revolutoinary reforms are required rather than just pumping money into the government bureaucracy, leaving things in such a sorry state as now.

But if we're talking about just the United States, higher and fairer taxes seem to be the only immediate solution. The inequality there is unbelievable, probably the most compared to any other country, and the public sector is nowhere as good as many in Europe and even Asia. Even essential sectors like education and health are in a sorry state in many places, if we are to believe the newspapers. The low growth rates into the future also seems imminent, although unemployment does seem to be in a good state. But next time they will have to elect a Democrat if they're not going to face various serious problems, economic, environmental, social and geopolitical. Trump hasn't really delivered his promises by a long run, and his entire regime has been a sort of joke, propagated by the brash, angry, narrow-minded and careless media run by the rich corporations for profit. The state of the internet and the social media hasn't at all been much help in this regard, and the internet now is probably worse than it ever was. A more progressive candidate for the Democrat party seems imminent to me, but such a powerful force has not been noticed yet and the election is creeping ever so close. The richest need to be taxed away more and more in the coming years if there is to be much hope for the United States in the future.

That is a very sobering thought, and what you recommended will probably never happen as well, not for a very long time at least. Or perhaps some unforeseen factor in the coming decades will change things, who knows.