Arminius wrote:Why is there this huge disproportion between (1.) machines and humans to the disadvantage of humans,
Proof must be provided this is true.
Arminius wrote:(2.) population of poor and population of rich countries to the disadvantage of about 99% of all humans;
Again, proof?
Arminius wrote: (3.) energetic resources and other resources to the disadvantage of non-energetic resources?
Is no such thing, though maybe if proof was provided I might listen a little better.
Arminius wrote:
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?
I agree, the disadvantage that is discussed is not provided with any proof, hell, not even an argument.
Arminius wrote: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 call 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.
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...
Arminius wrote:We must take another direction and slow down.
I disagree, though mostly because I can.
“Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries! Moreover, some politician who wants his vote will declare all these things to be among his ‘basic rights’” – An old saying rewritten by a follower of Thomas Sowell
"It's true that the bastards would win. But we shouldn't shut down a system just because the bastards win. A good system should be like a hamster wheel for bastards hooked up an electric generator. A well designed system is not one that prevents bastards from winning, but one that generates a lot of positive externalities from bastards trying to beat each other. And that's exactly what markets do. Markets entice bastards, they reward bastards, and the bastards love them, but as they operate they generate a lot of good that inadvertently benefits everyone else." - Carleas
The Newest EconPop:
Economics of Demolition ManThe man, Thomas Sowell:
Wealth, Poverty and PoliticsSowell's Writing