Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

[Volya]

How exactly do you propose to sustain seven billion people on a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. You effectively seem to be suggesting a mass murder of the human race.

[sushil_yadav]

How exactly do you propose to sustain seven billion people on a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. You effectively seem to be suggesting a mass murder of the human race.

This is your proposal not mine.

..
A pure non-industrial society is not possible now because Industrialization has increased world population to 7 billion.......World population increased from 1 billion in 1800 to 7 billion in just about 200 years after industrialization.......In the absence of industrialization world population would have been less than 2 billion today.

If we want to save the remaining environment we must minimize the things that are destroying environment.

At present we are destroying environment for Food, Clothing, Shelter plus Thousands of Industrial consumer goods and services.

We must eliminate the things that were added last to the list......which means Thousands of consumer goods and services, most of which have existed for only about 100 years out of Hundreds of Thousands of years of Total Human Existence on earth .........these have to be eliminated.

We are approaching Environmental Apocalypse.......The only way to save the remaining environment is by stopping Industrial Activity for production of consumer goods and services immediately........Industrial Activity must be primarily limited to food, clothing and shelter.......and even in these three fields production and consumption must be kept to the minimum.
.

[Darcy88]

Sushil I like your last post there but the problem I have with it is that it would seriously damper scientific and technological progress. You seem to despise technology while I feel that is likely the only hope for saving the world. In a hundred years it is possible that scientists will have discovered remedies to the issues you bring up in this thread.

[Volya]

This is your proposal not mine.

How do you propose to reduce the population then?

[Bleeding Pawn]

Every problem in this world has been aggravated by Industrialization.

If Industrial Revolution / Industrialization had not happened world population would be less than 2 billion today.....India's population would have been much less than what it is now and much fewer trees would have been cut down for funeral pyres.

Industrialisation of a certain country effects the growth rate of the population, how is it so? Can you please clarify.

Many larger and developed countries of the world, where industrialisation boomed earlier, have a low population growth rate and lower percentage of population occupation in proportion to the land surface area they possess, when compared to India. Countries like Russia, Canada, USA, Brazil, Australia, have a low ratio of people/Sqm. Why did not the industrial revolution effect them then?

Lets take the science industry, their invention of the Ultrasonic machines are being effective in determining the gender of the fetus and many couples choose to abort the "babies" if it is a female hence controlling the population of India. Should not we thank the science industry/technology for saving India and the rest of the world from being further infested by species (females) renowned for manufacturing ( producing) of potential would-be, future prospects industrialised products?

[Volya]

Industrialisation of a certain country effects the growth rate of the population, how is it so? Can you please clarify.

Many larger and developed countries of the world, where industrialisation boomed earlier, have a low population growth rate and lower percentage of population occupation in proportion to the land surface area they possess, when compared to India. Countries like Russia, Canada, USA, Brazil, Australia, have a low ratio of people/Sqm. Why did not the industrial revolution effect them then?

Lets take the science industry, their invention of the Ultrasonic machines are being effective in determining the gender of the fetus and many couples choose to abort the "babies" if it is a female hence controlling the population of India. Should not we thank the science industry/technology for saving India and the rest of the world from being further infested by species (females) renowned for manufacturing ( producing) of potential would-be, future prospects industrialised products?

I'm pretty sure it is commonly accepted that industrialization leads to population increase. More advancements in science lead to better medical treatment, more efficient farming and construction methods mean there is more to go around, overall increase in wealth allows people to have more children and for less of those children to end up dead.

[stlukesguild]

I'm pretty sure it is commonly accepted that industrialization leads to population increase.

It may be a commonly accepted idea... but it would be false. It isn't the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, or Western Europe that have the highest birthrates. Better nutrition, better healthcare (including access to birth control), and the like contribute to a lower infant mortality rate as well as a better standard of living, including social safety nets. Without these, parents are motivated into having multiple children in order to insure the survival of some who in theory will support said parents later in life. Ultimately, however, this contributes to the cycle of poverty as poor parents struggle to feed and support large families and often lack the time, energy, and ability to help with the children's education. You see this cycle not only in the poorer, less industrialized nations, but also among the poorer communities of the wealthy nations.

[hannah_arendt]

I'm pretty sure it is commonly accepted that industrialization leads to population increase.

It may be a commonly accepted idea... but it would be false. It isn't the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, or Western Europe that have the highest birthrates. Better nutrition, better healthcare (including access to birth control), and the like contribute to a lower infant mortality rate as well as a better standard of living, including social safety nets. Without these, parents are motivated into having multiple children in order to insure the survival of some who in theory will support said parents later in life. Ultimately, however, this contributes to the cycle of poverty as poor parents struggle to feed and support large families and often lack the time, energy, and ability to help with the children's education. You see this cycle not only in the poorer, less industrialized nations, but also among the poorer communities of the wealthy nations.

I agree in 100%.i think that one of the main reasons of problems in Poland is worse industrialization.

[Shevek]

I'm pretty sure it is commonly accepted that industrialization leads to population increase. More advancements in science lead to better medical treatment, more efficient farming and construction methods mean there is more to go around, overall increase in wealth allows people to have more children and for less of those children to end up dead.

I think you're confusing population increase with carrying capacity.

[Adolescent09]

Industrial Society Destroys Mind and Environment

The article examines why Writers, Poets and Artists experience more emotion than other people - and would be of interest to members of this forum. The fast-paced, consumerist lifestyle of Industrial Society is causing exponential rise in psychological problems besides destroying the environment.

(1)You nearly lost me after the bold theme (pun intended) of your thread topic. You then completely lost me after your marginally offensive claim that writers, poets and artists experience more emotion than other people. Being able to put your emotional thoughts/sensations into words that relate to others has absolutely NOTHING to do with feeling emotions in the first place. If anything, the greater the readership of an author, the more the author feels a need to cater to a target audience, the less said author attaches personal emotion to productions, especially if reader feedback is in disagreement with it. If sales of multiple products are REPEATEDLY higher than expected, feedback from an author's target audience might be completely neglected. From a technological standpoint, Apple's iPhone 5 is a prime example of this: the exploitation of customer loyalty incentivizes cutting back on relevant upgrades and production for the sake of maximizing profit (economists delve into this topic in far greater depth that I am capable of at my age). This loosely explains why the vast majority of an artist's hardcore fan-base often become disappointed with the artist's later works after years of brand loyalty; Ex. (Metallica's 'Master of Puppets' to their god-awful mess of St. Anger and Lulu; Spielbergs's 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade' to 'Kingdom of the Crystal Skull') One could argue that the artist's sense of identity is mutually separate from fan loyalty, but it would not explain why album/movie sales of the artist's work increase at a rate that is inversely proportional to critic/fan approval.

(2) Following directly from my first point, I don't understand how you can separate industrial growth from authorship or artistry, especially in view of the mainstream. Simon Cowell, Dean Koontz, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Clancy, every last horrible mainstream rapper including ridiculously contrived pop bands/stars ('1D', Taylor Swift, Bruno Mars, Maroon 5 etc.), exploitative Apple, and others might not have much to offer society from an intellectual standpoint and certainly not from an original standpoint but their contribution to the sustenance of the domestic (and to a smaller extent the global) economy cannot be overstated.

I'll get back to your other points later.

[Volya]

I'm pretty sure it is commonly accepted that industrialization leads to population increase.

It may be a commonly accepted idea... but it would be false. It isn't the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea, or Western Europe that have the highest birthrates. Better nutrition, better healthcare (including access to birth control), and the like contribute to a lower infant mortality rate as well as a better standard of living, including social safety nets. Without these, parents are motivated into having multiple children in order to insure the survival of some who in theory will support said parents later in life. Ultimately, however, this contributes to the cycle of poverty as poor parents struggle to feed and support large families and often lack the time, energy, and ability to help with the children's education. You see this cycle not only in the poorer, less industrialized nations, but also among the poorer communities of the wealthy nations.

I knew there was something I was forgetting... This is what I get for not paying attention in geography...

But yes, I agree with you there.
I think what I meant to say was that it would have a higher population increase than in a hunter/gatherer society? Because even less developed countries don't function as hunter gatherers any more in most cases (as far as I'm aware).

[OrphanPip]

There is a general trend that holds across most advanced economies that birth rates are actually non-replenishing. Japan's population will actually shrink in the next few years, and the populations of Canada, USA, and Western Europe only grow due to immigration. This creates a conundrum for advanced countries because economic growth depends in part on population growth, which is why most countries actively pursue immigration (Japan being the exception) in order to keep their GDP growing. For whatever reason, when people have jobs, debt, and easy access to birth control they tend to choose to have less children. There are a few exceptions to this though, like Mormons in the US who believe it is a requirement of their faith to have as many children as they can support.

[ralfyman]

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pink..._violence.html

Try the second chart in this link:

http://democraticpeace.wordpress.com...odiest-of-all/

The world had more conflict-related deaths in absolute and relative terms during the last century than the previous four.

And given peak oil, environmental damage and climate change, one economic crash after another, the twenty-first may make the twentieth look like a walk in the park.

[ralfyman]

Oh come on - haven't you watched Discovery Channel or Animal Planet or National Geographic? Animals can be horribly cruel, trees and plants jostle and choke each other as they compete for air, water and sunlight. The forces of nature are a billion trillion times more powerful and can be more cruel than anything man can ever do. The natural world is a competitive world with or without humans, and that involves cruelty. Deal with it.

Compared to human beings? Not even close.

[ralfyman]

How exactly do you propose to sustain seven billion people on a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. You effectively seem to be suggesting a mass murder of the human race.

More important, how do we meet growing resource demand for the current global population given a limited biocapacity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ical_footprint