Money is not motivation...

You must “change direction”. Slowing down might help in that regard.

Can you explain this more? Sounds like you’re saying that if each set of parents has 2, and only 2, children–no exceptions–the gap between the rich and the poor will be minimized (or 3 and only 3 children, or 4 and only 4… point is: no diversity in the number of children). How will that minimize the gap between the rich and the poor?

I’m still not understanding how “wrong/false” follows from any of these “disproportions”. If you don’t mind, I’d like to take (1.) as an example so that I can see what you mean by fleshing out one of your claims.

You seem to be talking about the “input of machines”, and that the input of machines is somehow disproportionate to the input of humans. I assume you mean something like that each machine inputs more than each human, so that the input-per-individual ratio is much higher for machines than for humans, and thus disproportionate. Is that right? If so, why should that be “wrong/false”? It seems clear that when it comes to printing pages out from a computer, the input from a machine (a computer printer) is going to be greater than the input from a human stenciling in block letters.

More generally, I don’t see that disproportionate equates to wrong or false. It seems very right to me that Einstein was disproportionately influential in the world of physics relative to the average human (or to the average physicist for that matter). Why does that result produce a moral or practical wrong, or a falsity?

I apologize if these questions seem pedantic, I’m only concerned to understand your ideas before I engage them.

My recommendation:

Everyone should reproduce himself / herself one time in his / her life, so that the reproduction rate could be always about 1, the fertilitiy rate always about 2 children per woman. If he / she doesn’t want a child, that should be no problem anyway because he / she would have to pay for his / her desire - a so called “management of reproduction”, or “management of children”, or “management of family” would adopt the task having one child per one adult person. Anf if one person wants to have more than one, or a couple (two persons) more than two children, he / she / they would have to pay for that desire. In short: the reproduction rate would always be about 1, the fertility rate always about 2.

We know that fertility and prosperity (wealth) correlate with each other (b.t.w.: also with intelligence). So where the fertility is too high you can be sure that there is poverty and vice versa. Politicians have no idea or just don’t want (corrupion etc.) to change anything in that way that fertility can “control” prosperity (wealth): the current politicians and other so called “experts” (they are no experts at all) want the prosperity (wealth) to “control” the fertility, but that doesn’t work in the long run. In the long run the result is always poverty of all or about 99%, if prosperity (wealth) is wanted to “control” the fertility. Prosperity (wealth) produces infertilitiy, especially of those who work very much, but also of those who are very much self-centered (cp. “individualism”, bad egocentrism), and at last of all or almost all.

First of all one has to underline the term “in the long run”. In the long run it is possible that machines replace all human beings - the probability is about 80%, I estimate.

That is wrong / false because it leads probably (see above: 80%) to the replacement of all human beings, and if, not (20%), to poverty of all or at least 99% of all human beings, to dullness, and to other badnesses.

Yes, but that is not what I am talking about (see above and my thread “Will machines completely replace all human beings?”).

The probability that machines will replace all human beings is too high (80% - as I estimate; see above), and if they will not replace all human beings (20% - as I estimate; see above), the probability of poverty, dullness, and other badnesses is too high (99% - as I estimate).

Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans, (2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans; (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?

The first impression may be that there is no disadvantage of humans (=> 1.), of about 99% of all humans (=> 2.), of non-enegertic resources (=> 3.), but is that really true? The paradox is that the past, present, and some of the future advantages will change to disadvantages in the (long run) future. So we can interpret this “advantages” as “short advantages”, or as “pretended advantages”, or even as “disadvantages” because the prize is to high, and the prize has to be paid by all humans: the probable extinction of the humans because of a very short moment of wealth for very few generations of the humans!

So if we want to keep wealth, we have to correct the three great modern human errors or mistakes (=> 1., 2., 3.). The only alternative to that correction is the extinction of all humans.

We must take another direction and slow down.

Proof must be provided this is true.

Again, proof?

Is no such thing, though maybe if proof was provided I might listen a little better.

I agree, the disadvantage that is discussed is not provided with any proof, hell, not even an argument.

An answer has been given, by you, with all the presumptions of having asked a question with specific answers. Remember, though I may be a figment of your imagination, this figment does have any clue what the hell you are on about. Please explain deeper…

I disagree, though mostly because I can.

You disagree?

Okay, that’s internet. Internet is agreement or disagreement, but nothing else. Who cares?

But where is your argument, your counter argument?

The proof you mentioned will follow. But okay: maybe there is no proof, what is your proof then? There is no counter proof.

Not yet. You haven’t given me a reason to.

No one cares.

Against what? At this point it is theorizing. I counter with, it is not true.

I cannot prove you wrong, with a counter, because you have provided nothing to prove you right.

Is there a little misunderstanding? If so, then please excuse me. If not, then please excuse me. :slight_smile:

Well, unless you think the rich are already having a minimum number of children, I don’t see how the poor reducing their fertility to the same minimum would help close the gap between the rich and the poor. If having less children will help the poor become richer, it would also help the rich become richer.

Yes, especially the poor, but also the rich. So it would help all to become richer. But the rulers would not agree with that because they would not become as fast richer as they now do, although they would become richer too, but not in the same fast way as now. So this solution is not wanted by the most powerful 1% (possibly on the way to become a new “human species”).

The problem is not, that it would not work - it would work very well -, but the problem is that no one wants to be responsible for such a policy. For the rulers and the politicians it is easier to control the population by continuing their policy of lies, cants, double moral standards, simulation and so on. Those who have to be responsible are not responsible at all. So the irresponsibility continues - meanwhile the shear between rich and poor increases exponentially.

I suggest you read Knowledge and Power by George Gilder. He might be able to dissuade you from this notion. It’s a really great book about information theory and economics.

Thank you. I don’t know George Gilder. But information theory and economics can be brought together also in that sence I do. What I do is quite similar to that what Peter Mersch does. Do you know Peter Mersch?

Huh? That makes no sense. Reducing the number of children in a family means more resources are freed up to be spent on other things–even for the rich–and somehow by freeing up these resource, the rich end up getting richer more slowly? And this slowing of getting richer happens only for the rich? Huh?

(I’m not even going to ask about the “new human species” thing).

That makes very much sense. I think you have not understand what I said.

First you agree:

Then you disagree (see above: “That makes no sense.”), although I did not change my statements.

The conclusion can be that e.g. (a) you have misundsertood me, or (b) you fear the power of the 1%, or you, or (c) you want to attack me personally (ad hominem), if so, then this would largely adjoin off-topic.

I am not interrested in off-topic posts!

Some corporations (companies, organisations or however you may call them) are already so rich / powerful that each of those corporations has a property / power which is more than the gross national product of France or Italy.

Maybe you don’t know what that really means.


In the mentioned case it is a question of the dimensions, circumstances, and time. If 99% become richer, then the 1% becomes not necessarily poorer, but with the utmost probability also richer, although not so much and not so fast as before because the richness of that 1% depends on the poorness of those 99%. Have you never heard of the fact that the scissors between rich and poor are expoentially widening?

GNP France 2011 = 2.8 trillion US dollars
GNP Italy 2011 = 2.2 trillion US dollars

Which corporations have greater assets?

That makes no sense.

I do now! Sadly, I am unable to read German… Know an English source?

You know that Peter Mersch writes in German? That’s interesting. Maybe he also writes in English. I don’t know. Try to google his name. Another source are my posts here in this forum. :slight_smile:

But beware, trolls are everywhere (did you notice the rime?), and only they decide what “makes sense” and what “makes no sense” in this forum! :confusion-seeingstars:

Joining information theory and economy makes sense (not for trolls, but for us), but I don’t think that everyone who calles himself an “information theoretician” or an “economist” is really an information theoretician or an economist. I don’t know George Gilder. Maybe you can describe that man a little bit.