Population Control Solves Alot of Problems

[alexjrgreen]

A substantial minority of people in our culture still have a worse standard of living than hunter-gatherers.

Who? How, when?

Many are elderly.

[MSimon]

A substantial minority of people in our culture still have a worse standard of living than hunter-gatherers.

Who? How, when?

Many are elderly.

Many are living on 100 sq m estates.

[MirariNefas]

Trepanation (drilling a hole in the skull) is still used as a life saving treatment for relieving cranial pressure.

I wonder if we reviewed this practice in a traditional medicine context, what percentage we would conclude to be "likely to be beneficial", what percentage would be "likely to be harmful", what percentage would have evidence that "did not support either benefit or harm", and what percent would recommend further research.

Statistics here: Trepanation - History, Discovery, Theory.

Oh, wait, that sort of analysis comes from experts with advanced medical knowledge and statistical methods, not from tribal medicine men. So left alone, the tribes would never know and never advance.

Modern medicine is better because it can advance. To deny that it is good is to say that it can't get better, that nothing can get better, and that we might as well stop trying and cut all funding to medical research.

Treatment outcomes improved with time and local skill.

Oh, this is great. I'm glad to hear it. They're clearly on their way to advancing up to modern medicine someday. I wish them the best. They've got a few thousand years worth of data and methodology to put together but someday they'll get there.

[MirariNefas]

A substantial minority of people in our culture still have a worse standard of living than hunter-gatherers.

Who? How, when?

Many are elderly.

Ah, yes. This isn't an issue for the hunter gatherers because fewer of their people survive to be elderly. A good point, and I'm glad you raised it. These people clearly have a form of wisdom about limiting lifespans that we don't. It makes hospice care so much simpler and cheaper if the old people are dead.

[Skipjack]

Many are elderly.

I cant talk about the US, but here in Austria, we have a growing life expectancy. So I doubt they are starving to death. In fact the "senior" citizen is a great economical factor. At that age most of them already have a house paid off. They often dont drive cars anymore (physical incapability and the strange fear older people develop). Their children have left the house. There is not much to pay for other than food and some entertainment. That means, that they have lots of money.
Among buying all sorts of chunk from teleshopping, they travel A LOT! There is this cliché about the retired couple that tours the world. Guess what, they are actually doing that.
Here they get some 80% of the average of their last two years of income as a pension. They definitely dont live a bad life! Many go to college and some even work a little bit in addition to their pension. I have yet to see a retired person that lives below the existential minimum here. We dont have something like that.
As I said, maybe that is different in the US. But here, they live well and long.

[TallDave]

A substantial minority of people in our culture still have a worse standard of living than hunter-gatherers.

Ha, no they don't. Hunter-gatherers have a per capita GDP equivalent of about $500. That puts them well below even North Koreans, let alone the US or Europe.

Again, there's a reason people don't move back into the jungle and forsake civilization.

[TallDave]

The lifestyle we have is an accident of history. It makes sense to review our options.
..
No it isn't, it is the direct result of Western culture, the combination of liberty, tolerance, science, and free markets.
..
Any number of historical conflicts could have ended differently. All would have affected our culture to some extent.

Sure, but the West tended to win those conflicts precisely because of liberty, tolerance, science, and free markets. Communism didn't collapse by accident, nor was it accidental the US had something like 43% of the world's industrial capacity when we entered WW II.

Realize that culture is transmissible and larger than nations or ethnicities. Had the Chinese or Zulus or Arabs first adopted those principles rather than Europe, they might have become the world's cultural superpower -- but it would still be for the same reasons Western Civ did.

[TallDave]

As I said, maybe that is different in the US.

It isn't. In fact I would be surprised if our retirees were not significantly better off, given our GDP per capita is significantly higher.

[alexjrgreen]

Hunter-gatherers have a per capita GDP equivalent of about $500.

What meaning does that have to a hunter-gatherer?

[TallDave]

Hunter-gatherers have a per capita GDP equivalent of about $500.

What meaning does that have to a hunter-gatherer?

It means his standard of living sucks. It's much more difficult to acquire quality food, clothing, shelter, heat and safety.

That's why some of them went to a huge effort to built mock airports hoping that people from modern civilization would bring more of their magical cargo that makes life better.

[MirariNefas]

As I said, maybe that is different in the US.

It isn't. In fact I would be surprised if our retirees were not significantly better off, given our GDP per capita is significantly higher.

There are certainly poor old people. They're the ones who didn't pay into a pension and made poor decisions with things like credit card debt.

Our social security system is sufficient for living, but doesn't give anyone the ability to travel the world. We allow people to make the mistake of relying only on social security, and many do.

I don't know what Germany is like. Maybe they have higher taxes/social security equivalent deductions, and take care of their elderly that way. But here, Skipjack's description applies to responsible or clever people, and pretty much everyone in the upper middle class. But many are not so prosperous.

[TallDave]

There are certainly poor old people. They're the ones who didn't pay into a pension and made poor decisions with things like credit card debt.

Poor is a relative term. For instance, we don't remember the 1950s as a time when most people were poor, but by 2009 standards more than half the country was below the (2009) poverty line in the 1950s.

In the old days, "poor" meant you could barely afford to eat, had one set of clothes, and shared a tiny house with 5 other people. Today's poor usually have air conditioning, TV, and an obesity problem.

I tried to find a country-by-country comparison of Social Security payments but could not. I suspect the U.S. is comparatively generous on a PPP per capita basis, because we're considerably wealthier overall.

[MirariNefas]

Poor is a relative term. For instance, we don't remember the 1950s as a time when most people were poor, but by 2009 standards more than half the country was below the (2009) poverty line in the 1950s.

Uh huh. We were talking about a comparison to Germany, in which Skipjack painted a picture of comparative affluence with the words "lots of money" and described generous, apparantly guarunteed pensions. If things are as good as he says, then indeed things would be "different" for the US, for many (maybe a majority) of people. I suspect he may have been painting the optimistic picture of his upper middle class though (no offense Skipjack, I'm just a skeptic), so I'd be interested if at some point you do manage to dig up some country comparisons.

That said, it was good of you to mention your points so alexjrgreen doesn't get the wrong impression and think our poor old people are starving.

[TallDave]

Great piece from Crichton:

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS... None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-a ... rming.html

[Skipjack]

I suspect he may have been painting the optimistic picture of his upper middle class though (no offense Skipjack, I'm just a skeptic), so I'd be interested if at some point you do manage to dig up some country comparisons.

Actually I am from Austria, not Germany. Little difference. I dont quite know how things are in Germany. Here my grandmother who had a minimum pension was able to afford flying to Israel, the US, Canada and many other places during her retirement. All that multiple times, actually. She owned a nice apartment and had a nice TV and she still had enough money to buy lots of stuff for herself and her closest relatives. So no, she was not suffering or poor by any means.
All that with a minimum pension.
Things might have been a little harder for her hadnt she paid off that apartment by then. But honestly, by the time you retire, you should have been able to pay of some sort of place to live, even here in Austria.