is industrialisation really the right way forward. since the industrialisation revolution, we’ve had the space age, but we have dumped that because it isn’t ‘cost efficient’, and have set about ruining our planet. so do you t hink we (the west) are correct to drag the rest of the world through industrialisation, so we can trade, and ultimately get richer.
dammit answer me
the alternative would be? the planet is going to get destroyed anyway. not to say that we shouldnt attempt to preserve it. in my opinion the only way to keep it somewhat inhabitable is industrialization. if everyones on the same page its easier to cooperate and also new technology could form in those parts of the world that we wouldnt think of. more heads thinking about a solution. i guess its good. as technology advances our “space age” will become much more productive anyway. the rich are already paying huge amounts of money to go into space and there are also transportation devices in development for faster cheaper and cooler travel.
our space age more provductive? surely not seeing as it’s funding is cut every year, it’s man power is reduced every year, and nobody really seems to care about it any more even though it undoubtly is our only realistic long term future.
thats what i meant. it will eventually become more productive. not now though. now weve got terrorism to fight and all that other bull. in 2025 i think we are sending a mission to mars so that will be cool. itll probably be another 20+ years until we get enough money to do something else though. its not really all that necessary right now. its kind of annoying though i dont want to die not knowing what its like to be in outer space.
what??? not important, just because the ‘commies’ aren’t beating America to the moon makes it no less important. we could all be dead within (middle of the road prediction of) 100 years from pollution. thats like having a bomb sitting next to you with maybe a few days on it and saying “oh well got a few days yet, might aswell doss for abit.”
as for terrorism, who funded Bin Laden in the first place, who trained his men, who set up Al-Queda, etc etc. it was the US, if they haddn’t been so fucking childish in the first place by funding Afghans then Bin Laden’s job would be a hell of a lot harder.
London
I wander through each chartered street,
Near where the chartered Thames does flow,
A mark in every face I meet,
Marks of weakness, marks of woe.
In every cry of every man,
In every infant’s cry of fear,
In every voice, in every ban,
The mind-forged manacles I hear:
How the chimney-sweeper’s cry
Every blackening church appals,
And the hapless soldier’s sigh
Runs in blood down palace-walls.
But most, through midnight streets I hear
How the youthful harlot’s curse
Blasts the new-born infant’s tear,
And blights with plagues the marriage hearse.
i really hate blake, but i thought it was apt.
in 100 years im going to be dead you are going to be dead and the rest of the people on this planet are going to be dead. no one cares about what happens after they die. what they care about are immediate threats such as war disease poverty and all the other good stuff. there are other much more important things than space travel right now. it would take a long time to set up an inhabitable place to live for a couple billion people in the time we have.
i reall dont see what the u.s funding al queda has to do with this. i mentioned it because thats what people would rather spend their money on. would you rather stop or atleast slow a threat like terrorism or would you rather save your childrens children from dying? dont lie i know you are just as greedy as the rest of us. dont make yourself feel big by lying and saying you care.
i think you just answered yourself. you can make a choice between living now or guarrentee you future, i’m not lieing with my choice.
CBA stated:
First of all you can’t claim who will be dead after 100 years, you especially can’t say ‘everybody’, there are people now that live over 100 years and with new medicine coming out you never know how long we will live in the future. About 150 years ago the average life span was somewhere around 30 years old. Now it is 70+. With the fast advancement of technology it could be only a decade or two before we change the average to double that of now.
More importantly, it is a mistake to say that ‘no one’ cares about what happens after they die. If this was so, people would not make ‘wills’. Moreover, I know of many people that are only too aware of the fact that what they of working towards will not be realized till decades after they die but they do it anyway. Many historical figures were going against the societal norm at the time of their life, which usually hindered much of their life if not killed them, yet they persisted for the bettermeant of the future.
What’s your take?
obviously its wrong to say everyone all and the rest of the extreme words. but democracy doesnt work off of a few. the majority would vote down funding for space programs due to the need for say medicine to make us live past 100. unless we can fully understand genese and all the dna and junk then i dont think we will be living long enough to see space make a huge economical jump to becoming a big business. i doubt we double our life span though. not yet anyway. we arent going fast enough. also we are due for a major world wide crisis in our lifetime.
Getting back to the original question, what do you mean by industrialization Macca? Developed economies are actually displaying trends which suggest the decline of industrialization is on the cards. We are moving towards service based economies, as developing countries industrialize and pick up from where we left off. In theory similar trends should emerge in LEDCs, and eventually manufacturing will take place in just a few hyper-efficient plants dotted around the world. Perhaps it is too late and pollution will be the death of us all, but that’s not really because of increasing industrialization.
It’s more because of globalization. Market capitalism spreading throughout the world has led to an international fixation with productivity and profits, and externalities like pollution are the inevitable outcome. So it seems to me that your concern is more with globalization than industrialization (though arguably the two go hand in hand).
What do you think should be done about it?
In reference to the original question…
As the definition of ‘industrialism’ goes…the building of industry in a country/society. I must say that the industries we have chosen are leading in the wrong direction for the human race and the world in general. It doesn’t matter what we accomplish if we destroy our world doing it. Unless we find a way to live on other planets we have to settle our differences with earth and come to compromise. The world lacks purpose, aim, vision, and a collective decision to find out the exact amount of people that are most efficient for the world to sustain (we have done this, but…) and keep it at or under this threshold. There is a lack of policy to either curtail people from having many kids, or finding other ways of balancing the population. Many may argue, well how can you think to tell people not to have so many kids, it’s the whole purpose to life, it’s what we are here for. I only pity those individuals that think mating is the sole purpose in life.What good is mating when there will be 11 billion of us on the planet, and earths resources are exhausted and we die of in a matter of 50 years. This is the most optimistic outlook because many theoreticians suspect many other bad effects happening when the resources of the wild will be depleted, like plague, hunger, depression, lack of nutrition, etc.
- Sure there are a few companies out there trying to press this very view onto governments to make them aware, but it’s not working, not yet atleast.
- I think industrialism can be a ‘good’ thing, it just needs to be pointed in the right direction.
- As paradoxical as it may sound, I actually believe that innovative technologies will result in the restoration of the world to it’s original form prior to the birth of industrialization after World War One.
What’s your take?
We are consumers who have consumed the human race. We are fast forwarding our destiny as a race. We will go extinct …only sooner now 
Im not sure that, we will have technology as the savior of our race or whatever the previous post reflected. I dont think its a valid paradox…but who am i to say? only my opinion
I do think the next Epoch will be a rebirth of our present civilization. Maybe the selfishness of industrilization will be forgotten. When we think we are actually benefitting society by industrilizing and producer, Id beg to differ. But thats an American mentality.
I forgot what the stat was but it said every species goes extinct in lets say
‘x’ number of million years…maybe it was in the ballpark of 20-30 million I dont know.
Thats an intresting tid bit…
anyways
If technology persists the way it has…specifically medicine, the world will definatley be different in 100 years. Life will be different.
Will we have Utopian characteristics?
will we become A brave New World?
Will their be an apocolypse?
nobody knows
Am I the only one that doesn’t think we are progressing fast enough?
i can hear the sarcasm
sorry i haven’t posted here for quite abit, but by industrialisation i meant the way countries become ‘developed’ by comming through a mini-inudstrial revolution. and the aim of this topic wasn’t consumerism, but thinking of an alternative.
What is the use of industrialisation if the cost of our becoming develop or civilised is the destruction of tyhe peace in the whole world or the domination of the first worlod countries.
No. In the long run, industrialization does not work.
(1) By 2007-13, the demand for world oil will begin to exceed supply (Hubbert’s peak).
(2) The shortfall of supply to demand will increase by about 3% a year.
(3) The rising cost of oil will trigger a permanent worldwide depression by 2020-25.
(4) The world will run out of oil by 2040-50.
If you’ve eaten:
Even worse, thanks to the globalization of industry (read: exploitation of cheap labor), 10 of the 15 largest metropolitan areas are in the Third World.
A farmer has a chance of surving a prolonged economic downturn, but what chance does a factory worker in Beijing have?
Industry has led the Third World down the primrose path of urbanization.
In my opinion, industrialization is a business that doesn’t cover expenses.