Jacks Random Reflections
Thoughts about trends, events, gloom, and doom.
Blogs by User (Alphabetical)
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 9:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (18)
- September 2011
Reflection on something lost
   Wed Sep 21, 2011 6:46 am

+ June 2011
+ December 2010
+ October 2009
+ September 2009
Search Blogs

Haves versus Have Nots

Permanent Linkby Jack on Sun Dec 05, 2010 10:22 am

I viewed a discussion at viewtopic.php?f=23&t=191&start=540 that amused - but then, I have a macabre sense of humor. In essence, one side suggested that "the community" will voluntarily help each other, while the other side indicated that the haves were not, in their view, providing for the have-nots.

My first thought was Norse Greenland colony, alluding to Jared Diamond's Collapse. There, the haves took care of the have-nots - and, in the end, they all starved to death as they froze in the dark. On Easter Island, they fought - true, there was, apparently, a die-off of 95%, but the remnants survived. It seems that cooperation may be less effective than competition.

On further reflection, the issue of haves versus have-nots is not a binary condition. Rather, there is a distribution curve of means. For each of us, some are more affluent, some are less affluent, and some are about the same. The question becomes how many are above us, and how many below. On a global basis, those of us with an internet-connected computer are all haves.

While I do not press the issue, I firmly believe that a die-off of major proportions is in our future. When it hits, it will cause a substantial reduction in population. Helping the have-nots merely defers the correction in population, and, in fact, may exacerbate the situation by permitting them to maintain their numbers. Better to let the have-nots decline now, because every one of them that exits the stage of existence is one less competitor in the fight to the death that approaches.

0 Comments Viewed 10879 times

Who is online

Registered users: No registered users