Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [evol-psych] Re: Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?

Expand Messages
  • rafonda@frontier.com
    ...   I have explicitly stated that I believe it is not only inevitable, but that sooner is better . Fewer people will suffer, and the long term carrying
    Message 1 of 17 , Mar 17, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      > Why should we avoid global collapse?
      <
       
      I have explicitly stated that I believe it is not only inevitable, but that 'sooner is better'. Fewer people will suffer, and the long term carrying capacity of the earth will stabilize at a higher level, the sooner the human population collapses.
       
      RAF
    • Edgar Owen
      RAF, As I ve mentioned before I think your view that the fittest will survive the collapse is rather naive. It will be a time of immense chaos and
      Message 2 of 17 , Mar 17, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        RAF,

        As I've mentioned before I think your view that the "fittest" will survive the collapse is rather naive. It will be a time of immense chaos and destruction and as with all evolutionary selections most life and death situations (and there will be many) will be decided by chance and chaotic forces rather than some idealistic notion of 'better' people surviving.

        In my view the most obnoxious and ruthless and violent are those most likely to survive rather than the 'best'.

        Edgar



        On Mar 17, 2013, at 11:25 AM, rafonda@... wrote:

         

        > Why should we avoid global collapse? <
         
        I have explicitly stated that I believe it is not only inevitable, but that 'sooner is better'. Fewer people will suffer, and the long term carrying capacity of the earth will stabilize at a higher level, the sooner the human population collapses.
         
        RAF


      • Richard Ruquist
        As long as I am already dead. Richard On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:25 AM, rafonda@frontier.com
        Message 3 of 17 , Mar 17, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          As long as I am already dead.
          Richard

          On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 11:25 AM, rafonda@... <rafonda@...> wrote:
           

          > Why should we avoid global collapse? <
           
          I have explicitly stated that I believe it is not only inevitable, but that 'sooner is better'. Fewer people will suffer, and the long term carrying capacity of the earth will stabilize at a higher level, the sooner the human population collapses.
           
          RAF


        • Anna
          Or the most intelligent will survive. But sometime ruthlessness and intelligence go together.... Anna From: Edgar Owen Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:07 AM
          Message 4 of 17 , Mar 17, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Or the most intelligent will survive. But sometime ruthlessness and intelligence go together....
            Anna
             
            Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:07 AM
            Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?
             

            RAF,

             
            As I've mentioned before I think your view that the "fittest" will survive the collapse is rather naive. It will be a time of immense chaos and destruction and as with all evolutionary selections most life and death situations (and there will be many) will be decided by chance and chaotic forces rather than some idealistic notion of 'better' people surviving.
             
            In my view the most obnoxious and ruthless and violent are those most likely to survive rather than the 'best'.
             
            Edgar
             
             
             
            On Mar 17, 2013, at 11:25 AM, rafonda@... wrote:

             
             
            > Why should we avoid global collapse? <
             
            I have explicitly stated that I believe it is not only inevitable, but that 'sooner is better'. Fewer people will suffer, and the long term carrying capacity of the earth will stabilize at a higher level, the sooner the human population collapses.
             
            RAF
             
             
          • rafonda@frontier.com
            ...   Consider that I believe the Euro-kindred is maladapted to ethnic competition precisely because they are too promiscuously altruistic. Accordingly, those
            Message 5 of 17 , Mar 17, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              >Edgar: In my view the most obnoxious and ruthless and violent are those most likely to survive rather than the 'best'. <
               
              Consider that I believe the Euro-kindred is maladapted to ethnic competition precisely because they are too promiscuously altruistic. Accordingly, those you characterize as "ruthless and violent" are some of the very people I expect to be 'selected' (as do you) and many of those you consider the "best" are among those I consider maladapted, so
              we are in agreement about those qualities which will be selected. Anna is onto something here:
               
              > Or the most intelligent will survive. But sometime ruthlessness and
              intelligence go together....
              Anna <
               
              RAF
            • Peter Webster
              The most isolated will have the best chance. Especially in mountain areas where access routes for potential killjoys are tricky to find and navigate. In some
              Message 6 of 17 , Mar 18, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                The most isolated will have the best chance. Especially in mountain areas where access routes for potential killjoys are tricky to find and navigate. In some remote areas there will probably even be the most food to be had, assuming you know how to find it.
                vbest regards,
                peter


                At 03:01 18/03/2013, Anna did write:
                >
                >
                >Or the most intelligent will survive. But sometime ruthlessness and intelligence go together....
                >Anna
                >
                >From: <mailto:edgarowen@...>Edgar Owen
                >Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:07 AM
                >To: <mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com>evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                >Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?
                >
                >
                >RAF,
                >
                >As I've mentioned before I think your view that the "fittest" will survive the collapse is rather naive. It will be a time of immense chaos and destruction and as with all evolutionary selections most life and death situations (and there will be many) will be decided by chance and chaotic forces rather than some idealistic notion of 'better' people surviving.
                >
                >In my view the most obnoxious and ruthless and violent are those most likely to survive rather than the 'best'.
                >
                >Edgar
                >
                >
                >
                >On Mar 17, 2013, at 11:25 AM, <mailto:rafonda@...>rafonda@... wrote:
                >
                >>
                >>
                >>> Why should we avoid global collapse? <
                >>
                >>I have explicitly stated that I believe it is not only inevitable, but that 'sooner is better'. Fewer people will suffer, and the long term carrying capacity of the earth will stabilize at a higher level, the sooner the human population collapses.
                >>
                >>RAF
                >>
                >
                >
              • Edgar Owen
                RAF, But my point is that evolutionary selection is always 99.99% random chance, and NOT selection of the fittest. You welcome the collapse because you expect
                Message 7 of 17 , Mar 18, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  RAF,

                  But my point is that evolutionary selection is always 99.99% random chance, and NOT selection of the fittest.

                  You welcome the collapse because you expect to be selected to survive due to your superior preparations (which in my opinion is the best you can do) but that gives you only a 0.01% survival advantage since the selection will be chaotic, random and violent rather than rational on the basis of 'fitness' however that might be defined.

                  No matter how well prepared anyone is their individual chance of surviving the collapse will depend almost entirely on chance rather than preparedness...

                  Edgar



                  On Mar 17, 2013, at 10:59 PM, rafonda@... wrote:

                   

                  >Edgar: In my view the most obnoxious and ruthless and violent are those most likely to survive rather than the 'best'. <
                   
                  Consider that I believe the Euro-kindred is maladapted to ethnic competition precisely because they are too promiscuously altruistic. Accordingly, those you characterize as "ruthless and violent" are some of the very people I expect to be 'selected' (as do you) and many of those you consider the "best" are among those I consider maladapted, so we are in agreement about those qualities which will be selected. Anna is onto something here:
                   
                  > Or the most intelligent will survive. But sometime ruthlessness and intelligence go together....
                  Anna <
                   
                  RAF


                • Edgar Owen
                  Peter, Those mountain areas are where some of the nastiest people live and they all have guns. Nowhere will be safe! Edgar
                  Message 8 of 17 , Mar 18, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Peter,

                    Those mountain areas are where some of the nastiest people live and they all have guns.

                    Nowhere will be safe!

                    Edgar



                    On Mar 18, 2013, at 7:01 AM, Peter Webster wrote:

                     

                    The most isolated will have the best chance. Especially in mountain areas where access routes for potential killjoys are tricky to find and navigate. In some remote areas there will probably even be the most food to be had, assuming you know how to find it.
                    vbest regards,
                    peter

                    At 03:01 18/03/2013, Anna did write:
                    >
                    >
                    >Or the most intelligent will survive. But sometime ruthlessness and intelligence go together....
                    >Anna
                    >
                    >From: <mailto:edgarowen@...>Edgar Owen
                    >Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 11:07 AM
                    >To: <mailto:evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.comevolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                    >Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?
                    >
                    >
                    >RAF,
                    >
                    >As I've mentioned before I think your view that the "fittest" will survive the collapse is rather naive. It will be a time of immense chaos and destruction and as with all evolutionary selections most life and death situations (and there will be many) will be decided by chance and chaotic forces rather than some idealistic notion of 'better' people surviving.
                    >
                    >In my view the most obnoxious and ruthless and violent are those most likely to survive rather than the 'best'.
                    >
                    >Edgar
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >On Mar 17, 2013, at 11:25 AM, <mailto:rafonda@...rafonda@... wrote:
                    >
                    >>
                    >>
                    >>> Why should we avoid global collapse? <
                    >>
                    >>I have explicitly stated that I believe it is not only inevitable, but that 'sooner is better'. Fewer people will suffer, and the long term carrying capacity of the earth will stabilize at a higher level, the sooner the human population collapses.
                    >>
                    >>RAF
                    >>
                    >
                    >


                  • mark hubey
                    Here is 100*(1+0.01)^1000 = 2,095,916 Here is 100*(1+0.02)^1000= 39,826,465,166 e.g. 100 times growth rate of 1% over 1000 years vs growth rate of 2%
                    Message 9 of 17 , Mar 18, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Here is 100*(1+0.01)^1000 =           2,095,916
                      Here is 100*(1+0.02)^1000= 39,826,465,166

                      e.g. 100 times growth rate of 1% over 1000 years vs growth rate of 2% over 1000 years.

                      YOu can put the formulas into any spreadsheet and check it out.


                      On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 8:34 AM, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:
                       

                      RAF,


                      But my point is that evolutionary selection is always 99.99% random chance, and NOT selection of the fittest.

                      You welcome the collapse because you expect to be selected to survive due to your superior preparations (which in my opinion is the best you can do) but that gives you only a 0.01% survival advantage since the selection will be chaotic, random and violent rather than rational on the basis of 'fitness' however that might be defined.

                      No matter how well prepared anyone is their individual chance of surviving the collapse will depend almost entirely on chance rather than preparedness...

                      Edgar



                      On Mar 17, 2013, at 10:59 PM, rafonda@... wrote:

                       

                      >Edgar: In my view the most obnoxious and ruthless and violent are those most likely to survive rather than the 'best'. <
                       
                      Consider that I believe the Euro-kindred is maladapted to ethnic competition precisely because they are too promiscuously altruistic. Accordingly, those you characterize as "ruthless and violent" are some of the very people I expect to be 'selected' (as do you) and many of those you consider the "best" are among those I consider maladapted, so we are in agreement about those qualities which will be selected. Anna is onto something here:
                       
                      > Or the most intelligent will survive. But sometime ruthlessness and intelligence go together....
                      Anna <
                       
                      RAF





                      --
                      Regards,
                      Mark Hubey

                      "Learning to think in mathematical terms is an essential part of becoming a liberally educated person. "
                      -- Kenyon College Math Department Web Page 

                    • rafonda@frontier.com
                      ...   No, at my age, I rather doubt I will live to see the collapse (which will, I think, be a long-drawn-out process rather than an event) much less be
                      Message 10 of 17 , Mar 18, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > You welcome the collapse because you expect to be selected to survive due to your superior preparations <
                         
                        No, at my age, I rather doubt I will live to see the collapse (which will, I think, be a long-drawn-out process rather than an event) much less be selected. I have prepared for my descendants and affinity group, but more along the lines of 'doing my duty' rather than "expect[ing]" that they will be among the first generations to survive the selection
                        process.
                         
                        > But my point is that evolutionary selection is always 99.99% random chance, and NOT selection of the fittest. <
                         
                        I don't agree with that, but let us suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the odds of an optimally prepared person with children and grandchildren having direct descendants in the post collapse population is .01 (and considering that the stabilization population is likely to be something like .0001 of the current 8,000,000,000) I would consider it worth doing, even on rational grounds. However, my motivation is emotional, rather than rational; I feel an obligation, so I act in accordance with it, and I am satisfied by the actions I take without regard to the 'results'. I am doing what I want to do because I believe it is the proper thing to do ....
                         
                        RAF

                        From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
                        To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:34 AM
                        Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?
                         
                        RAF,

                        But my point is that evolutionary selection is always 99.99% random chance, and NOT selection of the fittest.

                        You welcome the collapse because you expect to be selected to survive due to your superior preparations (which in my opinion is the best you can do) but that gives you only a 0.01% survival advantage since the selection will be chaotic, random and violent rather than rational on the basis of 'fitness' however that might be defined.

                        No matter how well prepared anyone is their individual chance of surviving the collapse will depend almost entirely on chance rather than preparedness...

                        Edgar


                        On Mar 17, 2013, at 10:59 PM, rafonda@... wrote:
                         

                        >Edgar: In my view the most obnoxious and ruthless and violent are those most likely to survive rather than the 'best'. <
                         
                        Consider that I believe the Euro-kindred is maladapted to ethnic competition precisely because they are too promiscuously altruistic. Accordingly, those you characterize as "ruthless and violent" are some of the very people I expect to be 'selected' (as do you) and many of those you consider the "best" are among those I consider maladapted, so we are in agreement about those qualities which will be selected. Anna is onto something here:
                         
                        > Or the most intelligent will survive. But sometime ruthlessness and intelligence go together....
                        Anna <
                         
                        RAF

                      • Edgar Owen
                        RAF, I agree completely that preparation is THE best approach. What I don t agree with is your welcoming a collapse because you think it will benefit your
                        Message 11 of 17 , Mar 18, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          RAF,

                          I agree completely that preparation is THE best approach. What I don't agree with is your welcoming a collapse because you think it will benefit your family and 'affinity group' at the expense of others. 

                          It won't, or at least it is extremely unlikely to....

                          Edgar



                          On Mar 18, 2013, at 10:16 AM, rafonda@... wrote:

                           

                          > You welcome the collapse because you expect to be selected to survive due to your superior preparations <
                           
                          No, at my age, I rather doubt I will live to see the collapse (which will, I think, be a long-drawn-out process rather than an event) much less be selected. I have prepared for my descendants and affinity group, but more along the lines of 'doing my duty' rather than "expect[ing]" that they will be among the first generations to survive the selection process.
                           
                          > But my point is that evolutionary selection is always 99.99% random chance, and NOT selection of the fittest. <
                           
                          I don't agree with that, but let us suppose, for the sake of discussion, that the odds of an optimally prepared person with children and grandchildren having direct descendants in the post collapse population is .01 (and considering that the stabilization population is likely to be something like .0001 of the current 8,000,000,000) I would consider it worth doing, even on rational grounds. However, my motivation is emotional, rather than rational; I feel an obligation, so I act in accordance with it, and I am satisfied by the actions I take without regard to the 'results'. I am doing what I want to do because I believe it is the proper thing to do ....
                           
                          RAF

                          From: Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...>
                          To: evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 8:34 AM
                          Subject: Re: [evol-psych] Re: Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?
                           
                          RAF,

                          But my point is that evolutionary selection is always 99.99% random chance, and NOT selection of the fittest.

                          You welcome the collapse because you expect to be selected to survive due to your superior preparations (which in my opinion is the best you can do) but that gives you only a 0.01% survival advantage since the selection will be chaotic, random and violent rather than rational on the basis of 'fitness' however that might be defined.

                          No matter how well prepared anyone is their individual chance of surviving the collapse will depend almost entirely on chance rather than preparedness...

                          Edgar


                          On Mar 17, 2013, at 10:59 PM, rafonda@... wrote:
                           

                          >Edgar: In my view the most obnoxious and ruthless and violent are those most likely to survive rather than the 'best'. <
                           
                          Consider that I believe the Euro-kindred is maladapted to ethnic competition precisely because they are too promiscuously altruistic. Accordingly, those you characterize as "ruthless and violent" are some of the very people I expect to be 'selected' (as do you) and many of those you consider the "best" are among those I consider maladapted, so we are in agreement about those qualities which will be selected. Anna is onto something here:
                           
                          > Or the most intelligent will survive. But sometime ruthlessness and intelligence go together....
                          Anna <
                           
                          RAF



                        • Don Zimmerman
                          ... DWZ: Consider the consequences of preparing for a collapse that never comes, or comes in a thousand years from now instead of the near future. You could
                          Message 12 of 17 , Mar 18, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:

                            > I agree completely that preparation is THE best approach. What I don't agree with is your welcoming a collapse because you think it will benefit your family and 'affinity group' at the expense of others.
                            >
                            > It won't, or at least it is extremely unlikely to....


                            DWZ:
                            Consider the consequences of preparing for a collapse that never comes, or comes in a thousand years from now instead of the near future. You could waste a lot of time and effort just like many people did in the middle of the last century digging underground shelters and stockpiling them with food, water, guns, and ammunition.

                            I guess you have to compare the cost of doing nothing if a collapse really comes with the cost of doing a lot of unnecessary work when there is no collapse. A cost-benefit analysis would be in order. It might make an interesting computer game or something for Facebook along with Farmville.

                            Best regards,

                            Donald W. Zimmerman
                            Vancouver, BC, Canada
                            dwzimm@...
                            http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899
                          • Edgar Owen
                            Don, You have a good point of course. There are many survivalists who spend large sums on supplies etc. they never use and may not ever use. My philosophy is
                            Message 13 of 17 , Mar 18, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Don,

                              You have a good point of course. There are many survivalists who spend large sums on supplies etc. they never use and may not ever use. My philosophy is to stockpile things you actually use like in my case firewood and dry rice and lentils, paper towels, vitamins, basic medical supplies and a number of other necessities. Using this approach not only do you save money by buying them at lower prices now than they will be in the future but you don't waste money on things you may or may not ever need or use.

                              If it's something you aren't using currently then it's pretty dumb to spend much money on it...

                              Edgar





                              On Mar 18, 2013, at 3:54 PM, Don Zimmerman wrote:

                               



                              --- In evolutionary-psychology@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote:

                              > I agree completely that preparation is THE best approach. What I don't agree with is your welcoming a collapse because you think it will benefit your family and 'affinity group' at the expense of others.
                              >
                              > It won't, or at least it is extremely unlikely to....

                              DWZ:
                              Consider the consequences of preparing for a collapse that never comes, or comes in a thousand years from now instead of the near future. You could waste a lot of time and effort just like many people did in the middle of the last century digging underground shelters and stockpiling them with food, water, guns, and ammunition.

                              I guess you have to compare the cost of doing nothing if a collapse really comes with the cost of doing a lot of unnecessary work when there is no collapse. A cost-benefit analysis would be in order. It might make an interesting computer game or something for Facebook along with Farmville.

                              Best regards,

                              Donald W. Zimmerman
                              Vancouver, BC, Canada
                              dwzimm@...
                              http://www3.telus.net/public/a7a82899


                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.