• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Humanities Equilibrium

Jadzia

on holiday
Premium Member
Kind of bringing together throughts from various other recent threads, I was thinking about what with the discussions on evolution, population expansion, the demise of earths resources, and the prospects of settling on other planets, what would equilibrium be for humanity?

What would human life be like at the point at which we balanced everything: where birth rate equals death rate. Where energy use is within renewable limits. Where the effects we each have on the planet are reversible within our own lifetime.



Would we ever come close to that? Or are we doomed to self destruction because of a mindset incompatible with equilibrium.

To what extent would self discipline be required to maintain equilibrium, and which aspects of life would require state enforcement?

And personality -- what would we imagine human personality to be like at that limit? Would we feel as ambitious or as empowered as we currently feel? Would equilibrium be peaceful, happy, easy, hard, depressive, or bloody?

Repeating what I said elsewhere to guide thinking, for the last few millennia, our exploits of the earth's resources, coupled with intensive farming, and transportation, we live in an era with abundant fuel, food and land. This is an unnatural existence, because the equilibrium is shifted so far into our favour, we exist without the survival concerns that our prehistoric ancestors had to endure.
 
Would we ever come close to that? Or are we doomed to self destruction because of a mindset incompatible with equilibrium.
As long as "growth" is how we meassure "sucess" I'd say we're doomed…

But, of course there are ways out of that pit(iful way of thinking) in a virtually endless universe.
I think our only hope is to eventually 'grow up' and accept some kind new way to grow, one that doesn't cost as many physical ressources as our current mindset seems to require -or indeed one that gets us to the stars.

But I guess I'll have to take my good time to find a way to formulate my thoughts in English before I can post them here.

Btw: your post reminded me of a philosophy described by Doris Lessing as what the 'Canopians' call the necessity in her Canopus in Argos-novels -coincidence?
 
The equilibrium you describe sounds depressing inasmuch from your description it lacks drive. Mankind is driven to expand. Unfortunately we live in a time between the opening of new frontiers to the wider part of humanity. The planet has been over populated for decades and is straining to support us. Our only options to relieve this population pressure without a frontier to expand in is to kill people off and/or reduce the birth rate. The depressing part is most of the world's people don't want to die and the reproductive process is one of the cheapest forms of pleasure.

I think the majority of people on the planet would object to your assertation of "abundant fuel, food, and land"
 
Birth and death rates
I'm not sure those need to be in a perfect equilibrium all the time - the human population could easily oscillate between 4 and 8 billion over centuries.

Energy use
I don't think this will be a huge issue - there's plenty of solar energy out there, it's just too expensive for us to get it now.
And with breeder reactors, we can get millions of years of energy out of the uranium in the ground.
The trick will be to:
- switch the grid over to cleaner sources of energy
- and *then* start using more electricity and fewer fossil fuels.

(Or just set up more scrubbers and carbon-capture-and-storage systems, and the like.)
 
Either we will figure out how to expand beyond current boundaries - via technology and/or spaceflight or equilibrium will be forced on us. Either way we won't be wiped out, but we might take a severe thrashing.

Keep in mind that 5 billion people could be wiped out by climate change, pollution & disease and we'd still have a huge population left.

But do we really want to go through that? There is a smarter way, but I don't know if we have the unity and discipline to pull it off. Anyway, I'm pretty sure the worst-case scenario sees us surviving, but with a lot less manpower.
 
Btw: your post reminded me of a philosophy described by Doris Lessing as what the 'Canopians' call the necessity in her Canopus in Argos-novels -coincidence?

Sorry, I've never heard of Doris or her philosophy. My entire understanding of equilibrium is basically a generalization of Le Chatelier and static forces :)

Birth and death rates
I'm not sure those need to be in a perfect equilibrium all the time - the human population could easily oscillate between 4 and 8 billion over centuries.

Yes of course this is possible: stable cycles, which are very typical in mindless ecosystems -- more so than a static population. They involve periods of growth and periods of relapse, due to mismanagement of resources and population control. But would humanity want to take a healthier approach? By regulating its own ecosystem, we can get a static population instead of a... what's like a bipolar disorder -- going through unhealthy cycles of non stop up-down phases ?
 
Last edited:
Btw: your post reminded me of a philosophy described by Doris Lessing as what the 'Canopians' call the necessity in her Canopus in Argos-novels -coincidence?

Sorry, I've never heard of Doris or her philosophy. My entire understanding of equilibrium is basically a generalization of Le Chatelier and static forces :)

I think she's the only Nobel Prize winner I've actually read anything from.

Danish librarians were more interested in social and political agendas than delivering what the lenders wanted, in my childhood and youth (it's changed a bit since) so it was extremely difficult to find any SciFi in libraries unless it also had ulterior motives…

This meant that there was no SciFi in the children's library, and I had to go with dad to the "ordinary" library to get my fix from an early age.

The Canopus in Argos series as a whole falls into categories of social or soft science fiction ("space fiction" in Lessing's own words) due to its focus on human characters and social-cultural issues, and its de-emphasis of the details of scientific technology. This set of writings represented a major shift of focus for Doris Lessing, influenced by spiritual and mystical themes in Sufism
Wikipedia

From the book jacket of The Making of the Representative for Planet 8:
"This is the story of Planet 8 of the Canopean Empire, a prosperous and contented little planet inhabited by handsome, vibrant, intelligent people, as told to us by one of the planet's fifty Representatives. Planet 8 is verdant and peaceful, its well-being secure, its weather consistently nurturing, never harsh. The people live long, fruitful lives, each on assuming a role essential to the continuity of the race. There is no crime, no strife, and no doubt. The people understand - almost inherently - that the benevolent Canopean rule they live under is based on necessity, and that they play a part in "a long, slow progress upwards in civilisation."
 
*looks at big picture*
Fantasy- we need to moderate the moderations we "mold" into moderately moldy globs of mold. (glob is a tech term)
//unfortunately the discusion on the wiki there is not what I meant when I used the word Glob, Glob is simialar being a group but different in that it is used in actual codings of not scripts but actual language AI equations for gaming - and right now can not find the link to where I read about the Glob like class of AI actions//

We can apply the glob idea to systems of social behaviors and solve those problems as well, Was there a question in this thread?

I like the representative from planet 8, now I have to get that Opera by Glass :)

Equilibrium is a fantasy game that really is the ideal but in application or at least once the human race is re-created again., No wait Not the human species we don't want that to repeat itself... yes., the humans died out but we are going to create them again. Why, No reason just for the erroneously massive mistakes that might occur ., But, they blew the universe up so many times it needs to stop here. quit talking to yourself!!! no, yes, no, yes.
equilibrium is a bell curve with margins of error so nothing is really perfect all the time. just at the peek of the bell right?
 
Last edited:
*looks at big picture*
Fantasy- we need to moderate the moderations we "mold" into moderately moldy globs of mold. (glob is a tech term)
//unfortunately the discusion on the wiki there is not what I meant when I used the word Glob, Glob is simialar being a group but different in that it is used in actual codings of not scripts but actual language AI equations for gaming - and right now can not find the link to where I read about the Glob like class of AI actions//

We can apply the glob idea to systems of social behaviors and solve those problems as well, Was there a question in this thread?

I like the representative from planet 8, now I have to get that Opera by Glass :)

Equilibrium is a fantasy game that really is the ideal but in application or at least once the human race is re-created again., No wait Not the human species we don't want that to repeat itself... yes., the humans died out but we are going to create them again. Why, No reason just for the erroneously massive mistakes that might occur ., But, they blew the universe up so many times it needs to stop here. quit talking to yourself!!! no, yes, no, yes.
equilibrium is a bell curve with margins of error so nothing is really perfect all the time. just at the peek of the bell right?

You know what would be awesome? If you wrote the entirety of your posts in C++.

That would be bitchin'. :cool:
 
Standard Input Output forum posting

begin;

Do while thinking that humanities equilibrium = involves;

On Case ( actualized post <> switch parameters)

  1. life curve expectancies in real time;
  2. new expressions of existence within given time frames;
  3. Balanced and unbalanced periodic movements in being;
  4. executed in values of non-repetitive meaning and timings;
  5. bounce given humanities into hyperdrones while finding changes in real-time;
  6. revolve the solutions to thinking of new psychometrics as devolved yet re-solved by;

  • units of measures:
  • advances in time standards:
  • tasks of known effects with out causes:
case matches mismatch re-enter measured effects;

end case;

end do;

end;

//*I would of made the special words bold but that will be automatic soon?//*
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top