I think this topic deserves its own thread, even though it is relevant to a number of other threads on this forum, like mass killings (supply of guns), killdozers (demand for monster trucks) and downtown (demand for affordable housing).
Every year the President of my country makes a State of the Nation speech. And every year, he says the same thing. "Provided we can grow the economy at 2 or 3 percent per annum, we can maintain our standard of living".
I live in a Third World country in Africa. There has been a relentless growth in population in the last few decades. This in turn has fuelled a demand for goods and services. More schools and hospitals, more washing machines, more hot showers and flush toilets. More fast food and T.V. dinners. More shopping malls. More of everything.
Even in First World countries with shrinking populations, there is increasing demand for goods and services. The marketing paradigm is different. If you want to sell a refrigerator in my country, you have to show your customer the difference between refrigerating food, and food spoiling. In First World countries, you have to persuade your customer that their perfecty good 10 year old refrigerator is no longer good enough, because it is not made with ozone-friendly insulating foam, and does not use the latest energy-saving compressor technology.
You have to persuade your customer that he needs 27 guns, or an enormous truck that only gets fully utilized on a few occasions. That 2 year old cell phone in your pocket does everything you need. But all your friends are running around with new cell phones, and you feel the pressure to buy a new one.
This is a topic that the world leaders tip-toe around. They all address the supply side of the equation, instead of the demand side. Increasing supply (by stimulating economic growth) is safe. Reducing demand (by shrinking the economy) is political suicide.
One way of reducing demand in Third World countries is by reducing the population. In African culture, having many children is a sign of status and success. Any attempt at population control would lead to political suicide.
Democracy won't save our world. I feel the only hope is for a benevolent dictatorship. But how do you ensure the benevolent dictator remains benevolent? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When I was a schoolboy, I thought that science and technology would ensure the future viability of the world. So I became a scientist. Now I think that science and technology are largely to blame for the mess we are in. But that is probably the topic of another thread.
Every year the President of my country makes a State of the Nation speech. And every year, he says the same thing. "Provided we can grow the economy at 2 or 3 percent per annum, we can maintain our standard of living".
I live in a Third World country in Africa. There has been a relentless growth in population in the last few decades. This in turn has fuelled a demand for goods and services. More schools and hospitals, more washing machines, more hot showers and flush toilets. More fast food and T.V. dinners. More shopping malls. More of everything.
Even in First World countries with shrinking populations, there is increasing demand for goods and services. The marketing paradigm is different. If you want to sell a refrigerator in my country, you have to show your customer the difference between refrigerating food, and food spoiling. In First World countries, you have to persuade your customer that their perfecty good 10 year old refrigerator is no longer good enough, because it is not made with ozone-friendly insulating foam, and does not use the latest energy-saving compressor technology.
You have to persuade your customer that he needs 27 guns, or an enormous truck that only gets fully utilized on a few occasions. That 2 year old cell phone in your pocket does everything you need. But all your friends are running around with new cell phones, and you feel the pressure to buy a new one.
This is a topic that the world leaders tip-toe around. They all address the supply side of the equation, instead of the demand side. Increasing supply (by stimulating economic growth) is safe. Reducing demand (by shrinking the economy) is political suicide.
One way of reducing demand in Third World countries is by reducing the population. In African culture, having many children is a sign of status and success. Any attempt at population control would lead to political suicide.
Democracy won't save our world. I feel the only hope is for a benevolent dictatorship. But how do you ensure the benevolent dictator remains benevolent? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
When I was a schoolboy, I thought that science and technology would ensure the future viability of the world. So I became a scientist. Now I think that science and technology are largely to blame for the mess we are in. But that is probably the topic of another thread.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/upCtbq9
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire