With this increased technology and often unconstitutional tracking of our every movement it is also easier to become a suspect based on a few pings with no other supporting evidence. Then everything you have ever written online will be picked apart to support the evidence those few pings created.
I agree that lack of family support is a significant contributor but would also add in lack of community connection as well. Due to a variety of socioeconomic factors most people now live in their own little bubbles and there is little or no connection to those who live and work nearby. Itās easier to flip off a stranger than someone you interact with face to face on a regular basis.
We are now a society where most choose to hang out in online echo chambers with people they mostly agree with. Knowing and interacting with a diversity of neighbors and opinions seems a rare thing these days.
It IS often unconstitutional. Thatās where the āsystemā has to step up and adhere to the laws as written, and identify where the laws have to be better explained, so that legislatures can act to improve/modernize the laws.
A large problem I see is that technology is evolving faster than what the āsystemā can keep up with.
It often seems to me that for every problem technology solves there are three more problems it creates.
The only solution for that Iām afraid, baring people learning to look beyond short term profits and considering the long term costs, is the sun burping and pushing our technology back to 1800s levels for a few years. That would also solve the population and diminishing resource problems as well. But that sure isnāt something I would want to have to try and get my family through since it will only make the crime and violence problems significantly worse.
The ghost of Malthus strikes again. There are folks that have burning maniacal desire to kill off lots and lots of people. Most interesting is the diversity of excuses they find, from Margaret Sanger to Hitler to modern climate alarmists.
I donāt have any desire to kill off anyone but supply and demand are real things. There are limits to what new technology can do to solve that problem. Unless maybe if a lot of people are willing to volunteer to eat bugs and drink recycled urine. That might buy us room and resources for a couple billion more people.
Unless technology can help us find new ways to get around resource problems.
Using Mooreās law as an example, it states (roughly) that computing power should be able to double every 2 years, but the limitations of physics make this increasingly difficult to doā¦ until the increased computing power provides us the capability to engineer even smaller circuits, and the scenario repeats itself.
Technology could advance to the point where we could all download our brains to a super computer powered by a cold fusion reactor. Or human batteries like in the matrix. But I prefer living in the natural world. Would be easy to program crime out of that system in that scenario, just to try to stay somewhat on topic;)
As long as we eat, drink and breath we are bound by the limits of nature which we are currently manipulating significantly with our technology with little thought to the long term consequences. But I think history and a basic understanding of physics and biology show that nature can only be pushed so far before it pushes back even harder.
Artificial Intelligence is what scares me. A Google engineer was recently fired for announcing that a learning, āsentient beingā had been created in the lab.
Scarier yet, is that CNN is reporting that it isnāt true.
Technology and science found the way to quench the thirst of the Arabian peninsula, didnāt it? US has about 90 million cattle and can add 50 million more, in stead of no longer existing bison herds. Roachburger? Recycled urine? Please. Humanity havenāt started farming the oceans yet. I wonāt dispute that at some point you meet the limit, but what is the limit? I donāt see any serious science on the subject, just fearmongering, irrational panic, and manipulation.
I try to keep an open mind, but at this point, with information available to me, the idea of having to eat crickets, euthanize people at 70, and ban mineral fuels is pure fraud.
It is a perfect example of what I am talking about. No, the circuits didnāt need to get smaller to maintain Mooreās law during past decade, gains in performance came from sophisticated architecture, increased parallelism, cloud computing paradigm. Havenāt even needed to commercially explore 3D circuitry, or photonics. Humans find a way.
Doesnāt mean we should ignore risks or banish Malthus. Banish cultists and crooks, donāt want to name names.
Are you in IT by any chance? Have you seen code for software libraries that make up āartificial intelligenceā?
I am and I have. I assure you, this is the one time a day when broken clock CNN reported truth. This unfortunately is a medical situation with the engineer.
The difference is that the bison naturally rotated themselves before completely denuding the landscape. If you donāt properly rotate and limit the amount of cattle then the land becomes less able to support cattle every year.
I have worked for several years on rangeland health assessments in the past. A significant amount of the land I encountered was hammered to the point of likely needing decades of rest and active restoration before being able to support a reasonable number of cattle again. Big chunks of it will likely never be productive again. I have seen once productive grassland turned to sand dunes with current grazing practices.
Our food supply chain was being pushed to the limits long before Covid and Ukraine. Natural cycles lead to booms and busts. We are nearing the end of an epic boom enabled by extremely beneficial natural weather cycles that are now no longer working in our favor. The soils are getting worn out, the age of using cheap fossil fuels to increase production is coming to an end and āgreenā energy is not anywhere near the utopian solution that most environmentalists want us to believe.
In any natural system where more individuals compete for less resources you end up with increased aberrant behavior and violence. That is what we are seeing now and it is going to get much worse. But if you believe that this is all a big lie then put your faith in technology and our just in time delivery system. I sincerely hope it works out for everyone. But history shows a different outcome is more likely to occur.
I like to ask: why is it that there were at least two Ice Ages prior to humans pumping pollution into the atmosphere? Limited resources is what they said in Texas back in the 50s when those wells went dry. Now those same wells are pumping oil because of new drilling techniques.
But those new techniques are significantly and increasingly more expensive not to mention damaging to important and increasingly rare fresh water resources. The oil is not going to last forever at current usage rates and āgreenā energy will never be able to sufficiently replace it.
But we should move this discussion elsewhere even though I think it is related to the increase in violence we are seeing.
I can be wrong but the last I read fracking didnāt harm the fresh water supply. Its like global warming, depends on whose scientists you want to believe. Scientists for global warming have been caught making up numbers to suit their theories but the media wonāt let it go.
The US has enough natural gas to last for 400 years, not counting our oil fields. Then there is Veneswellia that has more oil than Saudi. Wind and solar are to fool the masses whom donāt know how the grid works and how power is made. To my thinking, upgrading the hydro plants with more of them is a better answer than wind or solar.
Edit: also the US grid is maxed. There already are rolling brown and black outs across much of the country. All the liberals talking electric cars is the answer have their collective heads up their arse. Where are they going to get the electricity from to charge those cars and then there is all the toxic waste from the batteries.
Moslty with you on the āgreenā energy and maxed out grid. Not so much on the oil. Especially when it comes to fracking not affecting fresh water supplies.
We will need a mix of energies going forward and significant efforts on increasing efficiency if we want to keep our grid from completely failing even without adding any more electric cars.
Iām happy to continue this discussion somewhere else so this thread can get back on topic.
I will not make a mistake of arguing with an expert. But what would you do if you did have a task of increasing livestock by 25% over 30 years? How would you reclaim the land, provided water, etc.
I am sure the land is not all ruined, or China and Gil Bates would not be buying giant parcels of it.
With respect to mineral fuels (I prefer this term, not ideologically charged āfossilā), I agree. The future is nuclear, the sooner our society realizes it and dismantles any hurdles, the better.
Not two, 6 in the recent cadence. Very strange the climate gurus who understand the impact of deadly cow farts, are unable to explain the global event of that ice going away, 6 times. There is no scientific explanation, check my words.
Same goes for origin of oil. There is no generally accepted explanation on the origin of oil, and for that reason, how much of it is really available. My preference though is for fuel that can last not for 400 years, but indefinitely, and can satisfy any imaginable needs of humankind. Nobody thought space launches could happen without NASA, and yet look how the things changed almost overnight. Same thing will happen with commercial nuclear fusion. You do understand implication of technology like this on climate thieves.
