Will the internet survive energy contraction?

The one that will likely come about if you choose to deprive yourself of modern medical care.

Oh well, no doubt it increases my chance of dying earlier, but I'm not too worried about it. People in the past had way shorter life spans than I probably will live anyway.
 
A lot of them also didn't bathe regularly, just because it happened doesn't mean it's something to stupidly emulate.
 
Oh well, no doubt it increases my chance of dying earlier, but I'm not too worried about it. People in the past had way shorter life spans than I probably will live anyway.

These are the same "people in the past" from post #1122 that "had great life expectancy, and healthy outcomes"?
 
Whatever whatever! But seriously, what's up with that?
I could ask you the same thing about your attitudes toward yourself and other people.

TFian, would you say that Europe has a car culture? Does Japan?
No, and no.
Those societies have plenty of cars, and world-class car-manufacturing industries. So these factors do not appear to be the criteria for having a "car culture". This leads me to ask what the difference is between the U.S. on one hand and Europe and Japan on the other that makes the U.S. a car culture.

Well, guzzling a little less gas, and getting a little better mileage, is hardly the drastic change necessary.
What would it take for the U.S. to become more like Western Europe in this regard, not collapsing, but advancing?

But the desires to do particular things will persist.
But if within their reach is out of reach, well, it's not going to happen.
And so many desires to do particular things are already being met in a place you know...

What do the people of Kerala want?
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to be more specific. Kerala has well over 31 million people, they hardly are in uniform agreement on what they "want".
Do you think they are happy with their relatively high longevity, low birth-rate, high rate of literacy, and generally high quality of life? Do you think they would like to lower their high morbidity rates and rates of developmental disorders? Is your brother the civil engineer going to help improve Kerala's water infrastructure so fewer people suffer water-borne diseases? Do they like getting from place to place locally, as well as international travel? Would they like to reduce the number of unnecessary deaths? Do they like careers in advanced industries such as (oh, I don't know) biotechnology, scientific medicine, and software development? Do they like having entertainment such as (to speculate) dance, music, radio, films, and literature? Do they like having a say in the way their society is organized via multi-party parliamentary democracy, benefits from such arrangements such as democratic socialism, and having a civil culture that allows for freedom of conscience and religious diversity? Would they like to avoid the conflict and violence of communalism, and maybe even open a space in society for non-religious people?

Is it a generalization to say that people want better social and material conditions?

If they [other people] all die, fine by me.... I'm passively fatalistic about most things.

Well, it's not fine by me.

Does any part of your motivation for going to college stem from a desire to help the people back home to further improve their lives? Or is it only for your own personal benefit?

Why did you not choose civil engineering?
It didn't really hold my interest as I thought it would. Also my brother is already taking it.
What did you choose instead, if I may ask?
Environmental chemistry.
Why does environmental chemistry interest you? Why are you studying it if you expect you won't live long enough to actually use it, or even add to the knowledge of the world?

Also, as someone studying environmental chemistry, don't you understand the danger of toxic metal poisoning? Ayurvedic medicine (and homeopathy) are apparently a big deal in Kerala. I have to wonder how much this is hurting them.

Anyway, I wouldn't put anything in my body I wouldn't put in the ground.
Yes, but the point is to not put your body in the ground for a long, long time.

See here for instance: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-166092448/longevity-among-hunter-gatherers.html
There is some variability among groups. Among traditional hunter-gatherers, the average life expectancy at birth varies from 21 to 37 years...
I'll be surprised if I live to 30.
If you had to live in a primitivist world (and it wasn't a choice) I would also be surprised. But you don't have to live like that.

That's the price I'm willing to pay.
What do you gain for this price?

Well, uh, enjoy your premature death, I guess?
Really, you seem to have deep issues. But there's only so much one can do on a forum.
Unfortunately, I have to agree.
 
Last edited:
I could ask you the same thing about your attitudes toward yourself and other people.

Why not have that attitude? They're all walking dead to me anyway. Including myself.

So these factors do not appear to be the criteria for having a "car culture".

Well, a car culture is where a car is generally necessary for transport. In much of Europe, and Japan, you generally don't need to own a car. In fact, when I was in Japan, I never even needed to use a car, once. Not even to the airport.

would it take for the U.S. to become more like Western Europe in this regard, not collapsing, but advancing?

Divine intervention? Joking aside, massive investment in rail transport would certainly be a start. However, as Dave Cohen says, the prospect for the future isn't very bright. As I linked to earlier, the Grand Archdruid had a good post on the matter.


And so many desires to do particular things are already being met in a place you know...

To a degree yes.

Is your brother the civil engineer going to help improve Kerala's water infrastructure so fewer people suffer water-borne diseases?

Yup, among other things.

Do you think they are happy with their relatively high longevity, low birth-rate, (etc.)


For the most part yes, of course. With the exception of the traditionalists (Hindu conservatives), the advancements are very much welcome in a nation like India. Though the socialist/class reforms date back to the 1800s actually. I certainly benefited from a lot of the young child programs in Kerala, and massive investments in education. It is after all, the only state where disagreements can generally be solved democratically. Still, there's a big debate back there over how far to go developmentally, and there's a huge problem with remittancey, where family members will be gone for decades, or forever.

Is it a generalization to say that people want better social and material conditions?

Generalization yes, but probably true.

Well, it's not fine by me.

I've learned to passively accept it.

Does any part of your motivation for going to college stem from a desire to help the people back home to further improve their lives? Or is it only for your own personal benefit?

Both actually. However, a number of things have changed. And now I see things as hopelessly bleak they are. I guess a play of standup tragedy, to borrow a line from Derrick Jensen.

Why does environmental chemistry interest you?

Many reasons. Particularly it seemed a very useful discipline for back home.

Why are you studying it if you expect you won't live long enough to actually use it, or even add to the knowledge of the world?

I use to believe I would, but now I see the truth. But I still continue it, since it's better just wasting away waiting to die. I much rather die going on with my life.

Also, as someone studying environmental chemistry, don't you understand the danger of toxic metal poisoning?

Of course I do. What makes you think I don't take precautions against it?


Ayurvedic medicine (and homeopathy) are apparently a big deal in Kerala. I have to wonder how much this is hurting them.

Why would you assume this?



Yes, but the point is to not put your body in the ground for a long, long time.

How do you mean? Humans don't live very long anyway.

If you had to live in a primitivist world (and it wasn't a choice) I would also be surprised. But you don't have to live like that.

I don't know, McPherson's and Dave Cohen's world looks to be realized soon.


What do you gain for this price?

I keep them out of my body and mind.

Unfortunately, I have to agree.

Why do I want to be reprogramed by them?
 
Last edited:
Plenty of primitive societies had great life expectancy, and healthy outcomes.
No they don't, that is bogus, back up your claim, in most primitive societies the mortality rate for children is very high.
It has more to do with hygiene than medicine.
I could have died of sepsis a number of times, much less the blood transfusion that saved my life
 
No they don't, that is bogus, back up your claim, in most primitive societies the mortality rate for children is very high.

Child mortality rates fudged the numbers. The low life expectancy in earlier times was largely due to very high infant mortality. However most mature people died in their 40s or 50s, and some people died in their 80s or 90s. The average life expectancy in many African countries today is lower than life expectancy the Middle Ages or in Antiquity.


I could have died of sepsis a number of times, much less the blood transfusion that saved my life

I never said modern health science doesn't save lives.
 
Reprogrammed? What do you think this is, the Matrix? It's about helping you overcoming issues that will eventually kill yourself.

But isn't that the job of a psychologist/psychiatrist? To change the way you think to fit the norm?
 
Oh, then surely you can source it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Interpretation_of_life_expectancy

In countries with high infant mortality rates, the life expectancy at birth is highly sensitive to the rate of death in the first few years of life. Because of this sensitivity to infant mortality, simple life expectancy at age zero can be subject to gross misinterpretation, leading one to believe that a population with a low overall life expectancy will necessarily have a small proportion of older people. For example, in a hypothetical stationary population in which half the population dies before the age of five, but everybody else dies exactly at 70 years old, the life expectancy at age zero will be about 35 years, while about 25% of the population will be between the ages of 50 and 70
 
Last edited:
wiki said:
In countries with high infant mortality rates, the life expectancy at birth is highly sensitive to the rate of death in the first few years of life. Because of this sensitivity to infant mortality, simple life expectancy at age zero can be subject to gross misinterpretation, leading one to believe that a population with a low overall life expectancy will necessarily have a small proportion of older people. For example, in a hypothetical stationary population in which half the population dies before the age of five, but everybody else dies exactly at 70 years old, the life expectancy at age zero will be about 35 years, while about 25% of the population will be between the ages of 50 and 70. Another measure such as life expectancy at age 5 (e5) can be used to exclude the effect of infant mortality to provide a simple measure of overall mortality rates other than in early childhood—in the hypothetical population above, life expectancy at age 5 would be 70 years. Aggregate population measures such as the proportion of the population in various age classes should also be used alongside individual-based measures like formal life expectancy when analyzing population structure and dynamics.

herp derp derp
 

Back
Top Bottom