[logwed]

Quote:

I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at here. Are you saying its a bad thing to be 30 and have an apartment within your ability to support yourself in one?
 
 

Yeah, clearly it's a better idea to lure people into homes that can't afford it with irresponsible gov't-sponsored loan schemes.
 

 

[appophylite]

@ logwed: Indeed. In my peer group, there are a couple of new homeowners (mostly guys with a good stable job, and a family with new kids), but for the most part, most of them either still live in college dorms (working on first or second degrees), have low rent apartments so that money can be spent on more important things or, if they do have a house that they purchased, they usually did a 'group purchase', where the house and utilities are in the name of the individual/couple who eventually plan on owning the place, and everyone else who plans on living there pays rent towards the mortgage payment. My peer group falls right in the age group that Dynobot is referring to and I just can't see how Seinfeld is at fault propagating the idea of 30 something year old people living in apartments. I never realized that there was a cutoff for when a person should move out of an apartment and buy a house they may not be able to afford
 

 

[Satellite_6]

Get a job and contribute to society. 

 

[2loud]

Is the original poster selling a book or something? Anyway, free or not he is still a slave to the market - if  no one is interested in what he´s got to offer he´s got a problem. He might not have a boss he can call an idiot but if he does that to his potential customers his business will suffer. Good luck if he´s go an absolutely brilliant or unique idea, can adapt quickly or somehing else that will make him invincible but otherwise you need to have a very healthy bank account so that you´ll never have to work again if you want to be absolutely independent. And if no one was working for a living he´d have to supply his own electricity, internet and everything else he´d need to make is business work - plus grow all the food he´d eat while taking care of it. But maybe he does.

 

[Dynobot]

Playing the Devils Advocate here.
 
So what is better?
 
A Capitalistic society were people go off to their 9 to 5's everyday.
 
-or-
 
A society were people farmed had trades etc. and bartered or traded for what they needed.

 

[logwed]

Quote:

Playing the Devils Advocate here.
 
So what is better?
 
A Capitalistic society were people go off to their 9 to 5's everyday.
 
-or-
 
A society were people farmed had trades etc. and bartered or traded for what they needed.

There's a reason why we don't live in simple agrarian/subsistence communities anymore. You wouldn't be on a computer if we still traded and bartered for necessities.

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

There's a reason why we don't live in simple agrarian/subsistence communities anymore. You wouldn't be on a computer if we still traded and bartered for necessities.

So is that good or bad???
 

 

[ocswing]

Haha, if only that question were simple. There are people who would argue both ways, but I don't think with our current population an agrarian society/culture would be sustainable. Heck, with all the technology we have and the large amount of resources we mine/use our current status isn't really sustainable. Not to discourage discussion, but that really is a rather large question that you probably won't find consensus on. (Well, on this forum you might. Would we have wonderful headphones if we were still in an agrarian society?)
 
Quote:

So is that good or bad???
 

 

 

[Wildstar]

We wouldn't.
 
Why do you think arab states are in turmoil? Because they have massive unemployment. Why? Because food is so cheap people can afford to live without having to farm. Why is food cheap? Because a portion of the population did not need to farm in order to live, and could afford to develop better farming tecnology to increase output. That is what ultimately drove mankind to be able to have internet forums such as this one.
 
In any case, you can still be a farmer if you want to.

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ocswing /img/forum/go_quote.gif
...I don't think with our current population an agrarian society/culture would be sustainable. Heck, with all the technology we have and the large amount of resources we mine/use our current status isn't really sustainable.

 
 
Choices.

Save every human being no matter what their illness or condition might be, simply because we fear death.
 
-or-
 
Let nature run its course.
 
Ultimately which is sustainable?
 
However there may be hope on the horizon, I just read that scientist have been able to grow "pork meat" in a lab.  Its not exactly the same but technically it is meat with protein.
 
 

 

[logwed]

Quote:

Choices.

Save every human being no matter what their illness or condition might be, simply because we fear death.
 
-or-
 
Let nature run its course.
 
Ultimately which is sustainable?
 
However there may be hope on the horizon, I just read that scientist have been able to grow "pork meat" in a lab.  Its not exactly the same but technically it is meat with protein.
 
 

 
You should familiarize yourself with the concept of the carrying capacity of any environment, or maybe some of Malthus' work. As a species, our goal is to reproduce, and eventually we will hit the carrying capacity of Earth. However, technology (most notably, IMO, artificial fertilizers) have allowed us to stretch the limit of the number of human beings that Earth can support. I feel that technology will continue to stretch that boundary, as we will figure out ways to farm areas previously unfarmable (deserts, oceans, etc.). Eventually we will colonize other planets, further increasing the number of people that humanity can support. Technology allows more of us to live longer and better. Technology is a good thing for humanity. That is inarguable. 

 

[logwed]

Quote:

So is that good or bad???
 

I guarantee that you live better than people 500 years ago. Don't think that you would prefer to live in such squalor. The fact that you have a steady supply of food should be more than enough evidence.
 

 

[BattleBrat]

My job pays for my headphone fun stuff, how can something that does such good be bad?

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

 
You should familiarize yourself with the concept of the carrying capacity of any environment, or maybe some of Malthus' work. As a species, our goal is to reproduce, and eventually we will hit the carrying capacity of Earth. However, technology (most notably, IMO, artificial fertilizers) have allowed us to stretch the limit of the number of human beings that Earth can support. I feel that technology will continue to stretch that boundary, as we will figure out ways to farm areas previously unfarmable (deserts, oceans, etc.). Eventually we will colonize other planets, further increasing the number of people that humanity can support. Technology allows more of us to live longer and better. Technology is a good thing for humanity. That is inarguable. 

 
Wow you seem pretty smart!
 
What type of degree do you have??
 
I'm going to have to look up this Malthus....hope I can understand it.
 
You sure about the colonizing planet thing....which planets do you think??
 
I don't know about this Technology being inarguable thing though....I mean technology gave us the fertilizers that helped us grow vegetables like never before, but at the same time the pesticides gave us Cancer.  Hormones helped us to grow chickens faster and cows bigger but they too have a detrimental affect on humans long term.  I am afraid that this Technology is a double edged sword.
 
Guess with all this growing due to Technology we humans had better learn to get along better huh???  This Earth might get even more crowded before we hit other planets....btw, it takes about 23 years to get to Pluto from Earth.  I'm really curious which planet you were thinking humans could colonize. 

 
 

 

[Dynobot]

Quote:

I guarantee that you live better than people 500 years ago. Don't be so ignorant as to think that you would prefer to live in such squalor. The fact that you have a steady supply of food should be more than enough evidence.
 

Question, can you suggest one of Malthus's good articles..??
 
I was just kind of reading about him in Wiki, is that where you learned about him too???
 
Seems to me that Malthus could not envision some of the technologies and vast level of population we have today....seeing that he died in 1834.  But I guess as a scholar and a Reverend his guess about what is best is as good as any bodies.
 
Thanks in advance for the article information..!!