GENIUS FORUMS

No, what you are doing is arbitrarily deciding what sort of technology is acceptable, and what sort of icky.

Not quite. Nearly all technology, including hunting technology, could be seen as a response to Malthusian armageddon. We are always in the middle of it, trying to find ways to prevent it from getting completely out of control. If technological advances cease, we start to die.

AFAIK, as species, we have never actually come close to simply not having enough natural resources, as Malthus had predicted. We aren't in that state now either.

And your 'continuing malthusian armageddon' -- a rather peculiar idea -- is emphatically not what Malthus was talking about.

We don't have enough oil to continue using oil to produce our energy sources. We are forced to switch to alternative energy sources, and this is how we compensate. Malthus was right: we simply do not have enough natural resources. One at a time, the resources run out.

Human ingenuity keeps the species alive. But annihilation is always around the corner -- were we to stop inventing solutions, oil wells would dry up and millions would die.

Malthus pointed out the obvious. We now compensate for it.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:We don't have enough oil to continue using oil to produce our energy sources.

That is very wrong. We have plenty of oil -- what we lack is easily extractable oil. Shale oil is abundant, and when the push comes to shove, we will use shale oil and coal until better alternatives become available.

We are forced to switch to alternative energy sources, and this is how we compensate. Malthus was right: we simply do not have enough natural resources. One at a time, the resources run out.

Dude, I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be clueless about global economics.

Human ingenuity keeps the species alive. But annihilation is always around the corner -- were we to stop inventing solutions, oil wells would dry up and millions would die.

What makes you think we will stop inventing solutions? What makes you think oil wells matter in the greater scheme of things? So we will use shale oil, coal, and nuclear. We already have decades of tech advances mapped out -- nanotech, synthetic biomass (the vat growth of meat is already possible BTW), genetic engineering, fusion, etc. Human knowledge has always, always outpaced out ability to actually consume resources.

Malthus pointed out the obvious. We now compensate for it.

No, Malthus saw humanity as a mountain of hungry mouths, but he forgot that with hungry mouths come thinking brains and working hands. You acknowledge that, but then go right back to asserting that ultimately, the brains and hands don't matter, that they don't solve the problem; but they do, oh how well they do!

Malthus didn't point out the obvious. He had a misanthropic brainfart, and you are taking up his factually challenged cause.

Dude, I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be clueless about global economics.

I am. I know next to nothing about economics.

No, Malthus saw humanity as a mountain of hungry mouths, but he forgot that with hungry mouths come thinking brains and working hands. You acknowledge that, but then go right back to asserting that ultimately, the brains and hands don't matter, that they don't solve the problem; but they do, oh how well they do!

I would call the Malthusian prediction more like a "Malthusian factor" that can be easily compensated for by thinking ahead. One of many factors that needs to be considered.

Saying it's not a problem is like saying the Y2K bug wasn't a problem because the world's computers didn't all crash. Well, part of the reason was because the prediction was made beforehand, and companies dedicated years -- and lots of money -- into fixing it.

The Y2K bug was still a problem, though, and many disasterous predictions would have been accurate -- had nobody used these extrapolations to do something intelligent about it.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I am. I know next to nothing about economics.

Well, you might want to brush up on that. it's an important topic.

Asa little shell-shocker, check out Simon/Ehrlich bet. They bet on the change of raw resource prices between 1980 and 1990. Guess what? Every single resource had gone down in price over that time.

Scaremongering can be fun, in a twisted sort of way, but it always helps to understand the subject.

I would call the Malthusian prediction more like a "Malthusian factor" that can be easily compensated for by thinking ahead. One of many factors that needs to be considered.

That humanity grows exponentially is a trivial (and BTW incorrect) prediction. Malthus' contribution was to predict that this growth pace will continue, and inevitably outrun resource availability; he was wrong on both counts. Take out that specific comparison, and you drop Malthus altogether.

Saying it's not a problem is like saying the Y2K bug wasn't a problem because the world's computers didn't all crash.

Nobody gives a flying fuck about Malthus. Geneticists didn't do their work, thinking: "let's avert malthusian meltdown!"; physicsts didn't figure out how to harness fission power in the hopes of sticking it to Malthus.

People create. They were creating before Malthus, and they will keep on creating. Malthusian prediction was never a factor.

I read an interesting book by Bataille last week - and as I said it was only a week ago so I'm not prepared to defend it or really have an opinion but he suggested the exact opposite. That human beings just have too much stuff and where we place the excess is what defines us as a society. In other words, we have enough to survive.

So he looks at the excess amount comparing early Islam (admittedly the guy is writing in 1950s so not exactly accurately...) shoving money into the military compared to Tibet giving their excess to monks. Neither is inherently better than the other, depending on whether you value spreading your religion or not killing things more.

He then looks at the USSR shoving money into making Russia stronger at the expense of the satellite states versus the Marshall Plan where the US has the excess money and gives it to Europe as foreign aid and American "exceptionalism" (which I think may be a word my professor made up...) Where the essential problem was that both the USSR and the US had power how they defined "good" determined their actions.

Blah, wanted to say more about the Marshall Plan but have to go find a printer that works and then go to class, so I'll leave it at this for now. Take this as a long winded way of saying "we're not in crisis mode. We have other forms of energy we could use but don't for various reasons (which essentially boil down to oil is cheaper) but we could if we wanted to."

In fairness, I must admit that even I do not give a flying fuck about Malthus.

Even so, Trevor's view of technology as an ongoing response to a population crisis is interesting.

vicdan wrote: Human knowledge has always, always outpaced out ability to actually consume resources.

I wish I shared your optimism. We may continue to pull rabbits out of hats indefinitely, as we have in the past - or we may hit up against some hard limits; some of which we may have not yet foreseen. There is only a certain amount of sunlight, land area, water and so on, on the planet. The Earth has a certain capacity to regenerate itself. We may go beyond those limits, and not even realize it until some decades later.

I'm thinking here of the example of global warming - a trend that may have been set into motion decades ago, but is only now measurable, and can only be slowed or turned around over decades.

You are probably correct that things are more or less fine for the next few decades. But beyond that... who knows? Current rates of growth may be sustainable for twenty years - but might be disastrous in fifty, or a hundred.

Asa little shell-shocker, check out Simon/Ehrlich bet. They bet on the change of raw resource prices between 1980 and 1990. Guess what? Every single resource had gone down in price over that time.

But ten years is not long enough to say there is a very long term trend that will last indefinitely. And the change in price of five specific metals doesn't tell you what is happening - let alone what will happen - with all the different natural resources that we use.

Consider that putting down more wells can make water cheaper and more plentiful in the short term - but in the long term can drain an aquifer. The long term effect is hidden by the short-term benefit, and in fact the short term benefit (people becoming dependant on the locally increased water supply) can cause the long term negative impact to be that much greater, when the aquifer dries up.

I wish I shared your optimism. We may continue to pull rabbits out of hats indefinitely, as we have in the past - or we may hit up against some hard limits; some of which we may have not yet foreseen. There is only a certain amount of sunlight, land area, water and so on, on the planet. The Earth has a certain capacity to regenerate itself. We may go beyond those limits, and not even realize it until some decades later.

I don't think it's necessarily true that we have been reacting to a growing population for our entire history. Generally I think the technological means were discovered before the population explosion. So we do tend to keep ourselves in check when we reach a limit, however, once we discover something which ups the limit human population grows accordingly.

EDIT: And I realize that's true by definition, what I mean is if people knew they couldn't feed twelve kids they wouldn't have twelve kids and things like that. We have methods of curtailing our population growth instead of actually growing into a red zone. I see the problem today as a perception that there is and always will be plenty of food. Buying food is completely different from growing it yourself and our society more separated from the actual production of food than any other in history.

You are probably correct that things are more or less fine for the next few decades. But beyond that... who knows? Current rates of growth may be sustainable for twenty years - but might be disastrous in fifty, or a hundred.

It's also worth mentioning that current rates of growth aren't a certainty. They could naturally raise or lower depending on how humanity changes in the next hundred years. The more stable a country is the lower the birth rates are so either way we are covered (either way meaning we kill each other more or learn to peacefully co-exist).

DHodges wrote:I wish I shared your optimism.

Go ahead. have a piece.

We may continue to pull rabbits out of hats indefinitely, as we have in the past - or we may hit up against some hard limits; some of which we may have not yet foreseen. There is only a certain amount of sunlight, land area, water and so on, on the planet.

1) Fusion
2) Asteroids for raw materials
3) Hydroponics
4) Closed water cycles in manufacturing

You aren't thinking broadly enough.

The Earth has a certain capacity to regenerate itself. We may go beyond those limits, and not even realize it until some decades later.

That is possible, of course; but I wouldn't bet on our inability to see what we do.

You are probably correct that things are more or less fine for the next few decades. But beyond that... who knows? Current rates of growth may be sustainable for twenty years - but might be disastrous in fifty, or a hundred.

Fusion power is the holy grail. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and fusion requires nothing in terms of raw material but hydrogen itself. Plus, it's totally clean.

Barring fusion power, think orbital solar panels. There is lots of sunlight outside Earth.

But ten years is not long enough to say there is a very long term trend that will last indefinitely.

It has lasted this far.

And the change in price of five specific metals doesn't tell you what is happening - let alone what will happen - with all the different natural resources that we use.

Almost all resources have come down in price. Overall, our ability to discover and even invent new resources far outpaces out ability to consume them.

Consider that putting down more wells can make water cheaper and more plentiful in the short term - but in the long term can drain an aquifer. The long term effect is hidden by the short-term benefit, and in fact the short term benefit (people becoming dependant on the locally increased water supply) can cause the long term negative impact to be that much greater, when the aquifer dries up.

Which is why we do check our future. Science helps.

Really, your worry is grounded in nothing but pessimistic "what if". There's no actual evidence to suggest the inevitability of your nightmare scenarios.

ChochemV2 wrote:It's also worth mentioning that current rates of growth aren't a certainty. They could naturally raise or lower depending on how humanity changes in the next hundred years. The more stable a country is the lower the birth rates are so either way we are covered (either way meaning we kill each other more or learn to peacefully co-exist).

Actually, worldwide the birth rates have been slowing down, and earth's population is projected to level off at about 10bn in the second half of this century, then start slowly decreasing. Increasing living standards are the biggest factor in reducing birth rates.

Victor,

Victor wrote:the problem is economic imperialism, deliberate geopolitical manipulation to benefit some at the expense of others. Economic expansion itself is not the problem.

But consider how, over the past 50 years, the United States alone has spent nearly $20 billion trying to control fusion in order to build a viable power plant. The US and other nations recently agreed to invest another $13 billion to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor in France. In the meantime, there are some nuclear physicists who recently advocated abandoning fusion-energy research, calling it "as expensive as it is discouraging." Even optimists acknowledge that fusion energy faces very formidable technical, economic, and political barriers. We've spent billions already and probably have many more billions to spend. That being said, my question is; is it possible for a culture to have that kind of money to spend without deliberate geopolitical manipulation to benefit some at the expense of others? So far, the massive capital we've had to spend on research has largely been rooted in the exploitation of a fairly large population of starving, dying, diseased people - - which is 'somewhat' Malthusian.

Not to mention the environmental destruction. In order to reach that technological holy grail, you advocate that we continue exploiting and destroying our planet just a little bit more.......almost there.....just a bit more.....almost there.......BOOM. Too late. Didnt pull out in time.

Hmmm.....seems I unintentionally stumbled upon an analogy for sexual intercourse. Now is it love making I'm refering to? Or rape?

No, Malthus saw humanity as a mountain of hungry mouths, but he forgot that with hungry mouths come thinking brains and working hands. You acknowledge that, but then go right back to asserting that ultimately, the brains and hands don't matter, that they don't solve the problem; but they do, oh how well they do!

Malthus didn't point out the obvious. He had a misanthropic brainfart

I wouldn't say Malthus's work as a whole was a total brainfart, as I think it's a pretty interesting coincidence that both Alfred Russel Wallace and Darwin were independently led to the same theory of evolution through reading Malthus.

Furthermore, just because the starvation and famine didnt occur as predictably and to the extent that Malthus theorized, doesnt mean that starvation and famine were not occuring and in part shaping and being shaped by the activity of 'the fittest' for the past two centuries.

Technological innovations in agriculture have stretched the ammout of food production far exceeding original Malthusian estimations, however this growth in food production has been based heavily on a finite resource, petrochemicals, and may yet prove unsustainable - - not to mention the technological development has left in its wake starving impoverished populations.

Yeah, yeah, you can say that we're going to come up with more and more tricks to prolong our momentum - but like I said, how expensive are these tricks? How can you pull them off without spending billions? And how can a culture attain billions without having the majority of the population coerced into McJobs, subject to low brow entertainment, and weilding imperialistic exploitative tactics on undeveloped parts of the world?

Cory Duchesne wrote:But consider how, over the past 50 years, the United States alone has spent nearly $20 billion trying to control fusion in order to build a viable power plant. The US and other nations recently agreed to invest another $13 billion to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor in France. In the meantime, there are some nuclear physicists who recently advocated abandoning fusion-energy research, calling it "as expensive as it is discouraging."

Did you know that the latest ITER TOKAMAK-based fusion reactor design has broken even, in terms of energy flow? Do you realize what is at stake in fusion research? We are talking about a functionally infinite, safe, pollution-free energy source.

Even optimists acknowledge that fusion energy faces very formidable technical, economic, and political barriers.

Yup. I figure it will take another 2 to 5 decades.

We've spent billions already and probably have many more billions to spend. That being said, my question is; is it possible for a culture to have that kind of money to spent without deliberate geopolitical manipulation to benefit some at the expense of others?

Do you realize just how little such a sum of money is, as a fraction of US budget over time?

Hell fucking yeah, it's possible to have that sort of money without economic imperialism. Look up some fucking budget figures, OK? Then imagine cutting them in half, or, say, 5 times -- and then spread the cost of the reactor over the years that the money is spent. It's fucking pennies compared to the worth of the prize, the Holy Grail of energy production -- controlled fusion.

Not to mention the environmental destruction. In order to reach that technological holy grail, you advocate that we continue exploiting and destroying our planet just a little bit more.......almost there.....just a bit more.....almost there.......BOOM. Too late. Didnt pull out in time.

I am sure you can't see it, but I am rolling my eyes. You are insane.

Cutting on critical research like fusion is like saving money by skipping regular medical checkups while you buy yourself big-screen TVs and expensive cars. There are two things in the world which you cannot overspend on, and they are education and scientific research. If you want to cut money from somewhere, there are plenty of far, far better targets than fusion. Advocating cutting of fusion research because it's too expensive is bloody deranged.

It really looks to me like you don't want us to find further technological solutions to our problems; like you want us to skimp and scrape, instead of grow smart.

Technological innovations in agriculture have stretched the ammout of food production far exceeding original Malthusian estimations, however this growth in food production has been based heavily on a finite resource, petrochemicals, and may yet prove unsustainable - - not to mention the technological development has left in its wake starving impoverished populations.

Actually the third-world quality of life has risen significantly by virtually any objective metric over the last half a century, despite all the horrible problems we are witnessing; because the problems used to be much, much worse.

That the problems are now much worse than they could be with judicious and humane application of technology and geopolitical power is a different question; but to blame technology for third-world problems is also deranged and a-historical.

Yeah, yeah, you can say that we're going to come up with more and more tricks to prolong our momentum

We already have. We have today the technology needed to comfortably sustain the entire maximum population of the Earth as our current projections predict it -- the population which we won't reach for over half a century. After that point, the population is predicted to slowly decrease; and you know what is the only known reliable, humane method of cutting population growth? Wealth. The only known way to reliably and humanely cut the third-world population growth is to help the third world improve their life, to keep getting wealthier; to keep advancing scientifically and technologically.

but like I said, how expensive are these tricks? How can you pull them off without spending billions? And how can a culture attain billions without having the majority of the population coerced into McJobs, subject to low brow entertainment, and weilding imperialistic exploitative tactics on undeveloped parts of the world?

Spare me the demagogic bullshit. Either whip out the data supporting your picture of the world, or shut up.

yougetajob wrote:Peace out!

AJ!

Actually the third-world quality of life has risen significantly by virtually any objective metric over the last half a century, despite all the horrible problems we are witnessing; because the problems used to be much, much worse.

It's far better than most people even realize, even with a fair number of crazy people calling the shots. Iran has a ton (by comparison) of college educated or otherwise skilled workers but no jobs. Iran can support itself by selling oil to the rest of the world then it uses that money to buy the product back because they have no refineries and to buy new weapons. They have the capacity to significantly modernize but no will to do so, at least in the government.

When Lebanon was being bombed the biggest tragedy was the fact that it endangered, if not completely destroyed, years of progress.

Iraq, even as it is now, has cities full of workers, suburbs full of families and towns and so on. We're not talking about poverty and mud huts anymore but a real economy.

The list goes on but the modernization of the Middle East is already in progress and can only be harmed by us because as people become wealthier they become less tolerant of tyrants and terrorists.

Victor,

vicdan wrote: Did you know that the latest ITER TOKAMAK-based fusion reactor design has broken even, in terms of energy flow? Do you realize what is at stake in fusion research? We are talking about a functionally infinite, safe, pollution-free energy source.

Well, I guess it all boils down to whether or not it is reasonable to suggest that the elite funding and undertaking this fusion project are going to back down. I would say we can determine the probability of what the elite is going to attempt to do, given the present momentum. And yes, I would say what will happen is a whole hearted attempt at fusion reactors. So - no sense in being pessimistic really. We should make the most of the inevitable.

Cory: We've spent billions already and probably have many more billions to spend. That being said, my question is; is it possible for a culture to have that kind of money to spent without deliberate geopolitical manipulation to benefit some at the expense of others?

Victor: Do you realize just how little such a sum of money is, as a fraction of US budget over time?

I guess what I was suggesting (yes, perhaps naively) is, if we brought an end to our imperialist-money making strategies then the sort of money that we now consider 'little' might actually be rather big. It just seems to me that what makes big money is almost always rooted in exploitation. Whereas fair business practices tend leave everyone even, not in the position to do anything too powerful.

Hell fucking yeah, it's possible to have that sort of money without economic imperialism. Look up some fucking budget figures, OK?

Do you suggest any links or resources for helping me get a clearer perspective on where we make our money and how we do it? I know there really is no money in fair food production.

And as you move up from there into areas where there is a profit to be made, I always see corruption. I always thought that profit depended on one half being in the negative and the other in the positive. The greater the money endowed, the greater the harm inflicted on an opposing end.

If both sides win, does anyone really end up with much capital?

I'd appreciate some recomendations on what to read...

It really looks to me like you don't want us to find further technological solutions to our problems; like you want us to skimp and scrape, instead of grow smart.

Not true, I just don't think very highly of the things that make alot of money in general - Disney world, Casino's, expoitative outsourcing, television, blockbuster movies, junkfood, tabloids, consumerism in general.

to blame technology for third-world problems is also deranged and a-historical.

I'm blaming third-world problems on imperialist-exploitative money making tactics and I'm suggesting that we have the capital to create greater and greater technologies becausewe are abnormally profiting via imperialism, all the while, corrupting a large majority of young people in the developed world with an unprecedentedly intense bombardment of low-brow entertainment. But then again, there are the Steven Johnson's of the world who are saying we're doing great.

I hope I'm wrong - I just want to see clearly why I'm wrong, rather than just have someone tell me I'm an idiot for suspecting what I suspect. I don't mind being wrong, and I hope you're right. But if you're wrong, then my optimism I think will be invested in a vision that involves a gradual weaning off of aesthetic entertainment and arms race consumerism, and a return to a much more simple anti-consumerist agrarian-stoic lifestyle. But how likely is it that we will get the world to comply with that? So yeah, perhaps it's either we go with your vision, or we be, well, so unreasonably optimistic that we should be considered pessimistic.

We have today the technology needed to comfortably sustain the entire maximum population of the Earth as our current projections predict it -- the population which we won't reach for over half a century. After that point, the population is predicted to slowly decrease; and you know what is the only known reliable, humane method of cutting population growth? Wealth. The only known way to reliably and humanely cut the third-world population growth is to help the third world improve their life, to keep getting wealthier; to keep advancing scientifically and technologically.

I agree advancing scientifically and technologically, improving and spreading education is the most rational course - I guess I just need to become more conflident and clear in regards to the reality of economics. Given that that is a bit of a blind spot with me, I don't feel warranted to be arguing with you, really.

Cory wrote:

Do you suggest any links or resources for helping me get a clearer perspective on where we make our money and how we do it? I know there really is no money in fair food production.

A good place to start is to examine all the factors contributing to why Canada has recently experienced a surplus in the budget.

Canada is an ideal choice because its foreign policies aren’t as exploitive as the US, the population is ten times lower, there isnt as many industrial centers in the country, and Canada is still able to pull off a surplus.

Another important point is that even though Canada is taking in a much less money than the US, it still is able to maintain many more social programs such as healthcare, compensation for the injured, wellfare, and so on, while still ending up with a surplus.

It is also important to note that private enterprise is only one factor contributing to tax grabs by the government, as I suspect the majority of the country’s tax dollars come from your typical middle-class worker paying in 30% of his pay. Also, through various investing techniques, tax money can make more money.

Moreover, I only focus on taxes because aren’t taxes typically where most of the money comes from to fund either education or scientific research? So one must consider that the government is taxing both big business and the working class to pay for any sort of technological research.

Cory Duchesne wrote:Well, I guess it all boils down to whether or not it is reasonable to suggest that the elite funding and undertaking this fusion project are going to back down.

That's kinda like phariasaically wondering if the elites are going to stop sinking money into higher education.

This has nothing to do with 'elites'. Everyone needs fusion.

So - no sense in being pessimistic really. We should make the most of the inevitable.

You seem to think of fusion power as an inevitable shit pie to deal with, not a boon to our civilization. You seem to be rather luddite in your attitude.

I guess what I was suggesting (yes, perhaps naively) is, if we brought an end to our imperialist-money making strategies then the sort of money that we now consider 'little' might actually be rather big.

No, it won't.

US fed budget for 2007 is 2.8 trillion dollars. That's just for 1 year. Now take your 20bn over 50 years figure and figure per-year fraction. Let's be generous and say 1bn, to account for future spendings and inflation and shit.

So now compare. A yearly budget of nearly 3 trillion, vs. an expense of 1 billion -- about 0.03%. Even if giving up on all economic BS abroad cost us a tenfold drop in GDP and budget (and it wouldn't, we probably wouldn't even lose half), the yearly expenditures on fusion would still be about 0.3% according to your own numbers.

For comparison, the war in Iraq is costing us about $100bn a year in direct costs alone. Netherlands has a budget of $300bn!!!

You have absolutely no sense of perspective. Yes, the cost of fusion research is a drop in the bucket.

Do you suggest any links or resources for helping me get a clearer perspective on where we make our money and how we do it?

Google.

And as you move up from there into areas where there is a profit to be made, I always see corruption. I always thought that profit depended on one half being in the negative and the other in the positive. The greater the money endowed, the greater the harm inflicted on an opposing end.

Boy, you are so stupefyingly wrong... Trade creates wealth. Here is a simple example.

Imagine there are two villages across a mountain from each other. One village makes excellent clay pots. Let's say they have 10 pots. However, their land is rough, and they have little food. The other village raises chickens, but their land lacks the materials to make pots. Let's say they have 20 chickens, but no pots to cook them in. They would trade with each other, but they are busy making pots and raising chickens. Along comes a mountaineering merchant, who buys 5 pots and 10 chickens, and sells them for 8 chickens and 4 pots respectively in the other village, keeping two chickens and one pot. Now the first village has 5 pots and 8 chickens, and the second village had 4 pots and 10 chickens, and they can all make chicken stew, as can the merchant who keps a pot and two chickens.

Now think about what this means. To the first village, pots are cheap, but chicken is valuable. To the second village, chicken is cheap but pots are valuable. The merchant, in facilitating the exchange, made both villages richer, and enriched himself in the process.

This is trade in a nutshell. Meditate on this story until you understand why trade and profit are not zero-sum game.

If both sides win, does anyone really end up with much capital?

Yes. Lots and lots. When both win, both get even richer. Trade creates wealth.

I'd appreciate some recomendations on what to read...

Pick up a college textbook on microeconomics.

Not true, I just don't think very highly of the things that make alot of money in general - Disney world, Casino's, expoitative outsourcing, television, blockbuster movies, junkfood, tabloids, consumerism in general.

But people buy them because they choose to -- i.e. to someone going to Disney World, the experience of the trip is worth more than the $5000 they spend on the ticket. This is so by the very nature of the act of freely made purchase. It's the same principle as the chicken/pot trading schtick -- if you deny one a chance to make a purchase, you are in effect denying them a chance to freely acquire goods and benefits and wealth (yes, happiness and satisfaction and leisure count towards wealth).

I'm blaming third-world problems on imperialist-exploitative money making tactics and I'm suggesting that we have the capital to create greater and greater technologies becausewe are abnormally profiting via imperialism, all the while, corrupting a large majority of young people in the developed world with an unprecedentedly intense bombardment of low-brow entertainment.

My, my, aren't you a sophisticate! I bet you would just love to be able to dictate what sort of entertainment should be legit!

But then again, there are the Steven Johnson's of the world who are saying we're doing great.

That's because we are.

I hope I'm wrong - I just want to see clearly why I'm wrong

Then learn. The world is awash in knowledge, just grab it! You don't understand the most basic principles of the things you opine about -- hell, you couldn't even bother to comprehend the magnitude of the US budget, and that's just a number you could have googled in under a minute. How can you say all the stuff you say with a straight face, without actually bothering to investigate the subject?

a return to a much more simple anti-consumerist agrarian-stoic lifestyle.

You mean the one with life expectancy of 40 and an 80-hour workweek?.. The one where having read 10 books in your entire life is a grand achievement, if you even know how to read? 'Cuz that is what agricultural 'anti-consumerist agrarian-stoic' lifestyle would be really like.

Yeah, I suspected some lunacy of this sort at play here. Dude, you are deluded, and you are nuts.

I agree advancing scientifically and technologically, improving and spreading education is the most rational course - I guess I just need to become more conflident and clear in regards to the reality of economics. Given that that is a bit of a blind spot with me, I don't feel warranted to be arguing with you, really.

Then learn. Do what I did -- search for Microeconomics 101 textbooks, read reviews about them, stay away from clearly ideologically biased ones (such as the ones which treat free market as a miracle machine) -- then get the book you choose (I got one from a local public library) and read it! Stop pulling arbitrary, ignorant delusions out of your ass, and learn!!!

Victor wrote:

US fed budget for 2007 is 2.8 trillion dollars.

I’ve always assumed that most of a countries funds towards the budget is derived from taxes collected from businesses, workers, and tax on good and services in general, plus any government programs that charge money for services.

Am I missing something? is it more complicated than that?

In principle, not really. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/budget.html has detailed info. If you are looking for receipts breakdown, see Table S-9 here.

Victor,

Yes, both of those WebPages outline the myriad of costs broken down by the different industries, and I understand the fact that on an annual basis, the government is responsible for balancing all these costs in each industry to the best of their ability, but my original question is still left unanswered: It is - Are taxes, investments and government services the only means governments have to come up with the necessary funds to pay for each sector or industry?

Ryan R wrote:It is - Are taxes, investments and government services the only means governments have to come up with the necessary funds to pay for each sector or industry?

I am not sure what you mean by paying for each sector or industry, but AFAIK, yes, taxes, service fees, and investments are the only way for government to acquire funds. There is of course borrowing,but it's a separate issue.

Victor wrote:

but AFAIK, yes, taxes, service fees, and investments are the only way for government to acquire funds.

Thanks for clarifying. I also suspect Fusion, Robotics and Nanotech will completely revolutionize western civilization. And overall, the positive benefits will probably outweigh the negative.

Human toil will be drastically decreased, but environmental destruction/loss of species is always an issue to consider.

vicdan wrote: US fed budget for 2007 is 2.8 trillion dollars. That's just for 1 year. Now take your 20bn over 50 years figure and figure per-year fraction. Let's be generous and say 1bn, to account for future spendings and inflation and shit.

So now compare. A yearly budget of nearly 3 trillion, vs. an expense of 1 billion -- about 0.03%.

2.8 trillion is not that much if you compare it to the US national debt and keep also the subject of trade deficit out of the equation.

Just like the budget, the numbers for debt and trade deficit are highly abstract and debatable, it's a result of how certain projected costs are defined as function from spending and earning of earlier years; you just cannot present the budget as a huge pie to slice from at will. That would be a gross over-simplification. The real pie you want to pay the research from is probably 100-1000 times smaller.

Your main point I suspect you tried to make still stands, I suppose: the turning of some swords into plough-blade experiments....

This is trade in a nutshell. Meditate on this story until you understand why trade and profit are not zero-sum game.

Not by definition, although they can certainly become non-zero sum but it always depends heavily on how circumstances are defined for the game. In your example it works because you exclude war, religion and fraud (betrayal) from the events. Trade and profit win-win style need very specific environments which are in real life created by the larger players to perpetuate the game. It needs high level of disarming, bread, circuses and detailed intelligence on potential threats to keep it working. To just equal trade as a non-zero sum game seems like very a naive and exclusive, even self-serving view.