6

!Dev but reading this is just depressing along with the recent NATO news....

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/...

TLDR: the party is over, it long has been and unless your priveliged or old already, we're all screwed.

-Hard work != Success
-Climate change will end us all

Me extrapolating solutions:
-Restart the world again/wipe out civilization (sorta like Dr. Stone)

-Just don't give a fck, accept Extinction and not care about the future generations

Comments
  • 1
    I mean you could always move somewhere outa the way like a mountain or maybe like a swamp or something 🤷🏻‍♂️
  • 3
    Three more dots that the author forgot.

    1) If 75% of the workers have twice the output, then productivity has multiplied by 2.7, but real wages did not. So where did the wealth go? Well propping up the richest 1% of course. That begs the question for how long society will be able to afford the rich.

    2) It was the very process of imperial dominance and exploiting poor countries that weakened the home economy. That's perfectly normal for empires and one of the major reasons why they crumble because the strong economy was the basis for military dominance in the first place. Also, getting people to accept self-printed green paper for "payment" obviously relies on that dominance.

    3) Peak-oil on conventional oil is past, and the oil-fed world-wide party is drying up. Global growth is impossible now. Instead, recession after recession hits in to destroy oil demand. Every world-wide growth would quickly hit into that. Jobless people can't buy that many oil-embodying products after all.
  • 0
    Well the article is old and the stats are not current. The most important part of the article is we get to decide. The government allows for that.
  • 2
    HOW DARE YOU TO DESTROY MY FUTURE!!!

    🤭🤐🤐🤐😬
  • 0
    @Demolishun right so the 60% of the voting population that doesn't bother showing up to the polls every year is just lazy and unpatriotic then?
  • 2
    @M1sf3t Why vote if you are fine with either of the presented choices, or with none of them?
  • 0
    @M1sf3t NFC where that came from. I just don't think it is as dim as the article says.
  • 1
    @Demolishun it came from the idea that we're not allowed to decide but rather pick from a couple of decisions. Like @Fast-Nop just said, why vote if you know you won't like the results of either choice.
  • 2
    @M1sf3t you mean Mars or the moon?

    But I can't even afford that...
  • 1
    Just get those stones and snap your fingers already!
  • 1
    @Demolishun

    Choice 1: Bad
    Choice 2: Bad
    Choice 3-X: Maybe good but most likely bad

    And then after the run offs/primaries,

    the only options are Bad, Bad

    And the fact is nobody is running on actual solutions and most voters wouldn't want them because they would be a pain in the ***.

    We'd rather vote for the ones that promise instant Ice cream... or tax cuts

    But yes shouldn't talk about politics here.
    My thoughts were more based on main idea the article was saying: that trying hard just doesn't make much of a difference now.
  • 1
    @billgates southeastern US is cheap and still pretty sparsely populated. Just make sure you pick somewhere that isn't near a nuclear power plant. Doubt they'll stay properly maintained once it all goes to hell.
  • 1
    @Demolishun If you're among the rather well-to-do, backed up by real skills, then things aren't looking bad. The problem at large that the article describes is that the circle of the well-to-do is shrinking regardless of skills. Also called "erosion of the middle class".
  • 0
    Sorry, I am out, this is turning into Henny Penny crap.
  • 0
    @just8littleBit but what can I do to stop big companies from screwing up the planet?

    You either need 51% of global opinion (ranked by net worth) or the political leaders of the most polluting nations to agree to do something now...

    And clearly that hasn't worked for the last x decades....
  • 1
    @Fast-Nop skill doesn't cut it, it's who you know. And sometimes you just need to be lucky to know the right people.
  • 0
    @billgates That's not meritocracy, but nepotism. The problem is that this undermines the conditions for success that brought the nice jobs that the nepotists are ursurping. It's sawing off the branch ALL are sitting on.
  • 1
    this really isn't a topic of politics but about the political system itself. There's no option for voters to throw the candidates back and get a new list. Sure you could do a write in but what is that going to accomplish.

    Of allowing for that option would have its own set of consequences, but as things are now, what its allowing for is these parties to extend their platform further an further to the extremes, to encompass those with extremely narrow views because they know they can count on those votes no matter which other direction the platform decides to push.

    That way come election time all thats left is to defame the other candidates so that the moderates choose between the lesser of two evils or to just simply not vote at all.
  • 2
    @M1sf3t And let's not even mention that more often than not, all you actually can elect is faces, but you have no say about what these faces will do after elections. Also, different faces often will do the same things anyway, so why bother.
  • 4
    I survived couple of ends of world already in my life.
    I’m sure I will survive couple of more.
  • 1
    being rich when the world doesn’t turn round isn’t that much a saver (hint: nobody can live alone)

    having a useful skill, and (grown) children, and living in a good community would be the only life saver if everything goes down the drain
  • 1
    @351483773 well but then they probably already hoarded all the canned foods and water or built some new tech that only they can afford.

    Until money becomes completely worthless, they still have an edge
  • 2
    ++ for dr.stone
  • 3
    @billgates yes short term richs really have an edge, the problem is if it really goes bad = deadly weather = money become worthless, the only option will be to live like our ancestors did, which is to support one another long term in nuclear family.
    at one point human population was below 10000 peoples, based on mutation rate and dna difference rate, so if they did it i think some human next gen will too.

    coming back to the rich, they would have to have private army so that hungry people with guns don’t just shoot them. but if life is shitty for this army they’d shot the richs themselves, so
    they would need special army, etc.

    if the 1% play everything right, they could become kings with a pyramid of nobleman, and at the below would be serfdom (us), much like today.

    problem is king only really are accepted when thing slightly goes better by the year, else they are thrown out (ask Louis)

    sorry for the rumbling, just some thoughts about being rich in a post apocalyptic world
  • 1
    @351483773 it'll be those that have invested in physical assets that are still needed. The oil companies will come out the best. They'll set up security and trade routes an it'll stem from there. All us fossils left over from iraq and afganistan will find gainful employment again
  • 1
    @M1sf3t I agree on the oil owners, just in my mind economy would be completely fucked up if oil is depleted, as oil is cheap energy (modern slave replacement), maybe it could go to the drain before that, but if someone has oil, the strongest army would then take it
  • 2
    @351483773 @M1sf3t ownership don't exist if there's no rule of law or enforcement though. Gonna be like Afghanistan or Africa. Whoever can control the biggest army gets it all... So guess we're gonna go back in time.

    Though I guess we already are.... The richest people control the world.
  • 1
    Not that it couldn't happen, but I think we would have to dodge a few more bullets before an oil shortage be the final blow to topple everything. At least here in the US. For one you have the oil reserves that's currently being protected by conservationists and then two, just the cost difference alone makes it cheaper to drill in places other than the US so our supply would be the last to go.

    The only reason they drill in places like the gulf and ND is because the economies aren't quite so inflated their and it's easier for smaller localized companies to get in on the action.

    When things crumble people will want as little change to their current lifestyle, which all relies mostly on oil so that will become your base trade and those smaller localized companies already established will be the new people in charge because people will be looking for the stability they can provide.
  • 1
    At least that would be one faction, I imagine those in the valley would begin to loosen their views on firearms and begin opening up trade, oil for automated targeting and other such systems since the chaos would be much closer to home.

    But any case that's what generally happens when large civilizations fall, they split into factions of people that already trust one another. Sometimes they follow generals, sometimes nobles, I think in our case it will be large corporations with enough juice to establish commerce based on their word and cash on delivery.
  • 2
    @billgates
    Yes Dr.Stone would be an idea.
Add Comment