[brntout]

If it is one thing that is absolute, its advancement, and building, and growth on a large scale. Anything that would promote these traits, would be universally beneficial. What are your thoughts on this?

[llBradll]

I don't think so if I understand you correctly. Can you give an example?

[Tocsin]

If you think growth without end is a good thing, you need to check this video series out and come back down to earth.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Those who hold the baselessly optimistic viewpoint that "more is always better" are going to have a terrible hangover when they wake up to find that the less than optimistic expectations of
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
were the more realistic appraisal.

Constant growth in a finite environment is a recipe for self destruction.

If you don't think so, you might want to learn more about the history of Rapa Nui.

[Stratego]

	Originally Posted by brntout To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If it is one thing that is absolute, its advancement, and building, and growth on a large scale. Anything that would promote these traits, would be universally beneficial. What are your thoughts on this?

I wouldn't say that any of these are absolutes--not even advancement or evolution. Whole cities and civilzations have died out due to disease or natural disaster, loss of vital resources, etc.

Since the enlightenment we've come to value progress for it's own sake, and proceed on a linear march towards greater understanding and inprovement, always striving for bigger and better things, and I think this has created a sense of entitlement--that to expand beyond our confines on this panet (and maybe beyond into space) is our right and natural destiny--which hasn't been the case for 98% of the species that once existed...how are we any different?

I guess what I mean to say is that I don't believe in absolutes. All is relative. There is more than one answer to any question, some more right than others, but none is the final answer.

[brntout]

On earth, it would be essentially a good thing to do something that provides lets say for example, more knowledge to people, like the theory of geocentrism, since this is more enlightening and provides ease and answers to a species, and with this, more advancements will build and more knowledge would arise making a more knowledgable and growth-encouraging environment. Growth and multiplying also seems as an essential law of the universe. But we, as humans have the power to make How we grow and multiply and under what context and environment you grow and multiply in. Advancement will always be as long as there is motion, we, as humans, have the power to make how we advance most efficiently and usefully.





brntout added to this post, 2 minutes and 50 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you think growth without end is a good thing, you need to check this video series out and come back down to earth. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Those who hold the baselessly optimistic viewpoint that "more is always better" are going to have a terrible hangover when they wake up to find that the less than optimistic expectations of To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. were the more realistic appraisal. Constant growth in a finite environment is a recipe for self destruction. If you don't think so, you might want to learn more about the history of Rapa Nui.

No, I do not think growth without end is a good thing, and I never said this. I offered a horrible generallity I know, but I cleared it up later on in an example.

[llBradll]

I don't think that we as humans can control the infinite and therefore it will lead to regretable results. Even with something like knowledge.

Finite mixed with infinite equals not going to work any time soon.

Even with exponential vs finite its still hard for us to control considering very few people are actually aware of exponential things. I think sometimes we need to look at preservation far more seriously than transcendance.

[brntout]

Originally Posted by Stratego To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I wouldn't say that any of these are absolutes--not even advancement or evolution. Whole cities and civilzations have died out due to disease or natural disaster, loss of vital resources, etc. Since the enlightenment we've come to value progress for it's own sake, and proceed on a linear march towards greater understanding and inprovement, always striving for bigger and better things, and I think this has created a sense of entitlement--that to expand beyond our confines on this panet (and maybe beyond into space) is our right and natural destiny--which hasn't been the case for 98% of the species that once existed...how are we any different? I guess what I mean to say is that I don't believe in absolutes. All is relative. There is more than one answer to any question, some more right than others, but none is the final answer.

The thing is, the previous species weren't evolved to have a conscious(sp) and thought, we know what the next step might be in our planetary happenings due to observation, we have this knowledge that we can assume what will most likely happen later on. With this, we can have our own species strive and grow-this is the difference. The stronger, smarter species prevailed.





brntout added to this post, 7 minutes and 19 seconds later...

Originally Posted by llBradll To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don't think that we as humans can control the infinite and therefore it will lead to regretable results. Even with something like knowledge. Finite mixed with infinite equals not going to work any time soon. Even with exponential vs finite its still hard for us to control considering very few people are actually aware of exponential things. I think sometimes we need to look at preservation far more seriously than transcendance.

Well, preservation happens itself in species as long as it can adapt, and isn't really anything transcendental. There are patterns that follow. There is definatley the uncertain, but we've grown as a whole to realize the pattern between some uncertainties, which in turn dont make them so uncertain anymore.

[llBradll]

So you think that people will embrace preservation? I see that as something far further from peoples focus than bigger and better.

I think that some of us do see the patterns, but far less act apon them.

I also disagree with the idea of "growing as a whole". I think that most people distract themselves with the little things in life and miss the big picture(s).

[brntout]

	Originally Posted by llBradll To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So you think that people will embrace preservation? I see that as something far further from peoples focus than bigger and better. I think that some of us do see the patterns, but far less act apon them. I also disagree with the idea of "growing as a whole". I think that most people distract themselves with the little things in life and miss the big picture(s).

Its not about having a disbelief in people, its realizing the potential of knowledge and embracing the fact that humans can make things happen for themselves, along with laws of the universe acting on them. When I said growing as a whole I specifically meant "growing For the whole" , as in growing to produce for the species. Things will happen in time. Look at religion, a major belief that people based their lives on, and their alleged after-life on. These same religions are being followed less as time progresses.

[Latro]

At this stage, we need to curb our growth, decrease our population, and generally kinda suffer, basically. Our parents, grandparents, and/or great-grandparents (assuming you are under the age of 40 or so) indulged in the resources of the Earth, and left rather little for their descendants--who are unfortunately MUCH more numerous than they were.

A pity that Gen Y, the one that is basically going to have to take the blunt end of everything, just so happens to be the most pampered generation of all time, statistically, making us the least likely to be able to deal with the problems with which we are faced (perhaps; I could be wrong).

[Freedom Geek]

All the anti-growth people on this thread are spewing nonsense, we can increase the relative amount of resources available to us through technological advancement (ie better cheaper recycling, more energy efficiency, engineering plants so we can grow them in the desert). There is a limit to this but before we get close to hitting it we'll gain access to the much larger pool of resources in space. The resources used by other generations with the exception of energy (for which we have multiple pathways to get such as thousands of years of nuclear if you take into account extracting it from the oceans and it constantly raining down on the earth) and biodegradable stuff like wood which we can grow more of any way (tree plantations are more common than you think) are still there, we can dig up landfills if need be.
So long as we keep scientists, inventors, mathematicians, engineers, ect at work we can continue to grow and we do not have to suffer. These new methods maybe slightly more expensive but we won't be wanting, progress will probably make other things cheaper anyway. The vast majority of doom and gloom predictions have failed and I believe they will continue to fail so long as science marches on. I'm generally a very pessimistic person but progress is the one thing I feel comfortable being optimistic about. Not having so many children would probably help though.
Please tell me if you have any issues with my arguments and I will do my best to rectify them.

[Tocsin]

	Originally Posted by Freedom Geek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Please tell me if you have any issues with my arguments and I will do my best to rectify them.

Okay.

First off, your out of hand dismissal of arguments that we are facing a growth and resource depletion time bomb lack any specifics. If you think the cases presented are mistaken, where and what do you think are those mistakes?

Second, your promotion of "science will always save the day" solutions are also equally vague and unsupported.

About the only thing I can see from your overgeneralized proposals is that you think space exploration and nuclear power will somehow save the day.

At present, non-terrestrial mining and industry accounts for 0% of earth's resource and energy needs. In fact, so far, space exploration had been an expensive drain, with no foreseeable resource/energy benefits in sight.

Nuclear power is and always has been a double edged sword. It creates deadly waste that needs to be stored in hermetic conditions for millennia longer than human civilization has even existed, and its efficient use is predicated on the assumption that engineers never make mistakes. Remember Chernobyl? Three Mile Island?

[Latro]

Originally Posted by Freedom Geek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

All the anti-growth people on this thread are spewing nonsense, we can increase the relative amount of resources available to us through technological advancement (ie better cheaper recycling, more energy efficiency, engineering plants so we can grow them in the desert). There is a limit to this but before we get close to hitting it we'll gain access to the much larger pool of resources in space. The resources used by other generations with the exception of energy (for which we have multiple pathways to get such as thousands of years of nuclear if you take into account extracting it from the oceans and it constantly raining down on the earth) and biodegradable stuff like wood which we can grow more of any way (tree plantations are more common than you think) are still there, we can dig up landfills if need be. So long as we keep scientists, inventors, mathematicians, engineers, ect at work we can continue to grow and we do not have to suffer. These new methods maybe slightly more expensive but we won't be wanting, progress will probably make other things cheaper anyway. The vast majority of doom and gloom predictions have failed and I believe they will continue to fail so long as science marches on. I'm generally a very pessimistic person but progress is the one thing I feel comfortable being optimistic about. Not having so many children would probably help though. Please tell me if you have any issues with my arguments and I will do my best to rectify them.

Most likely, the technological revolution that would be necessary to do what you are describing is not going to be feasible within this century. "Within this century" is the window that needs to be considered, because of things like our reaching the planet's approximate carrying capacity (~10 billion, this occurring around 2100, with over 9 billion by 2050), peak oil, etc.

Also what Tocsin said, with the exception of:

	Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Remember Chernobyl?

Chernobyl is a bad example. It happened, yes, but it happened because the people running it were cheap and refused to deal with even basic maintenance protocols that they already knew were important. Three Mile Island is worth consideration, but keep in mind that virtually no radiation actually escaped; you come into contact with more radiation from the sun and stars on a day-to-day basis than you would have being 2 feet from that reactor that day.

[Freedom Geek]

Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Okay. First off, your out of hand dismissal of arguments that we are facing a growth and resource depletion time bomb lack any specifics. If you think the cases presented are mistaken, where and what do you think are those mistakes? Second, your promotion of "science will always save the day" solutions are also equally vague and unsupported. About the only thing I can see from your overgeneralized proposals is that you think space exploration and nuclear power will somehow save the day. At present, non-terrestrial mining and industry accounts for 0% of earth's resource and energy needs. In fact, so far, space exploration had been an expensive drain, with no foreseeable resource/energy benefits in sight. Nuclear power is and always has been a double edged sword. It creates deadly waste that needs to be stored in hermetic conditions for millennia longer than human civilization has even existed, and its efficient use is predicated on the assumption that engineers never make mistakes. Remember Chernobyl? Three Mile Island?

The predictions about resource depletion are as varied as they come, which ones do you want me to address.
It is impossible to perfectly predict the path that science will take and the technologies tat will help us are too numerous to list (new production methods, alternative materials, ect) but if one looks at history one will see what I am talking about, science meeting our problems before we have to face them.
All our resource needs are currently best satisfied here on earth, when we begin running out a demand will be created and people will rush to fill said gap. Anyway there's still plenty we can do on earth in the mean time, I put space there as the long term solution to counter the argument that no matter how well we increased our technical proficiency at getting what we want out of the earth we would eventually run out.
Chernobyl was misused and is nowhere near the model of a modern reactor. Three Mile Island is an example of why nuclear power is safe, no one died and the high end estimates for the radiation people were exposed to was no more dangerous than a chest X-ray. A lot of the storage problem can be overcome if we simply, like France does, reuse our nuclear material to the greatest possible extent. This allows France to store the waste in a tiny area.

	Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Most likely, the technological revolution that would be necessary to do what you are describing is not going to be feasible within this century. "Within this century" is the window that needs to be considered, because of things like our reaching the planet's approximate carrying capacity (~10 billion, this occurring around 2100, with over 9 billion by 2050), peak oil, etc.

I believe you are underestimating our technological progress. Technological progress too is exponential in nature. Even if this is not true UN official population estimates put the population peaking at around 9 billion then going down. This will likely hold true barring a cure to aging being found (in which case we likely have exponential progress anyway). The alternatives to oil (bioplastics, electric cars) may be slightly more expensive but we'll cope.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by Freedom Geek To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I believe you are underestimating our technological progress. Technological progress too is exponential in nature. Even if this is not true UN official population estimates put the population peaking at around 9 billion then going down. This will likely hold true barring a cure to aging being found (in which case we likely have exponential progress anyway). The alternatives to oil (bioplastics, electric cars) may be slightly more expensive but we'll cope.

Both Tocsin and I think you are overestimating it. Most likely it's somewhere in between both our opinions.

[Kenne936]

I agree.

	Those who hold the baselessly optimistic viewpoint that "more is always better" are going to have a terrible hangover when they wake up to find that the less than optimistic expectations of Mathus were the more realistic appraisal.

This (above) makes the assumption that growth, or rather advancement, implies physical growth. And i don't think that's necessarily the case at all

[Farion]

Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you think growth without end is a good thing, you need to check this video series out and come back down to earth. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Those who hold the baselessly optimistic viewpoint that "more is always better" are going to have a terrible hangover when they wake up to find that the less than optimistic expectations of To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. were the more realistic appraisal. Constant growth in a finite environment is a recipe for self destruction. If you don't think so, you might want to learn more about the history of Rapa Nui.

I always assumed that to some degree growth would have to stop eventually (either that or the moon!) but I don't think I ever really realized how immediate the problem is until I watched that video, it was a great video.

Unfortunately, after watching the video I read the Youtube comments, and after a couple of pages I think I died a little inside.

[Monte314]

	Originally Posted by brntout To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If it is one thing that is absolute, its advancement, and building, and growth on a large scale. Anything that would promote these traits, would be universally beneficial. What are your thoughts on this?

When resources are finite, "growth" is a zero-sum game: when one guy grows, there's less for everybody else.

For example, what would the American Indian think about your concept?

[refuse]

	If it is one thing that is absolute, its advancement, and building, and growth on a large scale. Anything that would promote these traits, would be universally beneficial. What are your thoughts on this?

Im going to have to go with the exact opposite.

growth is fleeting
entropy is absolute


if youre looking for universally beneficial, ill take sustainability~

[Roland Ansgar]

	Originally Posted by brntout To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If it is one thing that is absolute, its advancement, and building, and growth on a large scale. Anything that would promote these traits, would be universally beneficial. What are your thoughts on this?

Let me see if I understand.

There is only one thing which is absolute:

1. its advancement
2. building
3. growth on a large scale

But that's 3 things.

"Anything that would promote these [3] traits [things], would be universally beneficial."

It appears you mean for 'thing' to have 3 traits. By 'thing' I suppose that you mean some-thing, and not just any-thing. Otherwise, somethings might look silly with those particular traits.

However, I suppose that if you meant the chocolate cake thing, then it would be beneficial for chocolate cakes to seek their advancement, to build themselves, and to grow on a large scale--at least until they covered the surface of the Earth.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Priori]

	Originally Posted by brntout To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If it is one thing that is absolute, its advancement, and building, and growth on a large scale. Anything that would promote these traits, would be universally beneficial. What are your thoughts on this?

My personal opinion is that evolving is a good thing yes, but in a world where there is no right and wrong choice, who's to say that creating my ultimate fantasy wouldn't create my worst nightmare. The whole yin/yang thing I suppose, but that's not necessarily a "bad" thing, balanced advancement seems universally beneficial.

Without order nothing can exist - without chaos nothing can evolve.

[brntout]

Originally Posted by Tocsin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If you think growth without end is a good thing, you need to check this video series out and come back down to earth. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Those who hold the baselessly optimistic viewpoint that "more is always better" are going to have a terrible hangover when they wake up to find that the less than optimistic expectations of To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. were the more realistic appraisal. Constant growth in a finite environment is a recipe for self destruction. If you don't think so, you might want to learn more about the history of Rapa Nui.

No. I do not think growth without an end is a good thing. I understand what you are saying. With what you've said, I add to my idea or OP that natural gowth of intellect or any other idea or item(s) that would benefit people on a general scale, that can be motivated by people themselves, ALONG WITH PAYING ATTENTION TO A NATURAL EQULLIBRIUM OR BALANCE, would be complementing the given actions or laws/functions of creation. This would then be deemed as universally benefitial.





brntout added to this post, 2 minutes and 42 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Roland Ansgar To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Let me see if I understand. There is only one thing which is absolute: its advancement building growth on a large scale But that's 3 things. "Anything that would promote these [3] traits [things], would be universally beneficial." It appears you mean for 'thing' to have 3 traits. By 'thing' I suppose that you mean some-thing, and not just any-thing. Otherwise, somethings might look silly with those particular traits. However, I suppose that if you meant the chocolate cake thing, then it would be beneficial for chocolate cakes to seek their advancement, to build themselves, and to grow on a large scale--at least until they covered the surface of the Earth. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Ahh. Yeah I did write three things. But these three things have an underlying commonground.





brntout added to this post, 7 minutes and 35 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Priori To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	My personal opinion is that evolving is a good thing yes, but in a world where there is no right and wrong choice, who's to say that creating my ultimate fantasy wouldn't create my worst nightmare. The whole yin/yang thing I suppose, but that's not necessarily a "bad" thing, balanced advancement seems universally beneficial. Without order nothing can exist - without chaos nothing can evolve.

Yes I agree and polished up the idea a bit with balance and order added. How do you define chaos in the context of your post? The holocaust was chaotic, and stopped jews from "growing" or "evolving". It probably would've been benefitial if Hitler targeted the Indian people of Asia, since there are much more people there and are in risk of using up the resources of everyone else. In this sense, Hitler might have been a hero. I don't support Hitler at all, but I am giving an example.





brntout added to this post, 10 minutes and 30 seconds later...

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When resources are finite, "growth" is a zero-sum game: when one guy grows, there's less for everybody else. For example, what would the American Indian think about your concept?

Okay, this is going to sound very sci-fi, but I would suppose that there would be a way to find/produce other resources in the future. I cleaned up my idea a bit and added the aspect of balance to it. This however, is just a thought.

[blueback]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	For example, what would the American Indian think about your concept?

I think the point of the discussion is that it doesn't matter what "the" American Indian thinks. "The" American Indian lost and is now irrelevant. Just like dinosaurs.

	Originally Posted by refuse To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	growth is fleeting entropy is absolute

Technically, none of us have the perspective necessary to say whether or not something is absolute. Our guesses are only as good as the observed evidence and consistent interpretation backing them up.

Perhaps the idea you are looking for is "life."

Life, in the sense of any system that spontaneously reproduces, will by necessity continue to grow in complexity and incorporate more and more of the substance of the universe into its order. Since we can lose an arm and still be who we are, and can gain a car and still be who we are, it is perfectly consistent to describe every part of our civilization as an extension of our brains and bodies. As we "grow" in power and influence (as individuals and a species) we simply order more and more of the universe according to our goals.

Where you guys start talking about sustainability is simply when we realize that our goals must compromise with the laws of nature. We can set the goal of jumping off of a cliff and landing safely on the ground, but only achieve it after getting a job and saving up enough money to buy a parachute. By extension, we can set the goal of colonizing Mars, or avoiding planet-wide starvation, or winning American Idol, but we can only achieve those goals in accordance with the natural laws that we are subject to.