?

Log in

Wartime
"History repeats itself, the war will soon begin"
World population - Things as they seem? ++ (Attention: Highly speculative content!) 
27th-Jun-2017 08:50 am
Thinking
(Attention: This is highly speculative content and shouldn't be taken with scientific correctness!
Further down, it also shouldn't be taken as hatespeech or as a base to reason artificial interferences to execute population policy.
At first, it's just thoughts considering and philosophizing about a subject and it's meant as nothing more than that.)




World population grows every year, mainly in Africa and Asia.
Although in those areas, at least Africa the most, the common health care accessible to the normal people is far away from being satisfying. Still a lot of people die in their child years.
But even though, of those who are born, still a higher number manages to survive to make the population grow.
Is that so?
Population growth in Europe and other areas in the world counted as "developed" these days, it happened the most as technological and scientific progress appeared. As the influence of the Christian churches slowly declined, compared to the Middle Ages.
The increase in what health care could provide from the scientific viewpoint, and even the more as the distribution to the normal populace with low and average income for the time episode started to take place (for the sake of taking the soil away from social democrats and early communists), this is what is considered as the main reason for the explosive population growth that appeared between the 19th and the 20th century.
In Asia, this is partly the case, if you take a look at China which keeps increasing its capacities for provision constantly. But compare it to India. India is rich in population, but still the caste system is intact and richness and the deepest poverty both exist in this country without ever seeing light at the end of the tunnel to ever change. The normal population can't have that access to proper health care, otherwise it couldn't be one of the main research countries for medication tests on humans.
So, how would this rule apply there? Health care increasing the chances of survival of the individual, while people still tend to have families with many children born because of social reasons?
Is the population in the "developing" countries really the problem, if distribution of health care to everyone, as a base for survival of the masses of people born, is no topic in those despite economy experiencing growth all the time?

Taking a look at Europe and the already "developed" areas.
Population numbers in those areas have never been higher than today. Today is the max for these ever in history.
If those wouldn't live from getting people from other areas of the world moving into their territory, population numbers would already be in a noticeable decline. (Except for US because reproductive rights are under constant threat of clerical conservatives of being abandoned or killed by lack of funding, and people from the lower classes, who bear the most children there, depend on social programs to provide this to them, as proper distribution of health care to people from all states of wealth doesn't exist there.)
In the developed nations, about 95% of the population born survives into old age. Predators in the 5%-quota are diseases, malformations, accidents, pollution, man-made violence and psychic diseases caused by circumstances habored in this way of civilization.
So, population numbers in those areas remain constant with a slight decline in the long term. They get actively tried to be kept on the max. Be it home-bred population or through immigration.
And this through all the times.
So... basically, where does the point of attention lie really when it comes down to population policy?
In the developing countries, where still the least of the humans born survives until they're adults, and they die in a young age because of diseases damaging their health, or in those areas where nearly every person born survives until approximately 60 at least? And the number of people achieving this is being kept relatively constant at all times?
It may be worth picking up this hard constrast "95% survival" vs. "high mortality" for a closer look.
While the times of boom economic growth are over in the developed world, everything's build up that needed to be build up, now it only suffers from wrong proportion of the distribution, population decline in harsher numbers would be the logical consequence - as, in the phase of building something up, it needs more resources than when only maintaining and keeping up the state of things as they are currently. Also, there is not a need for "more" resources to be used as ante in the process.
Not even to speak of when the next stage of the technoligical age becomes reality and some more machines replace the human labor in the productive sectors, which makes the part of the population being employed in that sector become out of work and for sure also a part of them "obsolete" in the terms of the employment market.
So to say, the high population numbers of the developed world, in the long term, progress into a state of all of its population that it habors isn't "needed" anymore. It's like only in a position of consuming and sucking up resources, in a position of being a "consumer". Unable to give back or be of relevance to the integrity of the system. Others would call it drastically "trash", that's what they are then. - "Trash" that would need to be administered until its death and not be renewed / replaced by another person, to be exact.
So... when an area tries to keep its population number up in a state like before the big industrial boom at the beginning of the 20th century that it actually doesn't need anymore, it raises the question towards "How healthy for the planet is this strategy?"? How good in population policy worldwide is this actually?
And how much does it distort the numbers?
How much is it a factor that's part of the overall problem?
How much does that overclocked number cause in damage because a part of the population already exists in needlessness, but still they consume resources like all other people who are needed by the system to function?
To state something very clearly: The people who this applies to, they aren't to blame for what they are. If they have worked through a respective way of education and even performing an occupation for an amount of time throughout their lives, then there's no talking about "self-caused circumstances". Those people aren't obsolete because they haven't had ambitions and therefore were lazy and spoiled since a very young age. They've become obsolete because the system they live in doesn't need them anymore. In a certain span of time they were needed indeed, but now no more. - In difference to people who didn't even try for a decent school education and stayed away from it to hang out with friends, drink beer and destroy window glasses.
Therefore, because they're not to blame, they should at no point of the story be treated like if they were.
The solution for these should just be, plain and simple, to not to replace them in the next generation. Their life remains untouched, but as there is no need to have another person regrow into that position, there better shouldn't exist one to respawn.

When these obsolete numbers are being kept and maintained constantly, how much does it distort the real needs and the real functionality of the system that humans build for themselves to live in?
How much is it also responsible for overpopulation - for population that is there, but without a need of human civilization for them to exist?
What happens - how do the numbers look if that population doesn't exist anymore? In the developed world, as well as when Africa, Asia, South America only has the population number that it needs (considered, the economy of the "developing" areas also makes it to a state of things comparable to the so-called "industrialized nations" measured by what their environment allows)?
What if there are not that many people around anymore whose only purpose is to be there as a consumer because there is no task for them in this world?
And, what would happen to the yearly growth numbers if socially the issues of "children as security that supplies you in bad times / old age" would be adequately solved, in combination with that?
What would happen if mankind only grows or stays the same in such masses that it also has tasks for in its differing societies?

At least upon further thought it doesn't seem like the developed world is totally not to blame for the problem of the overpopulation. They try to keep up a number within their territories that's unrealistically high compared to the possible employment rate that it's able to supply when everything is run under fair circumstances (opposed to the current strategy of part-time work and letting the developing countries produce their food and their consumer goods).
When 95% of all humans survive until old age, you don't need people to have 2 and 3 children or more anymore. Better you should be happy if some people can't or don't want to have children because of certain reasons. Because that's getting closer to a realistic number, not even to speak of the children who would suffer for their whole lives as adults if there is no purpose in society for them.
And not even getting started to speak of the impact on the environment if there's one big resources-consumer less in the world...

It would be a drastic restructuring of society as it was to adapt to these circumstances with less people exsting again. But that process would be inevitable, as human civilization always finds a way of making work and production more effective than before, and by the time, this comes at the cost of human labor. No matter which economical system or system of world views it has in a century.
It is like one and only constant thread that keeps unfolding in history.

If not for those processes in mankind, which one can regard from one or another thousand positions, just think about the extinction of animal species: Animals vanished, as humans claimed the living space and bred like rabbits. Where humans live, animals have to go as humans want to live alone or even need the space for themselves.
One doesn't need to wonder about that process, as the earth has only a limited amount of living space.

Environment topics - overpopulation - vanishing of animal species - economy - social problems - all these topics are interconnected with each other. Each brick - another little factor in the other issue.
And when humans want to live up to the high goals they set for themselves in their enthusiasm, then they need to show a willingness to do something for this and to also adapt their societies to the links of the circumstances that are right in front of them.
There is no washing without getting wet. And no-one said it would be comfortable. Who thinks it would be, he lives in the world of a little child... Fairytales and unicorns.
Comments 
27th-Jun-2017 03:04 pm (UTC)
You wrote a lot this time. The only thing I will say, all this is an objective process. Nobody can affect it, there are plenty of circumstances in reality that control not a single individual with the greatest means can influence it. What they can do is to create an illusion that thing are this way or another through media etc. It may have some dent but cannot have a real effect. Well, after all humanity somehow made it to this point in history?
27th-Jun-2017 04:10 pm (UTC)
Until pretty recently, mankind never really wasted a thought about the overpopulation topic, not without a connection to war at the same time - humans always conquered territory of other tribes and national states if they didn't have enough of their own -, also the powers controlling society and state lived according to what religions said and they always spoke like "man shall subdue earth", not he shall take care of it 'cause he's only been given one.
Humans... lived with an image of themselves in mind - the powerful ones! - like it's their holy self-evident right to spread, to breed and to make the earth suit their needs. Still there are enough heads in high positions out there who live by those principles and only act on the outside like they don't.
So... it's hard to tell what could happen if mankind really suddenly put efforts into this, controlling how their own population develops and all other things that are linked to it.
Until now mankind has only seen laissez faire, or even "always spread, always invest in more", some even abusing the toxic circumstances that result from that way of keeping the development of things.

What I wanna say is... Have they really tried before of shaping the fate of their species on their own?
Before they only lived like the big egoists, feeding themselves on sumptuous circumstances, taking for granted that they never cease to exist. The principle also worked out for a pretty long time, only it's starting slowly to get short in it.
So... I don't know what it might look like if they really understood the seriousness of their situation and effectively did something about it than fooling themselves all the time, pretending it isn't so or burying the head in the sand.
27th-Jun-2017 10:24 pm (UTC)
"So... I don't know what it might look like if they really understood the seriousness of their situation and effectively did something about it than fooling themselves all the time, pretending it isn't so or burying the head in the sand."

The problem of our global world is that you could try to do good things at your country but if thanks to good measures which were undertaken decades ago the economy of your country becomes good the migrants from the poor countries will come and after decades will start to spread their model of life - like Muslims do at Europe now (for example - women are closed from head to feet, sitting at home and making children) and the system is like two connected vessels if one has little less then other has little more. If for example the rules of working for children exist in Europe and don't exist at Asia - the businessmen will transfer their business to Asia where it is cheaper to produce and after will bring the products back to Europe twice cheaper - Europeans will not have work, children are working at Asia and everybody are happy as it is now... My point of view here that such things as restriction of birth could be undertaken only with all the participants not by one country as the fight with global warming impossible if China will be burning more and more coal to increase their industries while the West will be producing less and less and our flat payments will be growing as if we are using solar panels to warm our homes.
28th-Jun-2017 06:43 am (UTC)
I definitely get it as a problem that can't be approached by single nations alone, but with a global plan. As already it's very deeply dependant on the economical factor, and what is economy today? Global, more than you wish it to be... If one country tightens laws and rights for workers, firms just move to another.
You only get a base in tackling this if you get all countries in the world to join your cause.
27th-Jun-2017 09:45 pm (UTC)
We Russians need more people cause we have many pensioners to feed and a lot of free land to maintain. Our authorities could easily to take more immigrants for work purposes but they don’t want to give everybody the citizenship as I know it cause if a man will not study Russian language for his life it would be difficult for him to assimilate and numbers of such immigrants will make their communities which will cause social tensions. So our government is undertaking a lot of mesuries to rise our population at the moment but youngsters are not rush to have children the reasons are simple – unemployment, low salaries, high prices on everything... So I can assume that the population of Russia without some cardinal measures will drop dramatically in next decades as it did it through last century I guess with all our war and revolutions.
What is about the grow of population of Africa and Asia – yes, I think, it is bothering in a way of global warming and pollution of our planet and I can assume that it would be right to restrict the people to have no more than at least three children, it maybe will not solve a problems but will be a first step on a way but most of all these countries have the religions which are demanding to have more children cause they were “given” through the times of constant wars and diseases and it was very needed to have more children to have the independent country and it is maybe not that necessary now. I like the move of China to restrict their people to have no more than one child to spend the money and government efforts on more proper education and industrialization but the restriction of birth solves some problems and causes other ones as the disproportion of men and women and others. If we look what China got with such measures – it got obviously the higher level of industrialization, education, health care, got done more complex social and state programs than India - its neighbor did through last decades. But again the problem of pensioners is still unsolved – who will work to feed the aging population after thirty years – it is a question. You could tell that it could be that we will not have a need in masses of people thanks to robotization but I somehow doubt that after some hurricane, earth quake or tsunami the robots will grow the vegetables to feed the old fellas as if nothing has happened – the need of people to serve the much more masses of old people will always exist on our planet I believe. It is a sweet dream that after common people will build everything the rich guys will be living alone and sucking recourses as they like.
28th-Jun-2017 07:42 am (UTC)
I think in this there also comes another factor, which is also so much like Europe: You can only live in a village these days, but you find nothing else in it. No doctors, no cooperative shop - if you want people to live in rural areas, you've gotta offer them satisfaction for basic needs too. Yes, even entertainment.
Plague of these days is young people leave rural areas, if they grew up in them, because in the villages you can't even buy a loaf of bread; there's absolutely nothing going on these areas. And they move to the big cities because there they find jobs (more or less), education, supply and entertainment. The only thing that gets scarce under the current conditions of the regime is space to live ('cause it's expensive).

In occupations that have to do with generation of food or social professions on the whole, I agree, it's nonsense with the "replacement of humans by machines". Literally, every occupation that has to do with own cognitive thinking, decision making and that more runs on experiences rather than exactness this applies to. (Some already wanted to cheer for robots here already because they have a heavy problem of finding people to do them when it comes down to jobs and occupations that have to do with caring.)
Question will only be: How many people will be wanting to do such occupations? You know, not every human is as social as the other.
Some are even pretty happy if they can work more with machines and dead items than with humans.
In the end, I'd say, you still won't need as much humans for an industrial production that is run mostly with machines than in a handwork industry. If this amount of people which gets "free", which is still in the plan of production now and usually falls to that sector, can't find work in others, then the current strategy of population planning can't be kept up as it is.
You know, and I don't mean thos ones who would currently be active in the industrial sector, if you'd replace them - this issue is like case closed 'cause you can't get a skilled factory worker to become a carer or a farmer.
I mean that, when you plan to run the industrial production sector with labor done by robots a lot, then you can't go on with a population planning like still this sector would be run by handwork only. You don't need as many births anymore in the future.

Edited at 2017-06-28 07:42 am (UTC)
28th-Jun-2017 03:04 pm (UTC)
“I mean that, when you plan to run the industrial production sector with labor done by robots a lot, then you can't go on with a population planning like still this sector would be run by handwork only. You don't need as many births anymore in the future.”

Yes it is interesting question, like this one – “How many people do I need on Earth? Do I need the people I don’t know?” ;)
All these question come as I can assume from an idea of Golden Billion and I am totally against it cause it is degradation of humanity. We don’t have any certainty that there is a global warming without knowing the reasons which are causing it – we don’t know our planet that well and we don’t know which number of people is safe for our planet. So, year it is possible that with more robotization people will be losing their work, so what, they had been doing it through all the times like it was with the shoemakers and with many others. I think that people could very well live without robots as they did it for at least last decades of thousands of years and it will be better than our entire planet will be full of robots to serve some bunch of rich chosen ones. Plus as it is with several “eco” technologies - they could be more poisonous, expensive and harmful than old natural animals dragging something somewhere but eating grass. Robots will not need no greens on our planet, no animals but fuel and sun lights maybe as it is with all the plants now destroying our climate. And what for all this industrialization was for? To make average man’s life richer and more comfortable or to reach some new horizons with more intellectual people free from hard stupid hand work? I don’t know where are we going while I am now working on my site as a concrete machine cause it is very expensive now to buy concrete from a plant – it is more than twice expensive than I am doing it myself with small electro mixer and it is one of thousands Russia’s absurdities - everybody are telling from TV that we are under sanctions and economic crisis is going on but prices are going up every year and it is looks like we don’t have a crisis but a building agio which is of course not.
28th-Jun-2017 03:51 pm (UTC)
Inside my cosmos, I always think systematically and for me this includes all people even if I don't know them personally 'cause I know the stuff that I'm using daily doesn't drop from the sky, someone's gotta be there to produce it.
So, it's not like bringing up that thought of "not needing some / more humans" totally thoughtlessly - for me. I know some do, but these people are ignorants, overrate themselves and they don't understand what the world functions like.

I don't know how to say what I mean...
On one hand, you have the system of life that humans created with "civilization". That needs a certain amount of efforts, manpower and resources to function and to be maintained to keep up functioning.
On the other hand then, you have what nature tolerates of that system functioning every day.
So, you can say the system that humans created, it has its worldly limits. What these limits are is maybe a long process of finding it out.
But, within these limits already appears another limited frame: The system's potentials also limit the possibilities of other living creatures. Speaking: Where humans come and cultivate the land, build houses and so on, other bigger animals can't live anymore 'cause humans are not going to tolerate them in their bedrooms. Smaller animals can like insects, spiders, small mammals like mice, rats and such. But those are also rather more seen as parasites by the humans, they more have a habit of acquiring living space from the humans part-time. So actually, it's also their living space gone when the other bigger animals leave.
That a planet can't live on mostly only humans populating it as bigger animals, nobody needs to tell my mind 'cause it is obvious to me that this won't be healthy for nature itself. Question in that department surely then is: How much is it able to take? But the dying-out or nearly dying-out of some animal species, of the oceans having been fished too much, it should point at some direction.
Not that way that media want to make you believe, but it points into some direction.
29th-Jun-2017 09:46 am (UTC)
"But, within these limits already appears another limited frame: The system's potentials also limit the possibilities of other living creatures. Speaking: Where humans come and cultivate the land, build houses and so on, other bigger animals can't live anymore 'cause humans are not going to tolerate them in their bedrooms. "

Yes, it is but we humans are destroying the nature for quite long and there are numerable examples of this activity as numerable deserts around the world. So we have a lot to do if we will cultivate these South lands and bring back the forests and life for billions of animals to them. What it is a desert – it is a land of high pressure and wet air from sea couldn’t get there. Plus the soil is gone and it is impossible for seedlings to stand the heat of days and could of nights but If we cover the lands with white film, will wet it even with salt sea water to get the low pressure at cold nights, to make it possible for salt to get back to sea, I think it is possible to help these lands fast. And it is necessary to make such things exactly at the South where the rain huge high forest was located.
Now the Siberian forests are burning again and we couldn’t do much cause it is very huge territory and hard to reach but the forests are easily growing up at North cause we have cold winters to accumulate the water what doesn’t exists on South.
Actually the India is suffering very much from the global warming cause the weather is changing and rains are not coming to the region. Again government should undertake some actions or it will be to late. And again the overpopulation, the poverty make any movements very difficult cause huge number of people need huge number of land for agricultural needs and it will be difficult to take these land even if they are deserted at the moment to make there forests. But again I believe in science and I think it is possible to grow the food with less damage to the nature. To grow for example apples is much more efficient than to grow potatoes cause you have trees and it is possible to grow something down between them with normal supply of water. It is necessary to make lakes and grow ducks than to grow pigs and so on. We have a lot of work to do to change the course of our food production. But we have to understand on the government level the problem of not doing anything and let people suffer from hanger and depression with useless attempts to grow something when there is no water already and the situation will worsen with yeas for sure. It is the government should take control on the situation and force people to do the right things.
29th-Jun-2017 01:12 pm (UTC)
"Yes, it is but we humans are destroying the nature for quite long and there are numerable examples of this activity as numerable deserts around the world."

Until humans made it to the first one and two billion of worl population, it took quite an amount of time. While from 4 to 5 and 5 to 6 and eventually the 7 billions it has been only a few decades.
If I remember correnctly, the Mayans vanished because the area they lived in became dry and agriculture wasn't possible anymore. The process didn't take place over night, but the authorities seemingly decided to ignore the problem or simply didn't know what to do about it.
But as the Mayans vanished, the whole of mankind hasn't stopped to exist. There were other cultures already present too.
Also didn't flora and fauna of the whole world take damage, it was only in their local area, where the Mayans lived.
Animals and plants in Australia didn't get any damage for what the Mayans had done in Central America.
There days humans are everywhere in the world and they literally do the very same mistakes for the nature in their areas. Only what are called "indigenous peoples" which still live close to the laws of nature have their ways of life adapted to their surroundings they live in, contrary to the rest of mankind.
This is a different overall picture compared to the past times where humans had a pretty limited range as to how they form their environment according to their needs. Both technically and how much they needed it because they needed space to live.
And, even in those times, there sure some animal species already died out or lands were destroyed for a very large amount of time.
See the Nile in Egypt - I think it also once was a much more greener land these days. But agriculture did its job to it...
Central Sahara once contained a large lake, about a 900 to 1000 years ago. Why it vanishes is still a question to science; only from these days viewpoint it seems pretty absurd and unthinkable as the whole area is a desert now.

When the times of the seafaring came, the sailors and settlers brought quite some stuff in animals (often) to areas where they originally didn't exist. Sometimes this is even the base for troubles with these species until today. In return for that, they also brought a lot of stuff from the newly discovered areas in the world to their home countries that didn't orginally exist there. Lots of modern argricultural plants that are self-evident today in the food department in the Western world were included in this. For example, potatoes.
But also, especially as the setlling process began, their behavior extinct some local animal species and surely plants too.
I remember the Dodo bird in that department. The Galápagos tortoises were broad to the edge of near extinction through that.
And during those times, the settlers from Europe even hunted other humans down - the local population; just to take the land to make it their own and spread like rabbits.

Ever since humans had the possibility to run away from their past sins to another area, or as long as they had a free place to still grow into, their strategies of shaping their environment went well.
Still they try to do this stunt - expression of this are all those plans of colonizing Mars and all that stuff.
But it's still far from being able to become reality, so mankind is thrown back at its own daily and past mistakes.
That is the major difference compared to those past times.
There is no place to run anymore, except the own mind - hiding in your dreams and your own fairy tale land.
But even this fairy tale land is subject to being supplied with energy from the ouside, so it's not a real option that will last forever.
28th-Jun-2017 03:18 pm (UTC)
"Plague of these days is young people leave rural areas, if they grew up in them, because in the villages you can't even buy a loaf of bread; there's absolutely nothing going on these areas. "

When I hear about such matters I think about the old times when people were leaving the cities to go far to live at monasteries and some decades after new cities were growing around these monasteries and again some men were going farther away. Things like this had happened at Russia.
Other example is the monasteries of China where people were meditating out of city's turmoil and were inventing many new things. These are the common example of different ways of developing.
Nowadays we have planes, trains, and cars so I don’t see a problem to sit in a car and drive one – two hours to get to the center, to live there for couple of days and get back. The main problem of people which are living at Russian villages is low salaries and alcoholism. I think it is possible to feel yourself as if you are at the center of London if you have the Internet – just open bbc r1 and google.maps sites…
28th-Jun-2017 04:21 pm (UTC)
Might be that there are regional differences in this; in that way you see that there are different paths of development.
I think for here it was more the path of monastaries being the core point of solitude to study, acquire knowledge and invent or discover things. If I don't remember it incorrectly, Mendel's laws, for example, were such a discovery that came from a monastary.
Today, even in modern times, it is also rather the habit to leave off to rural areas if you want to shield yourself from the world and too much hubbub going on around you.
But, nevertheless, I don't know if history has seen such a development in the rural areas here before: Even if you lived in rural areas, there was a basic range of services offered to you even when living in the village. Today this is on the brink of totally dying out.
As the young people leave and the elder get left behind and they don't leave so easily where they live (tomorrow could always be your last day, so you want to do that stress to you in that situation or even speed it up by that?), it's only the elder left behind then in the villages and elder people aren't as fit anymore to take care of everything at the houses or travel far distances to town just to do your groceries (those you don't cover by your own vegetable garden).

Let's say, just pointing that a little more out: All those stuff with driving to other towns for business, when you're healthy you can do all that stuff in a pretty unlimited manner. Limited only by your other daily duties.
But if your powers and senses already start to leave you, that's not such an easy business anymore. You've got a lot to do with getting along with yourself through the day then already.

Not to say: Isn't it even a little poor of plethora society to deposit services and goods far away from the people themselves, from its potentional customers (to speak in that terms)? I mean, either society lives in plenty or it doesn't live in plenty. When you live in plenty, what speaks against bringing some basic services to the villages - even if they hardly cover the costs of it?
For covering the costs you got your business in the big downs which generate a whole lot of profit.
In a way, this is a reduction of social services to society itself if people in rural areas have to drive to the next town to do anything.

And, just remember: There are still such unpopulated places in the world where fast internet is a dream! Or where phone services don't get to reach them, as it all only comes through wireless in those areas - and wireless can be jammed.
29th-Jun-2017 05:44 am (UTC)
"And, just remember: There are still such unpopulated places in the world where fast internet is a dream!"

Yes, there are plenty but if people are choosing to live there they know what it is about. The central Russia is mostly covered with net now.
I thought that there is no place now at Europe which hasn't phone and Internet connection. Looking on West Europe now it is all covered with electricity, roads and much lighter than Russia of course- it is interesting that you still have as you are saying the rural areas from which the youngsters are fleeing.

Oldness as a critical sickness is mostly a finish for everything no matter where you are at the capital's center or far away from it.
29th-Jun-2017 06:58 am (UTC)
Choosing? If I'm an adult I can choose, but not when I'm a child which just happens to be hit with the bad luck of being born somewhere in the world. You can't choose where you get born to this world.

Electricity and running water made it after all that time to have a pretty wide spread. But fast internet connection - we live in capitalism, and capitalism doesn't understand providing something as offering services to the common people, it understands it as something to make money with. Do they go into areas for very few people to provide if it doesn't drop profit? I think you know the answer.
As for my country, who do you guess who's to blame for the spread of the of the other services? It was communism 'cause communism regarded supply as the most impotant factor of a functioning society.
But that only I can say as far for East Germany.
If all areas in Europe live with the same circumstances - say, I'd put a big question mark behind it.
And even here, I wouldn't vouch for the really solitude countryside with pretty vew people and more animals than people around you, that in rural areas with these characteristics even both electricity and running water made it everywhere.
At least the back of my head says "wait, water supply - I think I've seen this also, people working with a good old pump in the backyard". Only I don't know if that's a self-chosen thing if that's the case, or if it is a result because there the GDR ended and in Western times nobody connects a village of 100 people or to the water supply system if they have to dig up the earth and first lay pipes.
Another thing I have also heard about is when the street lights get turned off at pretty late hours in smaller villagers. Why? To save money. Yes, villages in fucking supposedly rich Germany switching off street lights at night hours because they need to save money...
And, talking about streets, some rural areas still have to live with the road made of small boulders that they had to live with over the past decades.
Or this stupid nonsense they did - doing a tarred road, but only one lane; when two cars left and right are to be coming up to meet, one's gotta pull over to let the other one pass by.

There's not much in the rural areas left to do for the youngsters who acquire good education. All who can just leave off to bigger cities, to the West, especially to West Germany or other areas. They even get told to better do so, if you happen to be in an area where there is no big future for you to grab.
If you don't state yourself that you stay - and live with a little lesser money -, which is not the majority, then it's nobody except for those who build a house there ages ago who stay.
Often enough these are the elders who lived there for decades and are adapted to the lifestyle. Enough people these days also prefer a living without big physical work or getting dirty. Taking and consuming, and if they come back to the nature, then it's just some hipster thing and they hold certain imaginations what the it looks like and be disappointed by the reality they find.
29th-Jun-2017 10:06 am (UTC)
There are satellite TV and internet all other the Russia but I heard the Internet is not so fast yet.

The salaries in big cities of Russia after the economic crisis became so low that it is a work from hand to mouth and the flat prices at big cities are so huge that the half of salary goes for mortgage. My point is if a man is workable and has brain it is much more profitable to live now far from the city - you could make a house very easily and cheap, you could make the food for yourself and to sell and it will be a real healthy food which will not make you feel as you are old at thirty years. I recently bought a sausage and gave a small piece for ants to eat, so they didn’t like it and it has been laying for some days before I’ve bushed it off. It tells a lot about what we are eating now – shit, the prices on eco food are so high that it is impossible with our salaries to have it. But yes there are problems of course – the start money, the loneliness, the lack of everything but our government are trying now to solve some of them and asking people to go to the far mostly uninhabited lands.
29th-Jun-2017 12:11 pm (UTC)
I don't know how it is about that in Europe. During the past years only fast wireless internet has been a big topic and extension of it, the LTE standard. It's never been a big topic here anyway as Europe is pretty populous and they put everything in net on land.
I only expect it costs a pretty penny 'cause it's not a standard package at your telephone service.
That this may be more present in Russia I'd assume 'cause you've got to spread the net over half a continent with areas which are partly pretty unpopulated.

Flats in the big cities directly are also getting more and more expensive here. That's due to the sell-out of the public housing sector to private investors, which refurbish the flats and then rent them for twice the price or more which nobody of the previous residents of the apartment complexes can afford.
In the big cities you can find the places of education, so there is no way around them (also vocational school when you do an apprenticeship), in the bigger cities the entertainment and life takes place (as said, all is being cut and abandoned in the villages), jobs is a thing I'd say it varies if they're there or not.

Living in a rural area here is just useful for only one thing: Hiding from the world and live in peace (so much peace, at times you've already got to run away from it again).
Planting and breeding your own food supply - the last time you could sell that stuff yourself that easily, that was as the GDR still was. This state relied and covered its food supply in a good amount by local and also small production in private gardens.
These days - it's not forbidden, but to distribute own produced food, you've got to have a license first, then it needs periodic controls by the local health authority; after that then comes every hook that has to do with the selling process. Marketing you've got to do yourself, then all kinds of differing taxes have to be paid to the state from your revenue (revenue tax, added value tax).
In practice it is: If you want to make any buck with it, you've got to sell masses, otherwise it's a business with no profit for you. Rather you carry money still to that side business of yours.
All thanks to West German laws and EU regulations...
Ukrainians must know what one's talking about at this; I read it somewhere before the big agrement ot the EU association that they still had it that they could produce food privately and sell it openly without any obstacles. People did it to add a little extra to the monthly salary or pension (among others it was partly even needed).
Now with the EU association it's not possible anymore. EU and its regulations and so on.

Practically it's a way of securing the business of the big players in the field, so nobody can bite a small bit out of their big cake.
I don't know when West Germany started with such politics, at least I don't know it differently from them, so long it's already on.
Repeat: Sine the end of the GDR, forget about only selling a single egg or cherry...
Quite a bunch of people these days have problems with fruit trees in their gardens still left from those times. The fruit you don't eat all by yourself (because of the masses of fruits), but selling you can't just do as you please. Often enough, there's only the option of giving amounts of it as a present to people you know. No money involved, no business - no trouble. Don't know if that is also legally set this way, at least this way you don't get into trouble because you run a food business that's not registered and controlled.
If you grow as much as you eat yourself and act as a self-supplyer, then there's no the big problem.
29th-Jun-2017 07:55 pm (UTC)
"Ukrainians must know what one's talking about at this; I read it somewhere before the big agrement ot the EU association that they still had it that they could produce food privately and sell it openly without any obstacles. People did it to add a little extra to the monthly salary or pension (among others it was partly even needed).
Now with the EU association it's not possible anymore. EU and its regulations and so on."

You have to know the Ukrainians they are very demanding and active and will blow a mind to everybody on the way to their goal... I am certain that EU will soon be adjusting to Ukrainians. They had destroyed all the links with Russia just to get to EU and then when they will understand that EU sucks they will easily will broke all the links with EU to get more cooperative with Russians back as if nothing had happened.

"Practically it's a way of securing the business of the big players in the field, so nobody can bite a small bit out of their big cake."

It is very frustrating, for me it is looking like totalirization of the world and something like this was described at Holy Bible - then the times will come and you can't sell and buy without a sign on your body and this sign will be a number of a beast... something like that and it is veeeery disturbing cause all this things described are such unbearable to stand…


Edited at 2017-06-29 08:05 pm (UTC)
29th-Jun-2017 10:54 pm (UTC)
You know, they are going to be damned to discover this.
Because all that Western Europe ever did was sucking up the resources of others and exploiting other people for the sake of goods for a cheap price and sparing their own resources for "bad times".

You know, such things are sort of what creates the strange atmosphere over here. Why enough Germans also hate their country or like to get away from it. You feel like in a golden cage, locked in by the state and its representants, and if not them do this job, then those people indoctrinated with the rightfulness of this nonsense do the job. People who can't see you having a tiny bit more than them, they become jealuous like nothing 'cause of it - or stupid people who are jealuous on you for having more then them, but they don't see the work behind it and always suspect you must use criminal methods.
I've got a couple of German texts in the journal about this topic in a more intense level... It's really like it's no nothing.
It makes you sick. It makes you depressed. It makes you question at all "Why do I do anything more than just also playing the spoiled child, sucking up the resources?". 'Cause it often feels like all you get thrown in your way is sacks of stones.
29th-Jun-2017 07:05 am (UTC)
Not even to say: I'm not talking about getting lame when you're 60. Sickness with most people already starts when they're in their 40s.
And it can even happen to you before that age!
Chronic illness in any way, for example, is no such thing that only starts when you're already on the road to the end of life.

With chronic illness you can't live like the politics of endless freedom. Your body dictates the range of what you can do daily.
And within that range... it can sometimes be so far away from you driving to a town 50km away from you on a regular basis.
29th-Jun-2017 10:10 am (UTC)
I am feeling fine at the moment thanks to sport activity at childhood and I hope to feel this way at least for a decade and to this time I have to have some factory to not bent my back for trinkets on somebody's plant - it is one of my goal to be free, active, productive and have an interesting life than to sit somewhere and be thinking always how to get away from all this.
29th-Jun-2017 12:15 pm (UTC)
Enjoy it as long as you can.
Always remember: There's also people who are not gifted with that luck.
So that's why it's better to not make things a standard for everyone only because oneself is doing good.
This is the same strategy the laissez faire liberals operate on, which were born into middle class families with no worry about finances, about education and about organizing things that seem totally out of reach.
29th-Jun-2017 07:43 pm (UTC)
I think the most desirable gift I got is the brain which is even 10 % working if to believe to scientists and if a child is borned in Russia and has a brain he could get whatever he likes if he is ready to work and shields himself from lies and affections of the world.

I was growing in a common average family of USSR and never was living as a rich or something but I have the knowledges how things are to be not delighted about.
27th-Jun-2017 11:06 pm (UTC)
I strongly believe as a man with engineering education that much more people could safely live on our planet but we should together solve many tasks and there is no unity around the world not now not in near perspective. The problem is that our science is paid by business and we don’t have certainty do we have a global warming or not – it is necessary to make some independent research on the matter. If we will have some certainty then the next question is how to force people which are poor living at the moment to live even poorer to invest their money into the eco technologies? For example average European man are spending ten times more money than some man from India and even if our incomes will be average it is much colder to live on the North than at the South and we people which are living on the North will be burning much more fuel and for example China could ask why we should reduce the use of fuel if you are/were using anyway much more? Plus they could ask the West to pay them for their loss of industrialization with all the ecology novation involvements.
To solve the global problems we need global actions and nowadays it is impossible even to think about it.
But anyway I am optimistic about the science and if together to think how without a loss of productivity of food and goods to raise the numbers of trees on our planet I am certain we could find an answer as to answer other questions as to reduce the amount of deserted lands, to use ten times more productively what we have and so on.
28th-Jun-2017 07:55 am (UTC)
Just evilly said: That's what real socialism tried - planning on a larger scale. This applies to time as well as territorial extent.
Capitalist elites which want to reign the world won't do this, as they all glance at each other for achieving one of the others' pieces of the cake. Meanwhile they have nothing more in mind than this, compared to maybe earlier times where even nobles or capitalists sometimes understood if they don't do something for the common people, then they might lose all of their acquired wealth and power.
This little spirit is what's going to be needed. Over with the big "ONLY ME!"-age.

Edited at 2017-06-28 07:56 am (UTC)
This page was loaded Jul 27th 2017, 6:54 am GMT.