After substantial thought on the topic by various smart people, the answer seems to depend on the ultimate nature of physics and ultimately the ultimate end point of engineering. If leaving planets is engineering-impossible and we can't fling even small projectiles out of the Solar System at any reasonable fraction of lightspeed, then it's of primarily intellectual interest. If the Singularity is impossible and humans will remain recognizably human for the indefinite future but it's possible to travel between the stars enough to actually colonize things, eventual war of some sort seems pretty likely in most situations, though not necessarily to extinction (though not necessarily not!). If a Singularity is possible and looks something like Accelerando, the future of humanity may be an enormous set of entities of such incredible mutual alieness that meeting another set of such entities from another biological base may be of no particular note, locally exciting, globally ho-hum.
I haven't expanded much on the thinking behind these, because I mean them merely as examples of my main point and if I go on too long about them it becomes very tempting to miss it in a flurry of nitpicking about the details of various scenarios. My actual point is that we don't really know what happens, because we don't know what those engineering limits will be. There are some scenarios where the universe naturally favors species getting along, and there are scenarios in which the universe naturally favors species attempting to extinguish each other with all possible speed.
Assuming no ETs exist within our 200ly bubble, if ETs somehow discovered our signal and made contact, our level of knowledge would jump a few centuries at least.
Banking seems a lot like a gambling except that it's heads you win and tails they lose.
Lend big into a property bubble and you'll be rewarded with colossal bonuses.
The bubble bursts, loans go bad and the share price collapses.
However the main banks banks are considered too big to fail and the taxpayer has to bail them out.
Bonuses (smaller ones) for exceptional performance continue to be the norm, rolling heads the exception.
Why don't the shareholders get rid of their employees, the bankers who have overseen the collapse of their asset?
The shareholders are Pension funds who, while they ostensibly have the little peoples'interests to preserve, are actually run by people from the same gene pool as the bankers themselves.
These people sit on one anothers remuneration committees.
"Too big to fail" is a classic perverse incentive, and a mockery of the idea that the financial industry can somehow self-regulate.
Unfortunately, if you remove deposit insurance (or any of its variants), people's savings once again become subject to the self-fulfilling whims of insolvency or the unfounded rumour of insolvency.
Chinese, Indians, and Koreans have a completely different history in America than African Americans. Your comment is simplistic and easily falls apart under basic levels of scrutiny.
Those groups mostly had the luxury of immigrating to America AFTER black people fought for the civil rights of ALL American citizens. They reaped the benefits of black struggles while experiencing very little of the viciousness of racism.
That's not to say that there is nothing to learn from these groups though.
Certainly median and average incomes (and outcomes) for Asians and Indians tend to be above average but is that because the group as a whole is outperforming or because the top end screws the picture? These are not rhetorical questions, I'm seriously asking - it seems like poverty rates in the Asian community are fairly high in NYC and other locations.
A few rich people on the "top end" can screw up the average, but they don't do very much to the median. If the median is higher that's pretty strong evidence that they are, as a whole, outperforming.
And yet in regions with significant Asian populations you see poverty rates in excess of the white population (although generally better than blacks and Latinos).
Yes, if you slice the stats fine enough you can eventually find some statement of apparent interest, but it comes from your stat slicing, not anything useful. You name the race and I'll find a location in the world where they have poverty rates in excess of some other race. It's not useful information.
This is why it's so important to first formulate a question, then consult the stats; examining the stats for questions is actually very dangerous, you'll always find something, but not necessarily something important. Particularly when you start moving the goalposts when the stats didn't say what you wanted them to say.
Particularly when you start moving the goalposts when the stats didn't say what you wanted them to say.
I'm taking issue with your statement "if chinese, Indians and Koreans do well" and the implication that these groups are doing well. First there is the definition of "do well" which I'm taking to mean "performing as well as the majority (white) demographics." And then you next have to look at the statistics you want to compare.
Income is one relevant stat, but not the only one. There are others like poverty, upward mobility, lifespan, incarceration, addition and so on. Yes, Asians in the aggregate have higher median incomes than whites even, but to look at that one stat and then say "okay, no problems, we're done here" is not helpful.
But mine is clearly the minority opinion here. Such is life.
'I'm taking issue with your statement "if chinese, Indians and Koreans do well"'
Check the author lines a bit more carefully, please.
"And then you next have to look at the statistics you want to compare."
Actually, you provided the stats, I didn't look for anything. The stats you provided failed to make the point you wanted them to make. Then I simply reacted to your moving of the goalposts.
The problem is that you're basically correct that you can't just look at one stat, so you don't understand why I'm not just agreeing with you, but my problem is that your point is vacuous without spending a lot more time on it. There is a sea of statistics out there and you can slice whatever result you want out of them. It takes a lot more work to actually establish causation or even real-world significance of such things, which you're not doing.
If everybody's being discriminated against, and I can bend the stats to show everybody's got some sort of disadvantage somewhere, then it isn't obvious that anybody is. More work is needed than merely citing the stats showing the particular localized problems. Nobody gets life handed to them on a silver platter as a result of their race. (Those that do get life handed to them on a silver platter get it by other means, primarily rich parents, which dominates the race concern.)
Trying to live through this must have been so hard - and yes, maybe that involves bravery; but I think 'bravery' is the wrong term.
I think he lived an extremely difficult life - and I think it ended in tragedy.
It's a tragedy that he was subjected to abuse, it's a tragedy that he wasn't able to ask for (or receive) help and it's a complete and utter tragedy that he ended up taking his life.
The Dutch reclaimed a large proportion of their national territory from the sea, presumably because they needed more space and then proceeded to allow large scale immigration from Morocco.
I wouldn't like to live in Holland. They're packed like sardines there. Not cycling is probably not an option
Reclaimed land is primarily used for farming. The Netherlands is among the largest exporters of farming products, particularly flours and vegetables. Immigration from Morocco and Turkey was invited to fill low-end job as education levels rose and the economy went up the service chain. While family reunions caused immigration to be larger than anticipated, it is likely that additional immigration would otherwise have been necessary. The Dutch economy gets a lot of leverage from the Germany economy and one of its typical problems is overheating, causing a big shortage of workers. High-end job can be filled by the highly educated native population (including third+ generation immigrants), low-end jobs can be filled by new generations of immigrants. Societal problems have arisen from this throughout history. However, today's problem's are relatively minor compared to some of the problems with Moluccans in the '70s.
If you think the Netherlands has become hateful of immigration, guess again. The EU now gives the Netherlands access to a large supply of immigrants whenever the economy needs it. The Dutch are loving their cheap Polish construction workers. The Polish will start causing friction and change in Dutch culture at some point, like many generations of immigrants before them. The Dutch won't mind that much though. While it is in their nature to complain, they are among the wealthiest and happiest people.
What you're seeing is the result of 400 years of tradesmanship, not stupidity.
> If you think the Netherlands has become hateful of immigration, guess again.
It doesn't seem to be a majority view, but politicians running on "zero immigration" platforms, like Pim Fortuyn and Geert Wilders, do seem to have done fairly well at various times. At least, we hear a lot about them in the international media...
Society is in a constant state of flux, that's normal. The Netherlands tends to be rather open about its societal problems. The relatively large immigration of workers from Turkey and Morocco allowed isolated communities to form within the Netherlands. The lack of social contact with natives or government training led them into a relatively poor economic position, either without opportunities that natives enjoy or unaware of them. Within these communities, this led to higher unemployment, lower wages, increased crime rates, and an increased appreciation of the strict religious and political doctrines from their country of origin that does not fit in a modern liberal democracy.
Different political streams have different viewpoints on how to deal with cultural frictions caused by immigration. The right-wing populist stream that includes Wilders and Fortuyn has, as can be expected, rather simplistic views on the matter, directly linking increased crime rates to religious affiliation. Their views are supported by around 15% of the electorate, far from a majority. Wilders' party is currently playing a role in government, but the immigration measures it is responsible for are either symbolic or were already planned by previous governments. More importantly, their rhetoric or public debate does not match the reality of public affairs. Immigration is as high as ever and cannot be restricted due to EU policies. However, the general public cares more about cheap construction than about new cultural frictions that will inevitably arise from this.
I suspect you are trolling? You made a characterization of the Netherlands that seems to be constructed from randomly chosen and misrepresented facts, misunderstandings, and hand-waving...
The netherlands has increased its area by an extraordinary 25% by reclaiming land from the sea.
Despite this the netherlands is one of the most densely populated countries on earth.
It has further increased its population by allowing immigration on a large scale, which whatever else its consequences is not going to reduce population density.
Now if you look at a nightime satellite view of Europe, the Netherlands is an uninterrupted patch of light.
I'd rather live in a country where I have the possibility of escaping from my fellow man every once in a while.
That's not possible in Holland so I'd rather not live there.
I can, however, see why cycling is popular/necessary there
The Netherlands is at the 28th spot, behind countries such as South Korea, Singapore, and Macao. Then compare the densities of e.g. Singapore (7,023 per km^2) and The Netherlands (401 per km^2).
Stating the facts makes it all seem far less dramatic, doesn't it?
"Stating the facts makes it all seem far less dramatic, doesn't it?"
I don't believe that I have stated any fictions if that's what your last remark implies.
I had a look at the wiki page you linked to.
Most of those 27 countries ahead of the Netherlands are negligible in terms of size, vatican City, Guernsey, Monaco, St Martin?
There are some sizeable countries but I don't believe being able to report a population density lower than, say, Bangladesh, is a cause for celebration.
As for living in a country with a population density of over 7000 per sq km, it is not something to be aspired to.
The population density difference between living in the city and living in another place is much larger than between living in the Netherlands vs living in e.g. the US. The range of population densities available in nearly any country is enough for the vast majority of people.
Maybe you are correct. But the trend is in the wrong direction.
When look at world population growth there is imo potentially a population tsunami approaching.
Maybe my pessimism is unfounded, most people here seem to think it will all turn out rosy
To truly understand the machine and the software layers on top of it