User Tag List

First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 70

  1. #51
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CzeCze View Post
    Are you an audiophile? You might enjoy looking at different kinds of earphones/earbuds - they can make a huge difference and also save your hearing. I don't use the earbuds that came with my ipod.

    You can even use a headphone/earphone amps if you really want to enhance the quality of sound. The amps are very convenient/portable, but it will help make your music sound better at least.
    Yeah, music is serious business for me even though I don't make my living from it anymore. It kills me to hear music compressed to oblivion. What headphones and amps do you use, out of curiosity?

  2. #52
    Dali
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    There's just so many mindless people running amock when shopping, that it amazes me.

    An employee of mine bought two pair of shoes not long ago because the second pair was half the price. And she was convinced that she saved 50%. But when I inquired her if she needed the other pair of shoes, she said no. *shrug*
    Hehe, that reminds me of my flatmate buying a jacket because it was 50% off. I also asked him whether he needed it but his only response was that it WAS after all 50% off.

    BTW, at the time, I lived in a tropical environment that was always hot and humid and he'd have (at most) worn said jacket a week out of the entire year. And he was broke at the time and borrowing food money from me. But nooo, the jacket was on sale.

    *SMH*

  3. #53
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Well, technically, most technology comes under this. I suppose you could say anything that keeps people alive is necessary, but then I wonder what the point is in the constant growth.

    There is a direct correlation between population capacity and technology. There were only about a 1.5 billion people in the world 1900, if I remember, and only a few hundred milion in biblical times. Technological developments are responsible for the increase. What's neat about this is, if for some reason the entire world had a never ending power outage right now, the population would be billions of people smaller in a few decades, mostly through disease and starvation.
    Actually there is an inverse correlation between technology and population capacity. The most "modern" nations have zero or negative population growth. The nations with the greatest population growth are among the least technologically advanced. If we had a huge power outage a lot of people would die in the short term, but the world's population capacity would grow in the long term.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  4. #54
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Actually there is an inverse correlation between technology and population capacity. The most "modern" nations have zero or negative population growth. The nations with the greatest population growth are among the least technologically advanced. If we had a huge power outage a lot of people would die in the short term, but the world's population capacity would grow in the long term.
    That's a misintepretation of trends. The growth rate hits a ceiling at a certain point of technology, due to various factors, one of the most important being that in primitive societies children are additions support, while in advanced societies they just become burdens. However, the population that even the most advanced, slow growing societies today have, exist in majority because of technology.

    This slowing population thing is a relativey new trend you know? It has to go up against thousands of previous years of a trend showing a postive correlation between technology and population. It's just that like most trends, it does have a "cap", or perhaps more accurately, it is parabolic.

    Yes, after the blackout populations would regrow, but A) so many people would have died that they'd only be growing back to where they were before the blackout, and B) they'd have to develop a new form of power to achieve the technology necessary to get back up to those totals.

    Tell me, do you think that if humans never developed technology beyond that of stonage nomads, they would still have wound up with a population of 6.7 billion by 2009 a.d.?
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #55
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    That's a misintepretation of trends. The growth rate hits a ceiling at a certain point of technology, due to various factors, one of the most important being that in primitive societies children are additions support, while in advanced societies they just become burdens. However, the population that even the most advanced, slow growing societies today have, exist in majority because of technology.
    It depends on what you mean by technology. Fire is a technology. The plow is a technology. It can be argued that these things increase a population's carrying capacity. However as a whole the technologies developed in the past couple hundred of years do not increase a population's carrying capacity. In the most technologically advanced countries (U.S., Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc...) the population's carrying capacity is no longer based on biological factors. Their population's carrying capacity is based on cultural and socio-economic factors instead.

    In fact in most of these countries the populations are slowly shrinking. This means that their current population is above their carrying capacity. The carrying capacity of "modern" societies is shrinking. There is a very clear inverse correlation between technology and population.

    This slowing population thing is a relativey new trend you know? It has to go up against thousands of previous years of a trend showing a postive correlation between technology and population. It's just that like most trends, it does have a "cap", or perhaps more accurately, it is parabolic.
    The slowing population is relatively new because "modern" nations have relatively recently started hitting their carrying capacity. Population models follow a logistic curve (which is "S" shaped). It grows exponentially then levels off when it approaches the carrying capacity. In less advanced societies the population growth still looks exponential. This means they are nowhere near their carrying capacity yet even though some of those countries have very dense populations.

    Comparatively the less advanced countries have fewer resources in a biological sense, but biological resources are not what limits population growth in modern societies. Instead the population in modern societies is limited by cultural and socio-economic factors. The more technologically advanced we become the greater our need for education. Education is expensive. This means that technological advances are inversely proportional to the population's carrying capacity.

    Yes, after the blackout populations would regrow, but A) so many people would have died that they'd only be growing back to where they were before the blackout, and B) they'd have to develop a new form of power to achieve the technology necessary to get back up to those totals.
    A) I think you misunderstand the power of exponential growth. Let us assume hypothetically that it's such a big catastrope that 1/2 the world's population dies off. After that the world's population grows at a meager 2% per year to recover. At this rate the world's population would double every 35 years. So how long it would take for the population to reach it's old level? (Answer: 35 years) It really does not take that long for a population to recover from even a huge black-plague like catastrope.

    B) They'd be more likely to surpass the old population totals if they didn't develop a new form of power. If society changed such that people didn't send their children to school, but instead set them to doing farmwork as soon as they were able, then the population would far exceed it's current total.

    Tell me, do you think that if humans never developed technology beyond that of stonage nomads, they would still have wound up with a population of 6.7 billion by 2009 a.d.?
    Nomads have a low carrying capacity for their population, because it is based on a hunter-gatherer model. Children are not really an economic advantage in that model like they are in an agrarian society, and they are also limited by biological factors. On the other hand if technology for some reason stopped being developed right after the plow was invented, then the world's population today would be a lot larger than it is now.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  6. #56
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    It depends on what you mean by technology. Fire is a technology. The plow is a technology. It can be argued that these things increase a population's carrying capacity. However as a whole the technologies developed in the past couple hundred of years do not increase a population's carrying capacity. In the most technologically advanced countries (U.S., Canada, Australia, Western Europe, etc...) the population's carrying capacity is no longer based on biological factors. Their population's carrying capacity is based on cultural and socio-economic factors instead.
    For the most part, I'd disagree. I'd say population is dependent on food production, food distibution, clean water access, hygiene and medical care. There are other smaller technological factors, but those are the big ones. I think all the developed countries you mentioned would experience a harsh decline in population if the power behind those factors failed.

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    In fact in most of these countries the populations are slowly shrinking. This means that their current population is above their carrying capacity. The carrying capacity of "modern" societies is shrinking. There is a very clear inverse correlation between technology and population.
    I say again, that the decine now doesn't say much against the incline of most of the past. How recently was the USA's population still growing? I don't think the plow springboarded us all the way from then to now, without population having anything to do with the growth inbetween.


    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    The slowing population is relatively new because "modern" nations have relatively recently started hitting their carrying capacity. Population models follow a logistic curve (which is "S" shaped). It grows exponentially then levels off when it approaches the carrying capacity. In less advanced societies the population growth still looks exponential. This means they are nowhere near their carrying capacity yet even though some of those countries have very dense populations.
    I'd repeat what I said above, and add...

    But those developed countries are not examples of the early agricultural age anymore. Doesn't eveyone that those places have been introduced to industrializing technologies that are interacting chaotically with their unprepared social circumnstances? If lack of education for handling advanced technologies is what slows the population down, shouldn't these people be dying instead of growing?

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Comparatively the less advanced countries have fewer resources in a biological sense, but biological resources are not what limits population growth in modern societies. Instead the population in modern societies is limited by cultural and socio-economic factors. The more technologically advanced we become the greater our need for education. Education is expensive. This means that technological advances are inversely proportional to the population's carrying capacity.

    I'd repeat my point about the developing countries not being that primitive anymore. In fact, I do believe most of them had an explosive population only after greater technology was introduced. That's sort of what I was getting at

    Secondly, I think you overestimate the dependence on funded education and underestimate the diffusion of knowledge. 5 year olds today know far more than they did 1000 years ago. Information becomes common, and as such, people pick up more and more of it earlier and earlier, without much cost. Certainly not more cost than the technology itself can make up for.

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    A) I think you misunderstand the power of exponential growth. Let us assume hypothetically that it's such a big catastrope that 1/2 the world's population dies off. After that the world's population grows at a meager 2% per year to recover. At this rate the world's population would double every 35 years. So how long it would take for the population to reach it's old level? (Answer: 35 years) It really does not take that long for a population to recover from even a huge black-plague like catastrope.
    Except I never said anything about their technology coming back, I said a permanent blackout, so I think their capacity would be lower than 6.7 billion and their growth rate may be slower too, though that's not important. I think maybe I need to emphasize the difference between a growth rate and a population capacity. The former can be high even when the latter is low.

    And as you said, it's an S curve. However, I do not think that hyperbolas phase leading up to the mid-twentieth century or so was caused just be the development of agriculture. Going from 1 billion to 6 billion in a 100 years, I think the industrial revolution had a lot to do with it.

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    B) They'd be more likely to surpass the old population totals if they didn't develop a new form of power. If society changed such that people didn't send their children to school, but instead set them to doing farmwork as soon as they were able, then the population would far exceed it's current total.

    Nomads have a low carrying capacity for their population, because it is based on a hunter-gatherer model. Children are not really an economic advantage in that model like they are in an agrarian society, and they are also limited by biological factors. On the other hand if technology for some reason stopped being developed right after the plow was invented, then the world's population today would be a lot larger than it is now.
    I think you're intelligent, laser, but I find this theory highly dubious. So there'd be like 12 billion copper age citizens here on earth as of 2009? How could that be maintained? How would there be enough food or water? How would it be distributed fast and far enough? How we have long enough life spans or enough resistance to infection? How would we fit the capacity for people like that without steel girders? Spread them out? That makes distribution even more of a problem! And where would all of these spread out people have the space for their farming, and how could they handle the environment? Relatively little of the earths surface is friendly, the part's that aren't were inhabited by non-farmers up until industrialization.

    I think the advances in technology are the only reason Malthus has ever been wrong.

    EDIT: And just for good measure I'll summarize this. I think technology increases are population capacity (not growth rate). I think therefore, due to the difference in technology, we have a much higher maximum population capacity now than we did in say, 2000b.c.
    Because of that, if our technology disapeared, our population capacity would plummet back to the capacity we had in 2000b.c., but we'd still be left with a population total that developed while attempting to expand to fill our technologically augmented capcacity. As such, we would suddenly have a population vastly beyond our (now low) population capacity, so billions of people would die.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  7. #57
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    For the most part, I'd disagree. I'd say population is dependent on food production, food distibution, clean water access, hygiene and medical care. There are other smaller technological factors, but those are the big ones. I think all the developed countries you mentioned would experience a harsh decline in population if the power behind those factors failed.
    Yeah there would be a decline at first, but after people adapted the population would regrow and even surpass previous levels assuming the society depended less on technology.


    I say again, that the decine now doesn't say much against the incline of most of the past. How recently was the USA's population still growing? I don't think the plow springboarded us all the way from then to now, without population having anything to do with the growth inbetween.
    The incline of the past has never been slowed by lack of technology in an agrarian society. I've looked at census records in Europe during the Dark Ages. With the exception of a small dip during the Black Plague, the population exhibited a predictable exponential growth. This is a time period when technological growth was known for being stagnant. It didn't impede population growth at all.


    I'd repeat what I said above, and add...

    But those developed countries are not examples of the early agricultural age anymore. Doesn't eveyone that those places have been introduced to industrializing technologies that are interacting chaotically with their unprepared social circumnstances? If lack of education for handling advanced technologies is what slows the population down, shouldn't these people be dying instead of growing?
    Formal education is what slows a population down. Lack of education does not. Without formal education parents have an economic incentive to have children. With formal education parents have an economic disincentive to have children.

    I'd repeat my point about the developing countries not being that primitive anymore. In fact, I do believe most of them had an explosive population only after greater technology was introduced. That's sort of what I was getting at

    Secondly, I think you overestimate the dependence on funded education and underestimate the diffusion of knowledge. 5 year olds today know far more than they did 1000 years ago. Information becomes common, and as such, people pick up more and more of it earlier and earlier, without much cost. Certainly not more cost than the technology itself can make up for.


    Except I never said anything about their technology coming back, I said a permanent blackout, so I think their capacity would be lower than 6.7 billion and their growth rate may be slower too, though that's not important. I think maybe I need to emphasize the difference between a growth rate and a population capacity. The former can be high even when the latter is low.

    And as you said, it's an S curve. However, I do not think that hyperbolas phase leading up to the mid-twentieth century or so was caused just be the development of agriculture. Going from 1 billion to 6 billion in a 100 years, I think the industrial revolution had a lot to do with it.
    The only data that has shown a leveling off in population growth is for "modern" countries in the world today. There are no census records showing that any other agrarian population past or present was limited by its carrying capacity. Based on the data the simplest explanation is that modern technology is correlated with a limited carrying capacity rather than an expanding one.

    Also if you look at the data I believe you will see it took around 150-200 years for the population to grow from 1 billion to 6 billion. That growth rate is not out of line compared to previous growth rates. The biggest factor in the population growth is simply exponential growth. In reality the only thing that really slows exponential growth is the carrying capacity, and only "modern" countries have shown any indication of reaching their carrying capacity.

    I think you're intelligent, laser, but I find this theory highly dubious. So there'd be like 12 billion copper age citizens here on earth as of 2009? How could that be maintained? How would there be enough food or water? How would it be distributed fast and far enough? How we have long enough life spans or enough resistance to infection? How would we fit the capacity for people like that without steel girders? Spread them out? That makes distribution even more of a problem! And where would all of these spread out people have the space for their farming, and how could they handle the environment? Relatively little of the earths surface is friendly, the part's that aren't were inhabited by non-farmers up until industrialization.

    I think the advances in technology are the only reason Malthus has ever been wrong.
    Let me take these questions a bit at a time:
    So there'd be like 12 billion copper age citizens here on earth as of 2009?
    Not sure how many there would be as it does depend on what technologies are present and which are not. I think if you stoped advancement right before the printing press you'd have the biggest population today, certainly more than we have now. Earlier than that it depends on what farming technologies you are imagining being used.

    How could that be maintained? How would there be enough food or water?
    Only about 2% of arable land in the US toady is used for farming. We grow more than we need every year and some of it goes to waste. There would be plenty of land for food assuming most of it was farmed.

    How would it be distributed fast and far enough?
    People would grow the food themselves

    How we have long enough life spans or enough resistance to infection?
    The second half of a "modern" person's life is not used for breeding. Breeding affects population growth far more than average life span. Adding life span gives a small boost to the population curve, but doesn't have much of a long term effect.

    How would we fit the capacity for people like that without steel girders? Spread them out? If you're saying that Manhattan Island could not exist without modern technology then you are absolutely correct. However the US population has a much lower density than many other countries with at a lower technological level. Yes people could spread out more.

    EDIT: And just for good measure I'll summarize this. I think technology increases are population capacity (not growth rate). I think therefore, due to the difference in technology, we have a much higher maximum population capacity now than we did in say, 2000b.c.
    Because of that, if our technology disapeared, our population capacity would plummet back to the capacity we had in 2000b.c., but we'd still be left with a population total that developed while attempting to expand to fill our technologically augmented capcacity. As such, we would suddenly have a population vastly beyond our (now low) population capacity, so billions of people would die.
    Well I'd agree many would die, but I think we'd recover. And I also agree a lot of technology up through the Middle Ages and such has increased the carrying capacity. However, Renaissance technologies (like the printing press) have lead to cultural and economic changes such that children are no longer an economic incentive. That is why modern countries do not experience population growth. They have reached their carrying capacity, but it isn't based on biological factors. For modern countries the carrying capacity is based on cultural and socio-economic factors.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  8. #58
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    11,925

    Default

    Shaky Cam.

    Art house films.

    Blu-ray.

    Pretty much everything developed by Apple 2000 and beyond.

  9. #59
    Senior Member iamathousandapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thisGuy View Post
    i dont see the need for anger...thats my main point
    why cant everyone just get high and do the chicken dance

    social networking is a multifaceted thing...important or not, those things are amusing to some...they define some people's entire identities.
    Because emotions are stronger in others and eventually can't be controlled.

    And that's the problem. Instead of a real life, we spend our time talking to people we already know extremely well through this instead of actually living.

  10. #60
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by iamathousandapples View Post
    Instead of a real life, we spend our time talking to people we already know extremely well through this instead of actually living.
    This is the noosphere.

    And the content of the noosphere is real life, in exactly the same way the theatre is the content of television.

    The noosphere and real life now occur at the same time. In exactly the same way theatre and television occur at the same time in the same place.

    You are right, there is a distinction between real life and the noosphere. But rather than being mutually exclusive, one is the content of the other - real life is the content of the noosphere.

    Have you not watched the 'reality shows' on TV like Big Brother? They make it explicit, vulgarly explicit, that real life is the content of television and the noosphere.

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Defining Moments in the life of an NF
    By SolitaryWalker in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-01-2009, 10:27 PM
  2. Like some Magic in your life? :D
    By white in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 01-23-2008, 09:13 PM
  3. [NT] The day in the life of NT.
    By Veneti in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-17-2007, 12:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO