ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Life Sciences

We are the last humans

Updated on August 5, 2016
Colonizing the galaxies
Colonizing the galaxies

________________

A mass extinction is NOT the result of extraterrestrial agents, volcanism, nuclear war or disease. A mass extinction occurs when the ecological pyramid overturns.

________________

(Comments have been disabled in all my hubs. If you wish to leave a comment go to The Extinction of Man.)

________________



The modern priests

Will Man live forever? Can humans address any problem that stands in their way?

Ask a relativist, and he'll answer that there is no problem Man cannot solve. Unlike other species, we have the ability to foresee events and avail ourselves of the necessary technology to overcome any obstacle thrown in our path. Man is certain to populate the galaxies.

This yearning for eternity is a holdover from traditional religion. In the old days, when priests and pastors still had the upper hand in the intellectual world, the flocks were told that they would live forever... that is… after they died. The mathematicians have now taken over the pulpits (Fig. 1). They are the new priests, the charlatans of the contemporary world. We changed the habit, but the bishops and the doctrines are the same. You no longer go to heaven after you die. Now the promise is that you will go to a distant galaxy once we make a few adjustments to our spaceships.

Fig. 1

The mathematicians have become the priests of the modern world!
The mathematicians have become the priests of the modern world!

.

The global economy is not cyclical, but linear

However, there is something terribly wrong with this starry-eyed mathematical vision of eternity, something that simply doesn't jive. For over 100,000 years Man was just like any other predator: a hunter-gatherer. If he made a kill, he lived to see another day. The ecological pyramid maintained a healthy 10 to 1 ratio between trophic levels. Man was living in a true biblical Paradise.

About 10,000 years ago, we discovered and developed agriculture and husbandry. Nomadic hunters finally planted their roots and formed tiny villages. Agriculture would remain the dominant mode of production until it was overtaken by Manufacturing in the industrial nations of the19th Century. The Manufacturing phase lasted perhaps 200 years, and has for some time now been displaced at breakneck speed by the Service Economy. Let's put these back-of-the-napkin numbers down to see the Big Picture:

Hunter/Gathering: > 100,000 years

Agriculture: 10,000 years

Manufacturing: 200 years

Services: 50 years?

What an ominous exponential trend!

Manufacturing is now dying day by day as blue collar workers are slaughtered by machines. In the 16th Century, sheep were eating men...

"your sheep that were wont to be so meek and tame, and so small eaters, now, as I heard say, be become so great devourers and so wild, that they eat up, and swallow down the very men themselves" Utopia, Thomas More

Today it is computers which are eating men! Like Agriculture before it, Manufacturing is becoming ever more efficient. And like farmers before them, blue collar workers will inevitably be pushed towards the next major category in the global economy: Services.

We never went back from Agriculture to Hunter-Gathering. We never went back from Manufacturing to Agriculture. And we sure as hell will never go back from Services to Manufacturing. The long term business cycle is NOT cyclical as the mathematical economists lead you to believe. It is linear (Fig. 2).


Fig. 2)

The long term business 'cycle' is linear. We never went back to Agriculture. And we will never go back to Manufacturing!
The long term business 'cycle' is linear. We never went back to Agriculture. And we will never go back to Manufacturing!

.

The last economic category

So? Why should this linear trend concern us?

It is alarming for two reasons:

1. Services are becoming efficient as well. Airlines are replacing check-in agents with check-in machines. Banks are replacing tellers with automatic tellers. And major outlets such as Walmart and Home Depot are replacing cashiers with self-checkout. Wherever a company can cut costs to boost profits for its stockholders, it will do so.

2. There is no major category other than Hunter-Gathering, Farming, Manufacturing, and Services THAT YOU CAN IMAGINE!!!

So here is the challenge for you. You either come up with a new major category that doesn't fit under any of the foregoing or you tell me where billions of people will be working in the future. Deal?

Today, Services constitute about 65% of GLOBAL GDP a number that is growing at the expense of both Agriculture (5%) and Manufacturing (30%). Once Services hover around 90% of Global GDP as in the US, will we simply be adjusting the percentages of the labor force that works in different subcategories of Services for the next million years?

I think not. I think that this megatrend shows that we are about to suffer the LAST economic collapse!

Why ‘the last’?

Because if you are reading this, chances are that you live in a city or town as most people in the world do. Where do you get your food? Do you plant potatoes in your living room carpet? Do you hunt wildebeest from your 10th floor balcony?

No! Most people get their food from supermarkets and smaller distributors. Even the employees of the agricultural corporations, people who plant, dust, irrigate, and harvest, get their food in a store. The farmers of today do not travel in buggies or on horsies. They drive cars.

Why do agricultural corporations produce and distribute food? To ensure you are well fed?

I don’t think so! They produce and distribute food to make profits. The argument for the imminent extinction of Man is simple. The day our Global Economy collapses, there will be no profits, and the day that there are no profits, there will be no incentive for corporations to produce or distribute food. Since the days of CroMagnon, Man has gradually distanced himself from the only thing he needs to stay alive: food. We don’t go out there with spears and knives to catch our food directly. We are spoon-fed by corporations that are not particularly concerned about our vital interests. Whether we are aware or not, our Doomsday Clock is ticking its final hours (Fig. 3).


Fig. 3

It's ticking!!!
It's ticking!!!


And to make our position even more fragile, the proportion of food to the number of consumers has gone from the healthy 10 to 1 of hunter-gatherer fame to a sickly 1 to 1 ratio. We don’t store food for 7 years like the biblical pharaohs allegedly did. Corporations produce food practically upon demand. Prices would otherwise deflate in our super-efficient economy. Doubling the amount of food in circulation will nevertheless not induce people to eat twice as much.


The global population is grinding down to ZPG

But let’s throw another bucket of cold water on sustainability. Let’s now superimpose the demographic dilemma on this bleak picture. Most people would like to see a world where there are fewer people. We seem to be too many. We pollute and destroy our environment, so much so that many claim that the global climate is changing. We cover plants with asphalt and compress the struggling wild animals into ever smaller reservations. The solution is simple: women simply have got to cut down on sin and reproduction!

Actually, that’s somewhat unnecessary. The ‘green’ fanatics might be happy to hear that since 1963 the growth rate has trended downwards (Fig. 4). The global birth rate has dropped from 2.3 to 1.2 and is continuing to fall. The world population is still increasing, but at an ever slower rate. If things continue as they are, UN demographers predict that we might reach Zero Population Growth (ZPG) as early as 2060.


Fig. 4


So what’s ominous about that? Sounds like good news!

Well, what is a little troubling is that the ideal situation for a corporation is to have zero costs and an ever growing stream of consumers, if possible, growing exponentially (Fig. 5). Businessmen and managers are certainly taking care of the cost side of this ideal by liquidating workers. It is the consumer part that is not quite within their control. If as the projections say, we are approaching ZPG, where will the exponential demand necessary to keep the corporate world running come from?


Fig. 5)


The bottom line is that Man has worked his way to a catch-22 socio-economic system. Damned if you increase costs by hiring workers and damned if reduce revenue by laying them off! You cannot throw technology at this predicament or wish it away.


What can we do?

And now there can be no excuse. We are clearly aware of what’s coming. We are foreseeing that population (and thus demand) will level off asymptotically while corporations continue to cut costs (layoff employees). We WILL reach an insurmountable crisis!

What can we do about it? Will we solve these gargantuan economic problems as a result that we have foresight (Fig. 6 and 7)? Will technology induce women to reproduce like our great grannies again – 10 children per couple – in order to stimulate demand?

The answer is clear and most people never get it. There is NOTHING we can do about extinction. Technology, foresight, and intelligence are not antidotes to extinction.


Fig. 6

.

Fig. 7


Let’s now throw in one final discomforting clue. It has been estimated that over 99% of the species that ever lived, are no longer around. Is our intelligent species an exception? Why? If neither foresight nor technology can solve the problems discussed here?


So again I humbly ask...“Will Man live forever?



.

Paper presented at the

International Conference on Biology, Environment and Chemistry

(ICBEC 2010, Hong Kong, China):

..... Unsustainability

Paper presented at the

Apocalypse Conference, Oxford University

May 8, 2016, Prague, Czech Republic

We are the Last Generation of Humans on Earth


The Extinction Series...

We are the last generation of humans

How Neanderthal disappeared

How T-Rex disappeared

Economic Collapse: the end of Man!

The Population Curve


.

.

_____________
















































































Comments

Submit a Comment

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    "Unfortunately all you pussies are quick to turn people in,"

    I'm not fond of authorities, Bill.

    "n a censorship site such as Hub Pages I cannot treat you with the respect you deserve."

    Indeed. Hubpages, discriminating against those with Tourettes!

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 4 years ago

    "Screw YT"

    .

    Unfortunately all you pussies are quick to turn people in, so I won't be commenting here. In a censorship site such as Hub Pages I cannot treat you with the respect you deserve.

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    Bill informed us just today: "Natural is no magical word. It just means that it is not made by artificial means, specifically by humans."

    Then tells me: "You equate 'un-natural' with 'artificial'"

    But Bill says elsewhere in his comments: "It was Man’s artificial economic system which enabled this evolution, not Mother Nature’s natural one."

    https://hubpages.com/education/Einsteins-Idiots-15...

    So, "Momma's" 'management' is 'natural' opposed to man's management...right there... in black and white... for all to see...your own words. What man does is either natural or un-natural. Those are your only choices, and by the looks of it, you say what man does is unnatural.

    Honestly Bill, I thought you'd be thrilled to find someone who actually engaged you using your own terminology and definitions. Or do you like it only when it gains acceptance and/or when you're not questioned using it?

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    Screw YT, Bill. Either you have the balls to meet a coherent response or you don't...and you don't.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 4 years ago

    Reply to Ot at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqrZeC2ee0k

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    Bill wrote: “You equate 'un-natural' with 'artificial'. You went on a tangent.”

    Christ-on-a-stick... 'Un-" means "not." Every kid in grade-school understands this. So, either 'artificial' is un-natural or it is natural. Which is it? These are your terms Bill, not mine. (Ex: ‘natural economy’ ‘artificial economy.’) Your whole ‘analysis’ rests on these terms and the dichotomy in which *you* are using them.

    And uh-uh. The burden is NOT on me to define YOUR terms for you. You used ‘em, you define ‘em.

    But, you know what? I’m gonna play nice since this is our first conversation:

    Nature: synonym of 'reality,' the universe,' 'existence.' The conceptual 'set' of everything which exists.

    Natural: syn.- exist; real; something, somewhere; = object + location (concept)

    Artificial: man-made (concept)

    Now, I understand you've already defined the last term as I do, but, if you have a problem with the others defs, it up to YOU to explain why and provide different defs. If you don’t, then

    1.you get to explain how man-made objects are un-natural/ not-natural/other-than-natural, and

    2. where else other than Nature (reality, existence) man makes such objects you deem to be ‘artificial’ and thus, in your view, somehow not natural.

    There’s only one Nature/Reality Bill. So, I’m really excited to see where else man acts and where else man's creations might be found other than Nature.

    Bill: "Irrelevant for my purposes, then. Outside of the context of 'life', I can't see what the importance of these words. If they're important to YOU, then YOU have the obligation to define them."

    Are you joking? Whether a robot is climbing a hill because it’s ‘alive’ or not is completely irrelevant!

    Does ‘Mother Nature’ give two puffs out her backside whether or not Bill Gaede deems the robot alive? Answer: No.

    The robot is climbing the hill. It doesn’t matter if Bill thinks God or a goldfish should have given the robot 'life.'

    Really. Is this what your ‘life’ argument boils down to? That you don’t like it that a particular object (man) acts in the way it does?

    Bill: “Only in your religion. In Science, it is objects such as humans and birds and ants who manage resources.”

    Uhhh...Bill? Are you hitting the bong or something? What part of:

    “but 'Mother Nature,' ( I'll assume you equate 'her' with 'reality,' 'the Universe,' 'existence,' ), a CONCEPT, cannot manage, handle or direct anything at all. Only *existing things* can do so. As I think you'd put it: How can a CONCEPT ('Mother Nature') manage, that is *act* upon, anything?”

    ...did you not understand when I posted it in black and white on your very own hubpage posted just over 2 hours prior to now? I clearly stated ‘Mother Nature” (AKA “reality, the Universe, existence) is a CONCEPT. Twice even!!! You are the one who tells us that ‘Mother Nature’ manages resources (“Natural economics”). Tsk, tsk...

    Bill: “Is there an echo in here? That's what I said. You should take a basic reading/comp course, Ot.”

    Yep, it’s your own incoherent argument bouncing off the walls, as in:

    Bill: “Let me repeat: "Does a robot qualify as 'life/living' if we define gravity as 'that which moves by itself against gravity'? That depends on the guy giving the prez. I do not include 'artificial' stuff as life..."

    What *you* choose to include or not include as ‘living’ is irrelevant, subjective fluff to the topic at hand. Either the robot climbs or it does not.

    One more time. Either what man makes is natural or it’s not. If not, then *you* get to explain why man’s artifice is un-natural. Let me repeat: this dichotomy is your own: ‘artificial’ vs. ‘natural.’ Your terms.

    Bill: “What part are you having trouble understanding?”

    Your undefined terms; and, hence, your inexplicable Religious dichotomy between ‘artificial’ and ‘natural.’

    Bill: “Okaaaayyy... And?”

    Either a robot exists, is natural (real, exists) or it does not. Who cares if *you* consider it ‘alive’ or not. It exists (object + location) all the same. That’s your evaluation to contend with...not mine.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 4 years ago

    "Are humans natural or un-natural?... Artificial = made by man...and man is...un-natural(?)."

    .

    You equate 'un-natural' with 'artificial'. You went on a tangent.

    .

    Nevertheless, hopefully humans are natural and NEITHER un-natural nor artificial.

    .

    .

    "I never asked about life. I asked for definitions of 'natural,' 'artificial,' "

    .

    Irrelevant for my purposes, then. Outside of the context of 'life', I can't see what the importance of these words. If they're important to YOU, then YOU have the obligation to define them.

    .

    .

    "How can a concept ('Mother Nature') manage,"

    .

    Only in your religion. In Science, it is objects such as humans and birds and ants who manage resources.

    .

    .

    "Whether or not you consider the robot 'living' is irrelevant."

    .

    Is there an echo in here? That's what I said. You should take a basic reading/comp course, Ot.

    Let me repeat: "Does a robot qualify as 'life/living' if we define gravity as 'that which moves by itself against gravity'? That depends on the guy giving the prez. I do not include 'artificial' stuff as life..."

    .

    What part are you having trouble understanding?

    .

    .

    "the arguments between relgionists and those in favor of abortion regarding the life of a fetus will never make a fetus non-existent. A fetus exists, it is something, somewhere."

    .

    Okaaaayyy... And?

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    "For instance, we can make a robot or a toy car (which is also a robot) and program it to climb up a hill against the pull of gravity. Does a robot qualify as 'life/living' if we define gravity as 'that which moves by itself against gravity'?"

    In more detail:

    Either the robot exists or it does not.

    Exist=object + location, or in my lingo 'something,somewhere.'

    Whether or not you consider the robot 'living' is irrelevant. Analogously, the arguments between relgionists and those in favor of abortion regarding the life of a fetus will never make a fetus non-existent. A fetus exists, it is something, somewhere.

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    "Natural is no magical word."

    Correct. It isn't.

    "It just means that it is not made by artificial means, specifically by humans."

    So. Are humans natural or un-natural? Were we somehow 'made by 'artificial means?'

    Basically, all I can get from your def is 'natural' isn't 'artificial;' Artificial = made by man...and man is...un-natural(?).

    And where did 'life' come in? 'Life' is irrelevant. I never asked about life. I asked for definitions of 'natural,' 'artificial,' and 'economy.' '

    "Economy is the management of resources."

    Economy is indeed management, but 'Mother Nature,' ( I'll assume you equate 'her' with 'reality,' 'the Universe,' 'existence,' ), a concept, cannot manage, handle or direct anything at all. Only *existing things* can do so. As I think you'd put it: How can a concept ('Mother Nature') manage, that is *act* upon, anything?

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 4 years ago

    Natural is no magical word. It just means that it is not made by artificial means, specifically by humans. For instance, we can make a robot or a toy car (which is also a robot) and program it to climb up a hill against the pull of gravity. Does a robot qualify as 'life/living' if we define gravity as 'that which moves by itself against gravity'?

    That depends on the guy giving the prez. I do not include 'artificial' stuff as life, and that's why I included the word 'natural' in the def.

    .

    Economy is the management of resources. But the only resource that keeps us alive is food. The rest -- computers, cars, tables, chairs, houses, etc -- is there merely to confuse humans. All we need to live one more day is FOOD. The rest is all bullshit!

    .

    Let me leave you with food for thought, Otium.. This is the future of humans...

    .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM

    .

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#1963-...

    .

    .

    .

  • Otium profile image

    Otium 4 years ago from South of North/ East of West

    Hello Bill-

    In responding to your economic/extinction hubs I’m going to be as direct as possible, though I think you’ll find not disrespectful. Anyway, judging by your responses in these and other hubs, I see you have a tough skin. ;-)

    “So here is the challenge for you. You either come up with a new major category that doesn't fit under any of the foregoing or you tell me where billions of people will be working in the future. Deal?”

    No. No deal. Why? Because your analysis smacks of the irrational and as we converse it will become plain as to why. But let’s start with a simple matter; defining three key terms upon which you base your analysis.

    Natural = _________?

    Artificial=_________?

    Economy=________?

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "there comes a point when people start becoming the only ones left"

    .

    Will they reproduce?

    .

    The issue is that the upcoming mode of subsistence farming to which the scattered remnants (who planned in advance) will have to apply themselves will leave no time or inclination to 'screw around'.

    The survivors will not be neighbors. The survivors will be a family that has managed to hold tight and pull itself through the massive killing and cannibalism and disease that's going around them. In order to survive what's coming you got to plan way ahead and deeply trust the people in your SMALL group. These groups will simply live out what remains of their lives. No babies!

    .

    "there will be too many people for us to go extinct, and not enough in any one place to have to compete much"

    .

    Exactly: not enough in any one place! Minimum viable population (MVP) requires 10,000 locally according to some estimates. This won't be like the Bible where Cain found a woman in the next village.

    And the quantity of people is irrelevant. 7 B people can die in weeks. Hunger affects all. Internecine warfare ends with a King of the Mountain irrespective of how many there were at the start. The reason the decline in population is exponential is that neighbor will kill and/or eat neighbor. When there was nothing else around, T-Rex ate T-Rex.

    .

    "All animals go through natural culling when they get too populous"

    .

    All species of plants and animals reach a peak in their total population only ONCE in their entire history. ALL species of plants and animals eventually become extinct. They all end up with zip. No species has an antidote to extinction. Certainly, Technology and Intelligence are of no help to overcome population or ecological pyramid overturn.

    .

    "we won't be the last generation because of an economic collapse. Maybe something else"

    .

    That's just the problem! No one can think of any other cause.

    .

    The main causes that have been proposed for the last 100 years are: climate change/environmental, ET impacts, disease, infighting (nuclear war), and evolution (posthumans). All of these are extrinsic agents. Aging and economy are the ONLY intrinsic mechanisms we can imagine.

  • Slarty O'Brian profile image

    Ron Hooft 6 years ago from Ottawa

    So you think no one will survive anywhere in the world? There are still tribes that don't have a lot do with civilization, as it were, and don't figure into the economy. They could survive for another ten thousand years just the way they are. More. But of course you are saying we will end up eating them...

    I have no doubt the economy can not be sustained. If fuel becomes too costly, if oil runs out, it will certainly collapse because we don't have alternatives that are good enough to sustain the system we have.

    But I think you paint too bleak a picture. We will have to go local again. Eat only what our environment grows. Not import or export. Many will die. But there comes a point when people start becoming the only ones left.

    They may revert to almost tribalism again if it goes as far as you predict. But again, there is a point where there will be too many people for us to go extinct, and not enough in any one place to have to compete much.

    I don't think a complete economy collapse is enough to wipe us out completely, though it may well devastate us and cull us down to natural levels again. All animals

    go through natural culling when they get too populous.

    We may be the last generation that has a service economy, and that would be a good thing. But we won't be the last generation because of an economic collapse. Maybe something else, but not that.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "Man... will evolve as a highly mutated living creature"

    .

    No room for extinction in any theory, huh qwark?

    .

    Man is the only animal which is convinced that his species will live forever! They drilled all that evolution stuff so much into everyone's brain that now the most pessimist thinks that we either survive as hunter gatherers until things pick up again or we evolve into posthumans.

    .

    .

    "man will have to be absolutely controlled if he is to survive and become a successful life form"

    .

    Oh, what's a successful life form, qwark? All species of plants and animals that lived before us were unsuccessful. None of them are around. So I have no idea how you measure success. Are you suggesting that Man will live forever?

    .

    .

    "the worlds best minds will take cover underground"

    .

    They will kill each other in the hole after their food runs out. I just hope the last to emerge knows how to do subsistence farming without electricty or tractors or large animals to do the plowing...

    .

    .

    "A 1 world gov't of the future MUST be dedicated to the survival of the human species and govern in a Machiavelian manner to achive that goal!"

    .

    Aside from not reproducing ever again and completely dying before the 22nd C, humans have washed their genes. Like species that have been around for awhile and reached such enormous numbers (for an apex predator), racial senility will be the ultimate limiting factor.

    .

    But the illuminati are not very 'illuminated' if they have not prepared to be underground for months. Then they have to emerge and plant. That is, if they have not killed each other 'down' there in that hell. I doubt that anyone out there even realizes what the collapse of the economy really entails. Most think that they just need to store a few picnic baskets of food in a bomb shelter until the global economy gets back into shape. And I strongly doubt that a group of so-called 'friends' (political allies, economists, rich people) will maintain loyalty to each other. I have no doubts that the famous illuminati will kill each other before they emerge. Certainly they won't prepare for what is coming the way they should. And if they emerge, I wonder who will be the boss in the new, human-less world they will have to plant seeds in? I wonder if the Prez of the US will roll up his sleeves and dig ditches side by side with the ex-head of the Fed, the ex-Defense Sek, and the young soldiers that went inside the pyramid to guard their Pharaoh. If they're lucky, the soldiers will put them to work as their slaves. If they're luckier, the soldiers will just eat them.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "as a species we have been here before"

    .

    Absolutely not! We've never been in a Service Economy in our entire history. We've never been in a situation where there is no new line item into which to move billions of workers.

    .

    .

    "there are some among us who could care less about our world economy"

    .

    ...because they don't realize the implications.

    .

    .

    "tribal rain-forest types"

    .

    They will be the first ones to be wiped out. The city folk will hunt whatever the primitives lived on and then begin to hunt them as well.

    .

    .

    "the "Illuminati" among us will find some way to save our intellectual/technological advances"

    .

    If they have no idea that the world economy will collapse and that it means the end of our species, the illuminati have no chance to survive. Nevertheless, they will not reproduce, so it is irrelevant whether some of them are smart enough and saved food and seeds and decided not to kill each other.

    .

    .

    "the next time we re-emerge we'll get it right"

    .

    Mother Nature doesn't offer 9 lives. She offers but a single life per species.

  • PieterTheProphet profile image

    PieterTheProphet 6 years ago

    You're welcome Qwark.

    "It's the end of the world as we know it." (R.E.M. off of their 1987 album Document)

    Billgaede, I do hope it will not come to as bad an end as you predict, but as a species we have been here before; and there are some among us who could care less about our world economy, e.g. tribal rain-forest types. I also think as Qwark suggests that the "Illuminati" among us will find some way to save our intellectual/technological advances. Worse case? Perhaps the next time we re-emerge we'll get it right.

  • qwark profile image

    qwark 6 years ago

    Hello Bill:

    I can find nothing in this "hub" to disagree with.

    Contemporary man is going to be drastically reduced in numbers over the next 50 yrs.

    Correct, he will not become just another extinct species.

    In the main, he will be regressed socially and civilly.

    Eventually, he will evolve as a highly mutated living creature which not resemble contemporary man and will again have to adapt and be controlled.

    I have to agree with Einstein when he made the comment: (paraphrase) Since the advent of the atom bomb, the only way man will survive is under the control of a 1 world gov't.

    Being a complex life form and genetically programmed to be earth's prime predator, man will have to be absolutely controlled if he is to survive and become a successful life form.

    There is no doubt that if/when a population reducing catastrophe strikes, the powerful, the illuminati, the top scientists...the worlds best minds will take cover underground and will emerge when the time is right to re-think, re-plan and re-build a "brave-new-world."

    A 1 world gov't of the future MUST be dedicated to the survival of the human species and govern in a Machiavelian manner to achive that goal!

    Pieter-the Prophet suggested I read what you write.

    I thank him and you for the opportunity to read your "stuff."

    Qwark

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "I'm hoping for twenty more years"

    .

    Hope is one thing. Reality is another. I hope for your sake that you get your 20 years. But I doubt that we can make it much past 5. The global economy is very close to collapse.

    For all practical purposes, the end of Man is the end of his artificial economy. When it goes, the great majority of humans go. The US, Europe, and Japan -- the economic leaders, and owners of about 50% of the global GDP -- have no solutions to their besieged economies. There is no new line item in the economy where they can put millions of people to work. Sooner or later, these regions will have to lay of millions more, and that will be the final stretch. When these powerhouses disintegrate, the global economy flounders, and when that happens Agricultural Corporations will have no further incentives to produce, process or deliver food.

  • PieterTheProphet profile image

    PieterTheProphet 6 years ago

    Hello billgaede. Very thought provoking. I'm definitely gonna read more of your stuff. I guess I'm not too worried about the end of human kind on a personal level because I'll be dead before everyone else is anyway. I'm hoping for twenty more years..anything after that I will consider a bonus.

    If you are suggesting that we are all for the most part delusional, I would suggest that it has worked well enough so far. We have come and we will go. That is the way the universe works. Creation however, never ends. My conclusion? Nothing to be afraid of. In the mean time we'll just keep on keepin' on because that's what we do.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "You are a difficult person to agree with!"

    .

    Yes! I can count the people who think that Man is going to be extinct soon with the fingers of one hand. The overwhelming majority of people think that the next economic collapse will be a temporary dip and that we'll come out of it as we always have.

    .

    .

    "I do not know of anything that will succeed Services."

    .

    This is a key issue to understand the proposal. We spent over 100Ky in H/G, 10Ky in Farming, 200 y in Manuf, and the last 32 y in Services. If there is no category you can imagine beyond Services, we have two choices...

    a. We will thrive in a Service Econ for the rest of eternity

    b. The economy will inevitably collapse very soon when unemployment reaches unsustainable levels.

    Which will it be, Tom? Do you disagree? Or do you have yet a third scenario to add to the two above?

    .

    .

    "those who have should give it up to keep the unproductive alive"

    .

    This misses the point. The point is that when our economy collapses, Bill Gates will be worth as much as you. There will be 7B ants on the mound searching for something to eat.

    Unless individuals plan ahead, they will not survive. Of course, those who plan ahead are not guaranteed to survive either. Not only do you need to store food for a long time until everyone's gone, but you need to prepare for planting and for a subsistence level agriculture without the help of animals or electrical machines. You need to be prepared to produce clean water, perhaps some level of electricity... You need to have seeds and understand the peculiarities of your region. Above all, you need to be mentally prepared for the disappearance of humanity. None of it is an easy task, I assure you.

  • Tom Koecke profile image

    Tom Koecke 6 years ago from Tacoma, Washington

    Hi Bill!

    You are a difficult person to agree with!

    I guess it would depend on what you mean by "solve." If you mean "to restore to a condition that extinction does not occur," then there was never a solution at any time. If you accept "solve" to mean "temporary prosperity from the immediate dilemma," then the solution to the immediate downward cycle in the economy is for a tremendous loss of life. Otherwise any upturn is doomed to be short-lived at best.

    I do not know of anything that will succeed Services.

    I do not foresee humans changing from living on a "conscious level" to a "conscience level." We are seeing a growing chasm between those who believe the unproductive should starve to death, and those who believe those who have should give it up to keep the unproductive alive. That chasm will fill with the bodies of one or the other, or, more likely, both.

    Since one is useless without the other, I agree with you that we are likely nearing the end.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "it didn't take too long for humans to recover to the point that they were before... There was prosperity after the Great Plague"

    .

    Absolutely IRRELEVANT!!! We were in an AGRICULTURE Economy then! We're in a SERVICE Economy! It is IMPOSSIBLE to solve an economic crisis in a SERVICE economy.

    .

    "they were still agricultural after the plague, and industrial after WWII"

    .

    All you have to answer is: What comes after Services? That's the only Q before you. Think hard. If you cannot come up with a category, then you are proposing that we will be in Services for the rest of eternity!

  • Tom Koecke profile image

    Tom Koecke 6 years ago from Tacoma, Washington

    Hi Bill.

    It will never go back to hunting and gathering days. Even when there has been disease, war, or natural disaster, man basically took up where he left off. It seems that in each case, it didn't take too long for humans to recover to the point that they were before the tremendous loss of life occurred.

    There was prosperity after the Great Plague. It lasted longer than the prosperity after WWII. In neither case did humans revert to previous standards, i.e. they were still agricultural after the plague, and industrial after WWII.

    Humans are animals. Provided there are ample resources for survival, animals tend to overpopulate until there are insufficient resources. We are reaching that point quickly. People who would have died several hundred years ago are now being kept alive to consume resources without production.

    Without the old and sick dying, and the young and healthy reproducing, we are likely at the tipping point for the species as you claim. Even if we were to overcome the moral dilemma by implementing a Soylent Green solution, it likely would only result in a "mad cow" type syndrome.

    More than anything, I wanted to acknowledge my fascination with your writing. I also think man's time may be extended slightly through an extreme loss of life, which is also the solution for the economic mess we are in. It would be helpful, though, if it were by disease rather than by war, as it would tend to eliminate the old and sick rather than the young and healthy.

  • billgaede profile image
    Author

    billgaede 6 years ago

    "a substantial loss of life that does not result in extinction of the species"

    Will Man live forever, Tom?

    If not, what will kill him? (Please don't reply disease, asteroid, climate, infighting or new predator. Those are things we can do something about. If Man is going to die FOR SURE, you had better have an INFALLIBLE mechanism!)

    .

    .

    "back to hunting and gathering as the only hope for human survival"

    .

    Whatcha gonna hunt after billions of starving humans around the world kill and eat everything in sight, including those of their own species?

    Anyone betting on hunting has no clue.

    .

    .

    "it may ensure survival of the species for another 110,250 years"

    What happens in the year 110,251?

    I mean, what's the purpose of having children? So that they can have more children? Does this seemingly endless iteration come to an end some day?

  • Tom Koecke profile image

    Tom Koecke 6 years ago from Tacoma, Washington

    Bill, I have been reading your articles with fascination. You have challenged many of my prejudices sufficiently that I now feel compelled to rework some of the articles I have written here and elsewhere. It would be unfair to not give credit where credit is due. Fatfist and Winston led me to your work, and deserve credit for doing so.

    As a student (studier) of economics, I listen to conflicting ideas presented by people of different persuasions debate "what is best" to rectify the economic struggles society faces. Each is, at best, a short-term "push" that, in the long run, requires humans to change from living on a "conscious level" to living on a "conscience level." It has never happened before, so there is reason to believe it will not happen in the future.

    People do not like the answer I give as the answer to resolving the current economic problems we are experiencing: a substantial loss of life that does not result in extinction of the species.

    Perhaps Einstein was correct about one thing: WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones. It might be a sad statement of affairs to consider regression back to hunting and gathering as the only hope for human survival, but it may ensure survival of the species for another 110,250 years.