Cancer’s a disease of successful growth in the human body. Using it as a metaphor for social order is understandable, but social order isn’t the human body. It’s a metaphor.

Cancer’s a disease of successful growth in the human body. Using it as a metaphor for social order is understandable, but social order isn’t the human body. It’s a metaphor.

====

It’s different systems entirely. Calling it a cancer is a rhetorical device, used to convince. Very common: groups of people are often referred to as “plagues” upon society, with society as the human body and other people that ‘threaten’ the host as ‘viruses’.

But they’re not. They’re people.

Also, our rights as citizens are that which is guaranteed by whatever society we happen to be born into and its laws.

====

Ownership by individuals is not human. Human history seems to be proof of that.

If you want to revolutionize societies to change how humans have always done things, that’s fine. But it’s not natural for humans: Natural for humans is for those in power to stay in power and encourage those who are not in power to serve them in some capacity.

That’s what’s natural for humans.

What you want is something novel.

====

Maybe. Maybe not. What about the notions of homosexuality being a natural consequence of population? Given a certain amount of population, homosexuality and celibacy and lower rates of fertilization among child-capable couples, a certain percentage may necessarily arise in order to keep populations at a stable figure.

====

I agree about the overpopulation being a political tactic. UN figures (which I believe, you don’t have to), figure on the human holding capacity of the planet to be about 11 billion, expected to be reached around 150 yrs from now.

Apaprenty, we’ve already been at “peak child” capacity for 100 years: At any given time, there’s been about two billion children.

There’s not more children being born: there’s people living longer, and they’re all having fewer children, including the poorest of countries. Down from 7-9 in the 60s, to around 2.2 worldwide.

=====

doesn’t matter to me either way. But the trend has been about 1 child per family or less in Europe and the USA. Poverty is nearly eliminated in these places, health care far better. Longer lives.

The growth in population based on longevity is *going* to be in Africa. As they rise from poverty (they’re not far away from eliminating extreme poverty), there will be rise in longevity, financial growth, and more people not dying young.

That will increase the population.

=====

f you ever do investments, don’t bother with the US and Europe. Their growth potentials are necessarily capped.

Invest in Africa. China also has great growth potential, as their infrastructure will improve as they continue to internally combat their own poverty issues.

====

Less and less though. First cell phones, now smartphones, thrust the into the 21st century quickly. Hospitals are popping up all over the place and the lifespan within most countries in Africa has seen a tremendous boost, even in the poorest.

They’re having fewer children, living longer, more families, more houses, more industry.

They have civil wars and diseases to contend with, but it’s not like the stuff from the 60s/70s. They’ve grown way past that now.

=====

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


nine × = 45

Leave a Reply