• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Coronavirus Rant

Black Hole said:
There is no doubt in my mind that once a species becomes able to resist the normal pressures on population density (availability of food, predation, disease), it is inevitable that species is on the road to self-destruction.
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder if this the same as the way empires always decline. It certainly looks like it, but I don't know the mechanisms in any detail.
 
MikeSh said:
I sometimes wonder if this the same as the way empires always decline.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that, but it could be linked. What I perceive about empires as opposed to entire populations is that it is almost inevitable there is a ruling class and a subservient class, but the ruling class become so insular and self-serving that eventually they squeeze the subservient class beyond endurance. Once there is a revolution the populace becomes leaderless and ungovernable, so the civic system becomes dysfunctional.

Naturally, if resources become inadequate to support an expanding populace, the ruling classes still want their customary levels of comfort so that contributes to the squeeze.

Ruling classes only rule by popularity or force. Enforcement requires the backing of those willing to act as enforcers, who demand their cut. Popularity requires providing the populace with adequate levels of comfort. Neither of those work if resources become limited.
 
Nothing is simple about these dynamical systems. They can approach a stable equilibrium, or behave chaotically, or flip between equilibria, or go extinct. Economies behave the same, lurching from boom to bust erratically.

I agree the population is too high, but what to do?
 
prpr said:
Get the Chinese to make a virus that spreads rapidly round the world and kills off a load.
Click to expand...
They got the spreading bit right, but the last part needs some work to have any meaningful effect on population.
I'd give this one a :thumbsdown:
 
That's the problem, isn't it. It would take enormous self-sacrifice to be willing to just die from some disease (by not taking precautions or by refusing treatment), and in the knowledge that unless a significant proportion of the population follow suit it would be pointless. Nonetheless, if there was a stress-free and painless means to end life on demand, the only thing that would stop me is the effect it would have on those around me. Just not waking up one morning, without knowing the night before that was on the cards, seems ideal to me.
 
MikeSh said:
If you don't read posts carefully you end up looking stupid.
Click to expand...

I apologise to him for not reading properly. It was late at night.

The antibiotics issue is completely irrelevant though. The fact I was quoting REMAINS this: at least 62 TIMES (can you really fathom what that means) more people died then and they did not close the country down. And they never did throughout history.
 
Black Hole said:
I'm not sure about that, but it could be linked. What I perceive about empires as opposed to entire populations is that it is almost inevitable there is a ruling class and a subservient class, but the ruling class become so insular and self-serving that eventually they squeeze the subservient class beyond endurance. Once there is a revolution the populace becomes leaderless and ungovernable, so the civic system becomes dysfunctional.

Naturally, if resources become inadequate to support an expanding populace, the ruling classes still want their customary levels of comfort so that contributes to the squeeze.

Ruling classes only rule by popularity or force. Enforcement requires the backing of those willing to act as enforcers, who demand their cut. Popularity requires providing the populace with adequate levels of comfort. Neither of those work if resources become limited.
Click to expand...

It sounds as this could be an explanation, except it does not work.

What was the squeeze of the subservient class in the american revolution?

What was the limiting resource that led to the indian exit?
 
This thread is starting to reek of deja vu, did we not have a similar argument filled one with Mihaid when I said capitalism relying on ever increasing consumerism was an unsustainable system doomed to eventual failure ?
 
trog said:
This thread is starting to reek of deja vu, did we not have a similar argument filled one with Mihaid when I said capitalism relying on ever increasing consumerism was an unsustainable system doomed to eventual failure ?
Click to expand...
Never underestimate exponential consumerism. Eventually, resources will be depleted. Even some sub-exponential growths are not sustainable. Yet consumerists still peddle this theory that steady growth is the ideal. I agree with you on that point.
 
sine24 said:
It sounds as this could be an explanation, except it does not work.

What was the squeeze of the subservient class in the american revolution?
Click to expand...
The Americans were the subservient class, easy.
sine24 said:
What was the limiting resource that led to the indian exit?
Click to expand...
No idea what that means. Indians, as from India, or indigenous people of America? And what exit from what?
 
Mike2 said:
The Americans were the subservient class, easy.

No idea what that means. Indians, as from India, or indigenous people of America? And what exit from what?
Click to expand...
Since almost to a man the revolutionaries owned slaves and plantations I wish I was as subservient as them. Hell, I think I still am subservient to the Queen and it didn't do me badly.

Since BH was talking about empires, I guess I was referring to the exit of India from the said empire.
 
As it's not amusing, just trolling, it would be good if an admin cut this shit out of this thread and put it in its own. Hang on a mo, I have a better idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top