.

<Snipped quote by Buddha>
I never said you are responsible, just that mentalities like yours are responsible. You're not the first person to throw around the "I don't care about the future, because I'll be dead" argument.

<Snipped quote by Buddha>
If you're so concerned about the ineffectiveness or naïvety of my ideas, feel free to contact Australia, the Blest Company, Delft University of Technology, Facebook, Google, the Li-Fi Consortium, Maastricht University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the People's Republic of China, Qatar, Rice University, Samsung, the University of Southampton, and many other companies, countries, and universities that are currently working on the pieces of this proposal as we speak.

I'm sure they'll appreciate your profound insights into how the world works, and immediately drop all of their plans once you explain why their goals are infeasible.

Nice strawman, I did not say the technologies are naïve. Let's assume for a moment that the companies working on these technologies are not doing so in order to have a parade horse.

What I said was - sending this to our governments is useless, because not a government in the world will drop millions of (insert currency) on projects that are to benefit the whole of mankind without expecting some sort of return for it. You are asking them to drop millions onto constructing vertical farms?

What's the benefit of that for them if they can already supply enough food for their populace without them? You want them to go and give it to Africa for free? That's the part that's naïve. That you are expecting all of this to happen 'for the betterment of mankind' just because your moral compass tells you it's the right thing. It might be the right thing, that doesn't mean that there will be an incentive to do any of this in the middle of world-wide crises like the financial crises, geo-political situations like ISIS and other terrorist organizations as well as governments that are unwilling to take care of their own citizens or are unwilling to cooperate with other states.

.

The problem is I just don't see how half these things can be done in a effective or shift time span.

For instance in California our governor Jerry Brown has spent like 60 billion on this bullet train yet it's always a decade away.

Shit's corrupt.

That's the thing with Sci-fi, you don't see much kelptocracy or corrupt for some reason. Or hell even the fact most people won't be these well read academic types, that in history was never the case and it still isn't even with universal education. I genuinely do believe that even in the time of interstellar colonization you will find folk cultures, corrupt mother fuckers and really, really delusional people with insanely stupid ideas that get lots of people killed. Also people who think *their* planet is the center of the universe, people who decide to reject all knowledge for the sake of it, people who are so out of touch with reality they believe that the virtual reality world's are the real ones and won't hear any evidence to the contrary... The idea that everyone having stuff ends wars is not entirely true as you still have the desire of relative wealth to worry about along with the have nots who want to crash the system if they see others prospering more than them.

And some of your ideas are a bit over the top, but consider that some of the tech you mention is still in the labs and the futurist jargon at times can be embarrassing. Farming on roof tops is common, does that count as vertical farming? Farming vertically has logistic troubles, but it's just farming stuff in a skyscraper which would take a lot more energy than farming in fields. Id love to to see it in action though, surely some European country has something like this in the making, right?

Water filtration is already being worked on, though with the rains some time has been bought.... But I wouldn't wait on it still myself. Issue is that even if you get enough water to drink you still have all the water need to plant crops and such. Filtering urine out of water I believe would be a good step forward and I honest to god cringed on that one story of the kid who pissed in a water reserve and in response they dumped 58 million gallons of fresh water. Cringed.

Which part was a strawman argument?

The part where I said the ideas/proposals/technologies are naïve when I did in fact not. They're clearly sensible ideas.

They don't have to do it to benefit all of humanity, do it without expecting a return, or drop millions of dollars to construct vertical farms. They just have to do it to ensure their own socioeconomic security, whether they're faced with a recession or a nuclear war.

As I mentioned before, for example in terms of power generation, if one state refuses to adhere to these new standards and technology (this could be North Korea, for example, and that's when we say it's 'just 1' where as we can be quite certain that there will be numerous states that do not wish to invest in these things because they have more important things to worry about) then we still run the risk of dealing with nuclear fallout from an explosion. That's just an example.

Some dangers are cross-border. Some dangers are not preventable and only can be protected against. For example, rising water levels. No matter how much we invest in this, there will be countries that will not adhere to new standards (China for example) because it's not economically viable or not economically interesting. We're better off investing our money into protecting against the rising water (large dams or dykes or what have you) than in trying to prevent this from occurring. Because it will happen regardless of what we try.

As for your points:

Most first world countries (where most money is) have enough drinking water. So, ensuring proper water is available for everyone becomes a moot point for most of them. Capital cannot be raised in places that need water. There is no incentive (outside of morality, which you said was not involved) to help these countries, thus it won't be required.

Same goes for food. The places that can afford the projects you mentioned will not incentivize them large scale because there is enough food for the most part. Yes there are people that are hungry, but there are also stores that throw away edible food because nobody bought it. So, we do not need large scale reworks of agriculture. The places that do need food could benefit, but again, capital cannot be raised there.

As for energy, the transition from 1 energy type to the other can be quite expensive. I look forward to algae fuels. I doubt it will become mainstream in my time. Lets hope it will.

Shelter.. I might be biased because I live in a country where there is more than enough shelter, even for the homeless, but we do not need ultra-durable housing. If anything we could incentivize this to lower living costs. Now that might be interesting. But I doubt many people are okay with tearing down their old houses to 'prototype' new technologies.

Materials, I suppose there is some use in that, but again, most first world countries are doing fine and don't need to recycle anything yet. Why would we use this already then? There's no incentive.

Also, 3D printers are not that mainstream yet. We cannot, say, print tools that are ready for use. We still need a portion of the work to be done manually with non-printed parts.

Internet is fine with me but wireless internet is not as advanced as you seem to think. Really.. it's kinda shitty. There's a reason that most people that want fast internet still use cables to their modem.

The education thing is fine, it's also fine if it doesn't happen. Who will pay for the libraries, though? Taxes? I think we have other things we need to spend money on too. Law enforcement is shrinking in Europe, military is shrinking in Europe, healthcares are shrinking in Europe, we are budgetting everything away because social policies are non-sustainable. Do you have proposed solutions to those problems too? To failing healthcare systems?

And you mention 'global problems' but like mentioned above, I do not believe any of these problems to be so major in first world countries that they require immediate attention.

And what's wrong with nanotech and AI, by the way?

Starvation exists in every country, even if it's just one person. They don't have to give it for free to African countries. They could just tap groups like the International Monetary Fund, and tell them to properly invest all that sweet cash in more sensible ways. You keep assuming this is for morality's sake, when I've already said this is for practicality's sake. By accelerating this proposal's realization, financial crises, geopolitical conflicts, government negligence, and international hostilities are mitigated.

Yeeeeeeeeee, no, I don't see that happening. Starvation is not a cause of death in the Netherlands simply by people not being able to buy food. And even then I doubt we will have to rework everything with super high-tech farmbots and vertical farms purely for the 'one person' or 'thousand persons' that are supposedly starving when we are throwing away large amounts of food as is.

The goal of IMF is not to invest into these types of technologies, and I don't think that will ever change.

I do not see how any of this will end financial crises, geopolitical conflicts, government negligence or international hostilities.

"When goods don't cross borders, soldiers will." ~Frederic Bastiat, 19th Century

"If everyone has goods, war becomes pointless." ~catchamber, 21st Century

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."

No, war will not become pointless, because people will find other things to be mad about (we already have found those things: religion, culture, political rivalries, greed for more (which will always exist, even if everyone has goods, because you cannot ensure that everyone has the same amount) or even political insults.

Quoting something doesn't make you right, either.

.

<Snipped quote by Arawak>
Can you provide sources for this claim? As far as I know, no such society has ever existed in human history, so it seems like you're just speculating.

See: The Middle East, terrorism, extremism, Russia, VHEMT

Also a society with higher productivity will likely have higher populations to sustain. Not to mention all the species an hypothetical future world with gene modding will in cosmic terms develop in half a eye blink.

As for your own ideas on a vertical farm have you considered that some of the peices you mention may cost lots of money? Like you speak about all the solar panels and shit but you got to consider the material cost of these things.

And you must recall how civilization as a complex system is prone to disruptions so even if you have so many damn resources you can build the 21st century equivalent of a pyramid there may still be troubles at some other point in time. Even the galaxy has resource scarcity and the talk of resource scarcity is built on the premise that populations won't be higher, that the system is incorruptible, that no disruptions ever will happen, that AIs can't make mistakes, that energy and power will always be there, that cosmic events like solar flares (which are common) won't cause any problems, that on a smaller scale the various conditions of various planets won't cause problems, that differences over time won't cause damaging effects, that ideologies don't cause irrational behavior, that rationality and reason will somehow be valued more hair because it is the future, that this sort of Utopianism is somehow different from the Utopianism from a century earlier, that future technologies won't introduce new problems along with the benefits (when they clearly will), that Murphy's law magically goes away and so on.

Not that any of this is a problem, since if it really did make some utopia I'd be soul crushingly boring.

Of course I'd still prefer to live in the future instead of now since even with new problems (be it designer plagued, the moral pandora's box of genetic modification etc.) as I would not want to live in the 19th century where as a kid in even the most advanced country you labored in coal mines and shit.

See: The Middle East, terrorism, extremism, Russia, VHEMT

It's also anomie/strain theory applied to the already wealthy that induces (actually, really specifically what you said) relative deprivation. It's a proven theory already, lol. It's used to explain why already wealthy individuals would engage in criminal activities despite the fact that they already have everything they might need.

.

Unlikely. Criminal justice systems do not kill criminals in any countries other than third world countries.

The US still has the death penalty in many states. Plus cops do have the right to kill criminals under certain and limited circumstances.

The main flaw in catchamber's reasoning is the assumption that humanity can work together in order to achieve as complicated of a plan such as that. A much simpler solution would be to simply limit the strain on Earth's resources by preventing and reversing population growth to a more sustainable level.

The US still has the death penalty in many states.

In theory. But when it happens behind closed doors, often ten or fifteen years after sentencing, any sociological effects it may have as a crime deterrent are lost.

If you want capital punishment to actually work in deterring other would-be criminals, three qualities are necessary in the methodology: severe, immediate, and public. People have to see for themselves, with their own eyes, what will happen to them if they get caught after raping the charred corpse of the woman they killed. The death penalty is less effective today than it was when we were guillotining people in the town square, for all our cries of "barbarism" when describing those practices!

ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitst..

In theory. But when it happens behind closed doors, often ten or fifteen years after sentencing, any sociological effects it may have as a crime deterrent are lost.

For me I don't really care about the deterrent part, I care about the getting rid of scumbags part. I actually don't want it to deter people I want more people who deserve the death penalty to actually get it. Make it mandatory even if they make a plea deal. Heck even broaden the types of crimes that get the death penalty.

If you want capital punishment to actually work in deterring other would-be criminals, three qualities are necessary in the methodology: severe, immediate, and public.

I would pay money to watch that. Hell I throw the switch for free. Hell I would pay them money to let me throw the switch.

People have to see for themselves, with their own eyes, what will happen to them if they get caught after raping the charred corpse of the woman they killed.

That is awfully specific and disturbing example. Where did you get that example.

The main flaw in catchamber's reasoning is the assumption that humanity can work together in order to achieve as complicated of a plan such as that. A much simpler solution would be to simply limit the strain on Earth's resources by preventing and reversing population growth to a more sustainable level.

Like China limit births. Like one kid per woman and any woman who violates it has to give the second kid up for adoption and then have her ovaries removed.

As for reversing population growth there are a few ways I favor:
1. Random lottery if you win your family gets money while you die.
2. Those who refuse to be productive members of society are given one month to stop being leeches, failure means death.
3. Constant war.

So not only would you rather hack at the branches of evil than the roots (to quote Thoreau), killing "scumbags" but doing nothing to prevent more from being created by the system; you'd also throw the world into permanent war, destabilize the economy by totally randomized distribution of wealth, and mass-genocide the disabled, the lower-class, and the mentally handicapped, many of whom are "useless" by no choice of their own?

I sincerely can't tell whether you're mentally ill yourself, or just trying to out-edge the other edgelords in this thread. But regardless of intent, that's easily in the top 5 stupidest posts I've ever read on this site. And I browse the Free section for kicks and giggles.

I sincerely can't tell whether you're mentally ill yourself, or just trying to out-edge the other edgelords in this thread.

Why can't it be both or neither?

Because no one with a normally functioning brain can argue with a straight face that Nineteen Eighty Four depicts a society worthy of emulation.

On the chance, as infinitesimal as it may be, that you're not trolling, please visit a psychiatrist and ask to be screened for psychopathic tendencies.

<Snipped quote by Didgeridont>Like China limit births. Like one kid per woman and any woman who violates it has to give the second kid up for adoption and then have her ovaries removed.

As for reversing population growth there are a few ways I favor:
1. Random lottery if you win your family gets money while you die.
2. Those who refuse to be productive members of society are given one month to stop being leeches, failure means death.
3. Constant war.

Each of the ideas you mentioned are unsatisfactory.

China's one child policy worked somewhat, however with the scale of the world we inhabit we would still end up with many country bumpkins continuing to produce more than one child.

A lottery of that nature would cause too much societal strife, and might lead to unrest among the population to such an extent that they rebel against the processes which enforce the lottery.

Simply euthanizing "leeches" would do little to quell the constant threat of population growth. It would disincentive people from lethargy to such an extent that they might even cause further strain on the world. And, of course, there is always the question of the global scale; it won't slow the birth rates of developing countries and is hard to enforce without incident.

Constant war does too much damage to infrastructure and the environment, and can even lead to the destruction of humanity as a whole: something which is rather unwanted. Besides, war opens up too many other avenues of societal degradation (see 1984).

I should have stated that by reversing population growth, I meant stopping birth rates from occurring at a replacement level, so that the next generation of humanity is much smaller than the last.

.

Killing people is generally frowned upon, and lowers the total amount of labor and consumer feedback.

And their labor goes entirely into the for-profit private complex. None of this labor benefits society as a whole.

@catchamber
When will economemers learn that continuous market growth is unsustainable after a certain threshold is crossed, when there becomes no net benefit of keeping a society alive. We already see the difficulty in sustaining the labor market with the advancement modern technology, compounded by the self-serving nature of companies/governments.

The problem is that we have reached a juncture in which it has become extremely cheap to exploit the resources of the Earth while simultaneously leaving pollution in one's wake. These types of technologies would need to be scaled up to many nations in order to have an appreciable impact on the Earth's environment and population to effectively stave off any disaster/crisis. This leaves the plans much more vulnerable to the intricacies of global politics, budgeting, human rights, etc.

On the contrary, a method of population control could be spread easily, efficiently, and silently, with little fuss or strife regarding its use.