Participating in a discussion is a great way to learn and contribute to ideas for superstructing. When you post a comment, try to provide information that others may not know, and avoid getting into arguments. Winning discussions are all about working together to get smarter.

Please login or register to post


    21st Century Ideas: What does Success look like?

    What are your win conditions? 10% of people live? 90%?

    Started by: Foundation Raves:9 Badge Winner! Open Authorship

    Subscribe » RSS

    So, I'm seeing that a lot of us in this project have different situations that they would identify as positive and successful. One person proposed that if killing 75% of the world's population would ensure the survival of the remaining 25%, they'd support it. Is that success? In this conversation, tell us what you hope for, and what you'd be okay with.

    I'd aim for "100% of people live" - now bear in mind that people die, so I am not saying that no-one will die. Merely that we tackle the threats such that no-one dies as a result of those threats that would not have died anyway. I actually think it is possible to exceed that, and in dealing with these threats we would end up with more people living that would have lived even without the threats, but setting a simple goal should keep things clear, understandable, and achievable. To me the proposition of resolving the issues via any form of killing, cleansing, etc is not an acceptable solution and is missing the point of what we are aiming to achieve.

    We're dealing with the extinction of the human species here. Personally, I'd love it if I and as many other people as possible make it through, but under the circumstances, I'd say that the preservation of any kind of stable breeding population of homo sapiens, to the point where we're no longer under threat of extermination and capable of re-establishing ourselves in the 'wild', counts as a win.

    Seeing as I'm the person Foundation is quoting, I think I ought to post. His quote is mostly correct, though what I said was "If I had to kill three quarters of the world's population, but it would ensure the survival of the last quarter, then I would." And I stand by it. If it was necessary, and there was no other way, I'd be behind it absolutely. That said, I'm still hoping for everyone, and honestly, I'm confident that we'll not only manage, but we'll manage to save at least most, which is fine. - Prophessor Bedlam, Monster Under Your Bed

    i think sucsess would be if we had 1 percent of people live things look pretty bleak

    I would rate success as 2 billion survivors world wide. Anything less then that would be a borderline pass as the global human infrastructure decay would start to fail and that would produce unacceptable losses of human life and human sustainable environment.

    It is implicit in the GEAS projections that it's going to be something like 95% or 1% - not much opportunity in between. Once things start rolling downhill fast enough to wipe out more than 5% of the population (at least within a continent), societal collapse will amplify every threat.

    While most here are focusing on "creative" strategies, we need to consider the obvious - governments are going to mostly focus on conventional strategies, such as enforcing quarantines with military force. That may make "creative" strategies a lot more difficult.

    If we re-frame our perspective from self- or socio-centric to world-centric, then it seems that the only thing that would matter is that humanity survives "with the best possible chance to carry on in a strong and meaningful manner. With everyone's life on the line, the last thing I feel we should do is overly focus on ourselves. We must broaden our view to all of humanity and even every living creature on the Earth. Nothing short of a holistic approach will get everything on this planet through the worst of times".

    As we are being given an opportunity to help predict and develop the proper methods for dealing with superthreats, we should accept nothing less than total preservation of the species. That said, the GEAS horizon, as I understand it, is one of total annihilation. The planet would no longer be livable for the human species and those who did survive the initial breakdown of society would live in a Stephen King, or Road Warrior style post-apocalypse (this would look like outlaw planet to me, meaning we had failed) that would only last for a very short time. Our goal is to push the horizon back by avoiding these threats to begin with. Therefore, the superstructures we create are a way of ensuring an already established definition success.

    If I was giving out "grades": F - complete human extinction E - Survival of less than 100 breeding pairs of humans E - Massive population and civilization loss (equivalent to pre written history state of say 10,000 years ago) D - Significant population and technological loss (equivalent to medieval dark ages - low levels of literacy, significant loss of scientific method, high levels of superstition and control by religion and military force) C - Small population loss and continued inequity between the have and have-nots B - Population stability A - Small population growth with ecological sustainability. Currently - I'd rate our current trajectory as D at best. And maybe the best we can shoot for is a C? Let's hope.

    The GEAS simulations are an elaboration of simulations done more than 50 years ago (in the 1970s). These simulations are known by several names: Population Dynamics, Club of Rome, Limits to Growth, Forrester. These relatively simple simulations all show a similar result: overshoot and collapse of human population generally occurring around the year 2050. It may be that the only sensible approach to addressing the superthreats is to accept population collapse, and to address the threats within that context. By this criteria, success is less attractive, but in some ways simpler.

    If global catastrophe does strike, it is highly unlikely that the more "civilized" people will survive it. I think it would in all probability be those most isolated from urban areas that would survive. Think Brazilian Indian instead of Los Angeles banker. Once society starts to breakdown it snowballs quickly leaving "civilization" behind and becoming more tribal and self-preserving. Think of Katrina, the Asian Tsunami,... Hell, even the recent stock market crumble. In the event of a global catastrophe, the least "civilized" are the only ones that would be capable of surviving.

    I think success would be that at least 5% of people survive, with a new foundation of sustainability such that continued survival into the indefinite future (500+ years) looks assured. In addition, the new society would have to be reasonably civil and peaceful. Survival in the form of nothing but extremely violent warring clans would probably not be a "win."

    who would measure success? I mean there's no point setting a criteria if it isn't measured or measurable. If 99% of the population die, I recon the 1% alive still think it's a success. If they didn't, they might as well sit down and give up :-)

    I think we need to stop reckoning success in terms of casualty figures. Has anyone here read the Bhagavad Gita? It doesn't really matter how many people die, as long as the things that are best about us as human beings survive. If one hundred people make it, but they're one hundred of the nicest people you would ever want to meet, I call that success. If one million people survive, but they are all amoral hedonists, then I call it a failure.

    Our DNA would say just one man and one woman would be sufficient.

    The thing is, if you are exiting physical form, you're going to KNOW you chose it the minute you emerge out of the constriction of physical form. It's not a tragic scenario. Who's s'posed to be here is here!




    Nominate For A Badge

    Badge:
    More detail on badges



    NOMINATE CANCEL