Fairness

I wrote a replyto MrV in the blacks and sports thread and realized, at the end, that I was way off topic, but still felt it was still worth discussion, so I broke it out to a new thread. I hope MrV doesn't mind.

Quote: MrV

And let's not even get started on the disproportionate amount of blacks in our American prisons and jails.

I sometimes get the impression that our society isn't as fair and balanced as it should be.

Not all that long ago, a large % of men (1/3+) died at the hands of other men in tribal warfare (if you believe Pinker's TED talk on the matter). Life's not fair. How fair could it be? Currently the world's per capita GDP run around $12k. I neither believe that making things more fair/equal directly increases this number (look at communism) nor that most people pushing forced equality (who also often push for open borders because closed borders are racist) are willing to average down to $12k/yr. And that doing this would risk falling back into the malthusian trap and giving up the demographic gains we've made.

The alternate message has been that the free market will continue to act as an engine of (economic) growth and solve these problems over time, but after 350% GDP growth from '33 to '73, growth has been pretty stagnated and people know that something's wrong, so they are, increasingly, competing on new axes rather than cooperating. People need a new message they can believe, one with substance rather than endless discussion on what process will magically make things better. My cut (much of it taken from Peter Thiel) is that as the low hanging fruit of globilization dries up the first world is under increased pressure to innovate again. The groundwork should be laid for this by increasing nuclear energy(requires government, solves Peak Oil and global warming) and increasing AI(happening in the private sector), now that moore's law is on the ropes and people are being forced to reconsider design anyway, and we have lots of accumulated computational improvements we're still trying to figure out how to use optimally. Redressing the division of labor between humans and machines should continue to make things better as long as we solve the energy problem. On the social side, I like Murray's Basic Income Guarantee. It simplifies the sprawling government bureaucracy while providing the safety net that helps to buy off greedy genes, thereby aiding demographic transition and population stability. Unfortunately, the level is not enough to satisfy liberals, is simply antithetical to many conservatives' values (though Murray is, roughly, a conservative), and no politician really wants to see their bureaucracy eroded.

Thoughts? Other specific suggestions (clone Elon Musk?)? Other preferred models for conceptualizing the world?

The first mandatory minimums were established with a 100:1 sentencing ratio of crack vs. powder cocaine. This meant that a gram of crack yielded punishment equivalent to 100 grams of powder cocaine. In addition, possessing 28 grams or more of crack is a guaranteed sentence of at least five years in prison. For powder cocaine, it would take 500 grams, or half a kilo, which costs approximately $30,000 and weighs over one pound, to receive a five-year guaranteed sentence. Since crack users are predominantly black and powder users mostly white, many African-Americans were receiving prison sentences that were unjustifiably longer.

Quote: Buzzard

The first mandatory minimums were established with a 100:1 sentencing ratio of crack vs. powder cocaine. This meant that a gram of crack yielded punishment equivalent to 100 grams of powder cocaine. In addition, possessing 28 grams or more of crack is a guaranteed sentence of at least five years in prison. For powder cocaine, it would take 500 grams, or half a kilo, which costs approximately $30,000 and weighs over one pound, to receive a five-year guaranteed sentence. Since crack users are predominantly black and powder users mostly white, many African-Americans were receiving prison sentences that were unjustifiably longer.

Ok ... What if you take out drugs. and compare the percentage rate with only violent crimes.

I think back to the Chapelle's Show sketch about what would happen in black communities if they came into money a la 'reparations'


Part 1


Part 2

Socks,

I believe the ultimate long-term solution lies in space exploration and colonization. It doesn't have to be American-led, though we as a species gave up a lot when we let that dream die. It does need to be long-term, because we're eating this planet out of habitability. Not just because, if we miss this planning window, Dr. Malthus will have the last laugh, but because we would benefit from a culling; generally and historically speaking, those that take the leap of faith that pioneering requires will be younger, fitter, smarter, hardier, and more determined than the general population. This has been true of those sent so far at governments' expense (not just American; many nations have contributed funding and personnel), and it will be even more true as we go interplanetary and, someday, intergalactic. It presupposes certain advances in basic science to plan into centuries, but what did they know in 1913 about aviation, atoms, radio, telecommunication, computing, genomes, transplants, a hundred other areas that have exploded in discovery and application?

Anyway, barring a vast change in cultural acceptance of ZPG and ecologically sound principles, in a century we will exceed 10 Billion on this planet at current rates, and we're already experiencing periodic regional famines at a bit over 7 Billion. We will be pushed off this planet, kill it, or kill ourselves in vast numbers by biologic or nuclear events; things are too far out of equilibrium and the individual too important over the greater mass survival (I include myself in this prejudice) to simply maintain a supportable population worldwide. It's going to take a further investment and exponential research explosion in the next century, one that dwarfs what we've done in the last, to overcome the math, and a commitment of nations and corporate entities that's never been seen before to take us beyond this world in any meaningful numbers.

Quote: beachbumbabs

in a century we will exceed 10 Billion on this planet at current rates.

Nope. It will reach 9 bil by 2070 and start to
decline. Bummer for the gloom and doom
bunch.

"Indeed, according to experts' best estimates, the total population of Earth will stop growing within the lifespan of people alive today.

And then it will fall."

"...researchers at Austria's International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis foresee the global population maxing out at 9 billion some time around 2070."

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html

Quote: EvenBob

Nope. It will reach 9 bil by 2070 and start to
decline. Bummer for the gloom and doom
bunch.

"Indeed, according to experts' best estimates, the total population of Earth will stop growing within the lifespan of people alive today.

And then it will fall."

"...researchers at Austria's International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis foresee the global population maxing out at 9 billion some time around 2070."

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html

So in refutation, you quote an article that both says we will reach 10 Billion in the next century under current growth rates (which is what I said) and this:

It’s far from certain that any of this (falling population) will come to pass. IIASA’s numbers are based on probabilistic projections, meaning that demographers try to identify the key factors affecting population growth and then try to assess the likelihood that each will occur. The several layers of guesswork magnify potential errors. “We simply don’t know for sure what will be the population size at a certain time in the future,” demographer Wolfgang Lutz told IIASA conference-goers earlier this year. “There are huge uncertainties involved.”

Well argued. /sarcasm

Quote: beachbumbabs

Well argued. /sarcasm

He's presenting both sides. The people without an
agenda have agreed that the population will reach
it's max much sooner than previously thought. Some
believe 2050 is a more reasonable date. Stating it
as a fact, like you did, implying that it's a slam dunk
and the earth is doomed, is what people with an
agenda do. Been hearing gloom and doom all my
life, and so far none of it has worked out as the doomer's
hoped. Sad..

Quote: beachbumbabs

I believe the ultimate long-term solution lies in space exploration and colonization.

Interesting. As should be obvious from my first post, I'm a big fan of Elon Musk who is planning a trip to mars with his company, SpaceX, in the near future(10-15yrs I think?). That said, I'm not sure that has a meaningful impact on our limits-to-growth problems. Maybe we end up being able to seed another planet in case of nuclear holocaust here, but I think both are unlikely. I'm more worried about out of control biological problems.

I think the most likely outcome is a Kunstler style long emergency and that this makes things less fair, and makes people less concerned about fairness, though not necessarily along racial lines. I don't know if this is likely to make space exploration more or less of a priority.

Quote: EvenBob

Some believe 2050 is a more reasonable date.

I believe population is likely to peak sooner rather than later, and at lower than traditionally expected levels. I think this is due to both aggresive efforts of stabilize populations along with LTG feedbacks either on the resource constraint side or the population side.

Quote: EvenBob

He's presenting both sides. The people without an
agenda have agreed that the population will reach
it's max much sooner than previously thought. Some
believe 2050 is a more reasonable date. Stating it
as a fact, like you did, implying that it's a slam dunk
and the earth is doomed, is what people with an
agenda do. Been hearing gloom and doom all my
life, and so far none of it has worked out as the doomer's
hoped. Sad..

I think it was a good article with a very fair discussion of the issue and some of its complexities. You posted it with the comment "Nope...." etc. which changes the intent from discussion to argument, while quoting a source that doesn't refute what I said. It's your intent that drew the sarcasm, not the content of the linked article.

Quote: socks

I believe population is likely to peak sooner rather than later.

It's a fact that when a society improves economically,
their birth rate starts to decline almost immediately.
They no longer need lots of children.

Quote: socks

I'm more worried about out of control biological problems.

New DNA Botulism Strain kept Secret, It's one of the most toxic substances known to man, you would die from inhaling 13/1,000,000,000 of a gram

Quote: EvenBob

It's a fact that when a society improves economically,
their birth rate starts to decline almost immediately.
They no longer need lots of children.

Sure, I was mostly agreeing with you. That was a central point to my initial post. It's not clear to me, though, that demographic transition is going to outrun limit's-to-growth feedbacks.

Quote: socks

Sure, I was mostly agreeing with you. That was a central point to my initial post. It's not clear to me, though, that demographic transition is going to outrun limit's-to-growth feedbacks.

I think it's going to be a very near thing; I'm hopeful that the pressure will spur the creativity needed to resolve the problem. Interesting thread, socks, thanks!

Quote: beachbumbabs

I think it's going to be a very near thing;!

And I do not. We have always risen to the occasion,
and we will again. More and more 3rd world countries
are getting educated and that means even more smart
people to work on the worlds problems.

The first Gloomer I remember encountering was my 5th
grade teacher in 1959. She drilled it into our heads our
future was either nuclear war, or starvation because of
world population. The US was to be an isolated island
of prosperity, while the rest of the world beat on our
doors for food, of which we had none to send. Turns
out, 55 years later, we export 50% of the wheat we
grow, as an example of how we're hardly starving to
death.

I do know we can't keep feeding and eating animals at the rate
we're going. For instance, cattle have to eat 7000 calories
to provide 1000 calories that we consume in their meat.
That's kinda upside down as far as efficiency goes.

Quote: EvenBob

And I do not. We have always risen to the occasion,
and we will again. More and more 3rd world countries
are getting educated and that means even more smart
people to work on the worlds problems.

I'm sure lots of countries rose to their occasions multiple times before they fell. Failing to plan because "we always rise to the occasion" doesn't inspire confidence.

Wrt to talent in 3rd world countries, I prefer to bet on populations that have solved big/complex problems recently. Looking for smart people in 3rd world countries has always struck me as strange. Of course, China's improving economy helps in this respect even if it ends up mostly serving to rapidly commoditizing 1st world inventions (solar cells).

Quote: EvenBob

The first Gloomer I remember encountering was my 5th
grade teacher in 1959. She drilled it into our heads our
future was either nuclear war, or starvation because of
world population. The US was to be an isolated island
of prosperity, while the rest of the world beat on our
doors for food, of which we had none to send. Turns
out, 55 years later, we export 50% of the wheat we
grow, as an example of how we're hardly starving to
death.

It's interesting you use this old picture of America being a fundamentally different place than the rest of the world. Peter Thiel likes to use an old book from France, which said the same thing (that the US was going to move from being an economy that differed in degree to one that differed in kind) in order to contrast our older, very definite, views of the future, and how it was going to be better then with our present, very indefinite, views of the future now. Now we talk about process instead of substance. Several of his recent youtube videos go into a lot of detail on this theme from slightly different angles.

Quote: EvenBob

I do know we can't keep feeding and eating animals at the rate
we're going. For instance, cattle have to eat 7000 calories
to provide 1000 calories that we consume in their meat.
That's kinda upside down as far as efficiency goes.

People's ability to maintain health on a vegetable heavy diet is highly variable. And much of the meat we eat is raised on land that isn't easy to farm. Yes, there's an efficiency cost here, but you either have to select against people who need lots of meat (me), or it becomes a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario where health costs rise because people don't have access to meat.

Quote: socks

I'm sure lots of countries rose to their occasions multiple times before they fell. Failing to plan because "we always rise to the occasion" doesn't inspire confidence.
.

But we aren't failing to plan. We've been aware
of the world as a whole since the end of WWII.
We're making cars smaller and more efficient,
figuring how to grow more food per acre, coming
up with hearty rice that will grow almost anywhere,
constantly working on how to produce energy better,
the list is long of what we are accomplishing. We
have plans galore.

We'll be fine as a race if we can stop the religious nuts
from destroying themselves and us.