That would be unprecedented, but interesting. — Vera Mont

Yes, it would...I'd love to see it happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

Voting has very little effect on the social and economic structure. It fractures due to design flaws, not user input. — Vera Mont

I agree, and I think the problem is the two-party system, with effectively little to choose between the two.

I agree, and I think the problem is the two-party system, with effectively little to choose between the two. — Janus

That's only the US. Other countries are having problems with the democratic system, as well. Each country's problems can be identified with some factional, ethnic or regional circumstance, or procedural flaws or economic setbacks. What's the common denominator of all struggling democracies?

What's the common denominator of all struggling democracies? — Vera Mont

IMHO, the common denominator is a structural lack of economic democracy (i.e. they are "democracies"-in-name-only).

IMHO, the common denominator is a structural lack of economic democracy (i.e. they are "democracies"-in-name-only). — 180 Proof

Is that a nice way of saying corruption?

:smirk:
i.e. mismanagement rationalized by misinformation ...

My point is that the huge changes of the past 20 years may mean that tipping point has now been reached. — Tim3003

I think it would be proper to list just what are those tipping points 2000-2020 that haven't been around earlier. And I presume that for what you have in mind there are already lengthy threads on this site. And when we look at them, each one specifically, then it gets difficult really to pinpoint it to now.

So I assume there's a) climate change, b) peak of natural resources and then political developments. (If you have other thoughts, please mention them). Collapse due to population growth has already been proven quite dubious: China's biggest problem is the shrinking workforce, not that it would have problems in feeding it's people. In the West the population size is already decreasing without immigration.

Let's take one example: peak conventional oil production (as it was then defined) peaked globally in 2006. This was quite in line with Hubbert's predictions in 1956, as he had gotten right about US oil production in the 1970's. But then again what wasn't anticipated was technological advances. Hence the real production (in green) is totally different from the foreceast.



And this is one of the crucial errors all assumptions of the evident collapse of societies due to shrinking natural resources don't take into consideration: as prices of scarce resources go higher, then alternative production methods and technologies become competitive and with competition and advances in technology, the prices of these alternatives become lower.

The Golden Age was first; when Man, yet new,
No rule but uncorrupted Reason knew:
And, with a native bent, did good pursue.
Unforc'd by punishment, un-aw'd by fear.
His words were simple, and his soul sincere;
Needless was written law, where none opprest:
The law of Man was written in his breast. — Ovid

And it's been downhill ever since. Thusly, our inheritance tells us to avoid hubris and the pretence of very stable genius. Do not pass Go, do not call Ghostbusters. Just grit your teeth and dig your heels in.

if the populace acted as one — Janus

But that can only be an ideal theoretical possibility because, like the air or the clouds, the populace is not actually a permanent existent entity. It's only a Platonic concept. Historically, revolutions that do happen only turned power over to some new (usually worse) elite.

What if everyone collectively decided they did not want their money to be in the bank or in the financial and stock markets, and collectively decided to keep their energy consumption to an absolute minimum, grow their own food, only travel when absolutely necessary and so on? — Janus

Yes, and what if mankind was a different species? I don't see much to be gained by going down these alleys of conjecture.

I think it would be proper to list just what are those tipping points 2000-2020 that haven't been around earlier. And I presume that for what you have in mind there are already lengthy threads on this site. And when we look at them, each one specifically, then it gets difficult really to pinpoint it to now. — ssu

Yes you're right, it is impossible to pick one point in time for the tipping point. (And anyway, we haven't even agreed the metric whose value we're watching). If there is one, it will probably only be visible in retrospect after a decade or more. Maybe more likely is a continuation in the slow and uneven reduction in growth we've had since 2008, and then a gradual nosing downwards into contraction. But since the trend-line will be affected by one-off wars, pandemics, climate disasters - whatever - it won't be smooth.

I agree too with what you say about the combination of many factors that affect this overall trend direction. But as there are so many, and they all trend downwards, doesn't that make this overall change seem more likely? Or are there other global indicators looking positive? Maybe investment profit from green tech? But surely that is a mitigation of problems we've already caused. It's just replacing fossil fuel burning (or livestock production or electricity consumption) as a source of growth, it's not an additional source..

It's just replacing fossil fuel burning (or livestock production or electricity consumption) as a source of growth, it's not an additional source.. — Tim3003

Why are you looking to growth? Isn't that - production, distribution, marketing and consumption of goods and services, investment, borrowing, population, construction, increased demand for raw materials, energy, water and food - growth - what brought us to this point?

Yes, and what if mankind was a different species? I don't see much to be gained by going down these alleys of conjecture. — Tim3003

You don't need the populace to be a "permanent existent entity" you just need everyone, or at least enough people who get the picture, but yes, I don't believe it will happen; the point was just that without the possibility of globally coordinated action then it doesn't look too hopeful. The elites will screw the populace, and the politicians will let them do it.

Without the populace itself, at least some number of people which would constitute a kind of critical mass, refusing to be screwed then it will remain all smoke and mirrors, and we will continue to be screwed, until civilization itself is screwed.

As to "going down these alleys of conjecture" it doesn't seem any more pointless than this whole topic is.

, , I guess this stuff is a step in that direction, sort of ...?

CEO on why giving all employees minimum salary of $70,000 still "works" six years later: "Our turnover rate was cut in half" (CBS · Sep 16, 2021)

The Company Where Every Employee Earns the Same (WIRED · May 30, 2023)

Who really needs 3 cars and 2 houses anyway? Cut down on the excess.

I guess this stuff is a step in that direction, sort of ...? — jorndoe

For sure. Some people get it. It would really be good to believe it's enough and in time.

Maybe more likely is a continuation in the slow and uneven reduction in growth we've had since 2008, and then a gradual nosing downwards into contraction. But since the trend-line will be affected by one-off wars, pandemics, climate disasters - whatever - it won't be smooth. — Tim3003

Economy in the West has slowed. But I think here is that our debt-based monetary system is to blame. The problem is that the debt is not used for just investment, but for consumption. More debt simply won't simulate growth. And for example Japan has already gone over the tipping point: it simply cannot have high interest rates. Hence it has (or had to) let the Yen fall, because it cannot make any rate hikes.



Too much debt hinders economic growth and creates the so-called "zombies" and zombie-economy. This is a result of there been no limitations on just how much you can print money as we've been off from the gold standard (or the remnants of it) since the 1970's. In historical terms, this is a very short term, actually. Usually paper money experiments have failed in the past. Let's see how this 50-year old experiment will last.

agree too with what you say about the combination of many factors that affect this overall trend direction. But as there are so many, and they all trend downwards, doesn't that make this overall change seem more likely? Or are there other global indicators looking positive? — Tim3003

First of all: start to look at thing globally and don't concentrate on the US. That's the first thing people don't see.

Let's start from the really important indicators, that tell really something about improvements globally:



The above statistic, especially for Africa, but also for other continents cannot be anything else that extremely positive! It shows how life is actually improving in the poorest nations. This is no sign of a collapse. You simply cannot disregard the improvements that have happened in the last 20 years.

Of course, Americans can look at themselves and be pessimistic. As in the US the life expectancy is falling:

"American children are less likely to live to age 5 than children in other high-income countries," the authors write on the second page. It goes on: "Even Americans with healthy behaviors, for example, those who are not obese or do not smoke, appear to have higher disease rates than their peers in other countries."

The researchers catalog what they call the "U.S. health disadvantage" – the fact that living in America is worse for your health and makes you more likely to die younger than if you lived in another rich country like the U.K., Switzerland or Japan.

Yes, Americans eat more calories and lack universal access to health care. But there's also higher child poverty, racial segregation, social isolation, and more. Even the way cities are designed makes access to good food more difficult.

And btw, Americans use THE MOST MONEY on Health Care per Capita in the World per capita. Yes, people not in even in welfare heaven of Norway don't use as much on health care than Americans. But hey, health care companies and insurance companies are making profits!

The above statistic, especially for Africa, but also for other continents cannot be anything else that extremely positive! It shows how life is actually improving in the poorest nations. This is no sign of a collapse. You simply cannot disregard the improvements that have happened in the last 20 years. — ssu

I think you miss my point. Yes life expectancy is increasing - in the poorer countries this is a triumph of modern medicines over disease, and provides more wealth-creating workers. However, in the developed world, the survival of many into their 80s and 90s and beyond has a negative impact on growth. And in the long term the poorer countries will become rich..

When the average worker retired at 65 and was dead by 75 (often quickly and cheaply in health terms by heart attack, stroke etc), they only needed support from the pensions system for an average of 5 to 10 years. Now pensioners need that support for 20 or 30 years, and that will grow. And they are not living in serene comfortable retirement. The older people get, the more complex, long-term and costly illnesses they get. Our expertise in keeping people alive is now costing billions. This is why nations are scrambling to raise pension ages and pensions themselves are becoming much less generous.

Perhaps I'm being cold-hearted, but I'm not discussing society's triumphs in prolonging life, but whether it can pay for all that in future with proportionately fewer workers.

btw: I hail from the UK, not the US.

Things are getting better and worse, depending on how one looks at it and what one values.

Pinker, Rösling and the like will point at material conditions objectively improving, and present nice charts to illustrate their point. Others will point at climate change, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification,... all kinds of ecological degradation.

Both can be, and are true at the same time. Conditions are getting better for humans overall, while the biosphere deteriorates. What we have been doing essentially is increasing material wealth for humans at a cost to the environment.

The question then is, what is more important? I think ultimately we can't escape the fact that we grew out of and depend on this biosphere we are degrading, and we will have to pay the price eventually. So even if we wouldn't value ecosystems inherently, but only care about say human flourishing narrowly, even then, degrading the biosphere will eventually also have its consequences for that.

If we were on the titanic five minutes before it crashed on that iceberg, pointing at all the material wealth and luxury on the ship to argue that things never have been better objectively would seem rather strange indeed... Where we are heading should be an important factor in this equation.

Of course people will disagree about that too, eventough the science is pretty clear... overall the biosphere is deteriorating rapidly on most metrics. And on the other hand there is little to no evidence that we can actually grow and innovate ourselves out of these problems, which would be the obvious proposed solution... traditionally economic growth has had a strong correlation with overall ecologiocal degradation.

You don't need the populace to be a "permanent existent entity" you just need everyone, or at least enough people who get the picture, but yes, I don't believe it will happen; the point was just that without the possibility of globally coordinated action then it doesn't look too hopeful. The elites will screw the populace, and the politicians will let them do it.

Without the populace itself, at least some number of people which would constitute a kind of critical mass, refusing to be screwed then it will remain all smoke and mirrors, and we will continue to be screwed, until civilization itself is screwed. — Janus

:up: :100:
When looking at the world situation with an eye toward the future, it is natural to measure things, temperatures, markets, etc.
Harder to measure is the inner experience of being a human right now.

What alchemy is going on in the hearts and minds of a humanity pushed to extremes?
What hopes are sprouting despite the dark clouds and sulphuric air?
Why does love and acceptance seem even scarcer than money and gold?

Maybe a new way of thinking about a different way of living is slowly being born.
One naturally imagines signs of spring during a harsh winter blizzard.

The Golden Age was first; when Man, yet new,
No rule but uncorrupted Reason knew:
And, with a native bent, did good pursue.
Unforc'd by punishment, un-aw'd by fear.
His words were simple, and his soul sincere;
Needless was written law, where none opprest:
The law of Man was written in his breast.
— Ovid

And it's been downhill ever since. Thusly, our inheritance tells us to avoid hubris and the pretence of very stable genius. Do not pass Go, do not call Ghostbusters. Just grit your teeth and dig your heels in. — unenlightened

:smile: :up: Thanks for sharing that!

When looking at the world situation with an eye toward the future, it is natural to measure things, temperatures, markets, etc.
Harder to measure is the inner experience of being a human right now.

What alchemy is going on in the hearts and minds of a humanity pushed to extremes?
What hopes are sprouting despite the dark clouds and sulphuric air?
Why does love and acceptance seem even scarcer than money and gold?

Maybe a new way of thinking about a different way of living is slowly being born.
One naturally imagines signs of spring during a harsh winter blizzard. — 0 thru 9

I agree, it is how people feel about their lives and how much they can bear of a situation which perhaps all, including those who do not tend to reflect on much, feel to be well out of kilter, not to mention outrageous and unjust, that may bring about a radical shift, when and if things get bad enough.

It does seem to be better, more conducive to better outcomes, to preserve hope than to sink into despair. As the saying goes "prepare for the worst despite hoping and, as much as possible working, for the best".

Maybe a new way of thinking about a different way of living is slowly being born. — 0 thru 9

Undoubtedly.

https://thetinylife.com/what-is-the-tiny-house-movement/
communal living
urban farming
https://ecoshack.com/how-to-live-off-the-grid/

Eschewing meat has become increasingly mainstream.

https://www.thesimplicityhabit.com/what-simple-living-is/
small-scale renewable energy systems.
That's all going in the right direction. Unfortunately, there are still far too many of us for everyone to benefit, although that situation could be remedied in a relatively short time, with the will to do so.
Some initiatives are well under way
https://africaclimatesummit.org/
natural farming
green building in Asia
Indigenous peoples and local communities
The question is which kind of endeavour wins. It seems to me the madness of international politics and trade moves faster than the sanity of mitigation.

With the brewing climate change, these have taken part in shaping the present: pandemic (Dec 2019), the US leaving Afghanistan (Feb 2020), Russia invading Ukraine (Feb 2022 (also Feb 2014)), Hamas-Israel warring (Oct 2023).
Whether we like it or not, there will be future impact as well.
Frederick Kempe noted "pay now or pay more later".
Paying my part.
What's the cost of longer-term prosperity, progress, anyway?

I agree, it is how people feel about their lives and how much they can bear of a situation which perhaps all, including those who do not tend to reflect on much, feel to be well out of kilter, not to mention outrageous and unjust, that may bring about a radical shift, when and if things get bad enough. — Janus

:up: Yes.

And though I was referring to spiritual growth that occurs when circumstances are difficult (like a tree’s roots going deeper in a drought), some people unfortunately get locked in attack/survival mode.
It’s a slow panic where stocking up on weapons seems like a good idea at the time.

I get the feeling that advising them to open their heart chakra to release the blockage of energy at lower levels might be ignored.
Maybe gently humming the song ‘Turn on Your Heart Light’ by Neil Diamond lol?

That's all going in the right direction. Unfortunately, there are still far too many of us for everyone to benefit, although that situation could be remedied in a relatively short time, with the will to do so.
Some initiatives are well under way — Vera Mont

Yes, good examples thanks! :smile:

I think our instincts and knowledge to survive and even thrive remain, waiting for the opportunity.

We are using these instincts now of course, but the Machine aims to turn us into cogs and grist for its mills, so we are inhibited and controlled.

If people felt they were truly able to work for themselves, their families and communities, the world would bloom into life and color like a desert after a rain storm. :flower:

If people felt they were truly able to work for themselves, their families and communities, the world would bloom into life and color like a desert after a rain storm — 0 thru 9

That's my optimistic version of "after", yes.
I just can't see any way of stopping the juggernaut short of waiting for it to crash, thereby crushing the majority of us. If that crash comes about with a long-drawn-out whimper, the chances of recovery in the foreseeable future is more likely than if it comes about with a nuclear bang. Scenarios to contemplate

:grin: :up:

:up: