Large-scale Society

Question: What would human society be like 300 years after a large scale nuclear war? Before you answer let me remind you of the following: 1: A nuclear war, even of the largest proportions would not wipe out mankind 2: Nuclear war certainly has the capacity to annihilate civilization as we know it 3: Even by liberal estimates, a large scale nuclear conflict would kill the majority of mankind (BUT NOT ALL). Shoot.

Answer: I think that after 300 years, man would be close to recovering at least the lost technology, and possibly land. I think that the population would still have a LOT to go to gain back to where we were, but it is on its way. Also, I think that a country will probably be rising up, and assuming the title of world super power again, perhaps two.

Question: Could large scale, organized, volunteer birthcontrol be a panacea for society's woes? Some one once said that society is doomed, as long as the population exceeds the food supply. This could be said for many other things. Bottom line, people need to stop having kids. Ok then, then just no sex. Or lots of vesectimes and tubes tied.

Answer: That won't work for many reasons: 1) The Catholic church opposes birth control; 2) people have very strong sex drives and they get lost in the heat of the moment, and 3) birth control in third world countries is very expensive and beyond the power to buy for most of them. But in theory, yes, volunteer birth control would solved a lot of the world's problems and there are charity who do try to work on this issue. I have donated money to help buy the beads that 3rd world country women can use to keep track of their most fertile times of the month and to teach them how to use them to cut down on births.

Question: Why does our society accept, or ignore large scale animal cruelty?

Answer: We know a child dies of starvation every five seconds, but don't sell all our stuff and give the money to charity. Most people are in denial that people and animals really suffer like they show on TV. It's much cozier to grab another coffee, switch the channel. As complex creatures in a complex society, humans can quite easily dismiss any responsibility. We can offset *any* concern by thinking other people will solve the problem:- "The government will fix it" "The consumer groups will fix it" "The animal activists will fix it" "The charities will fix it" All of this is particularly true if taking action would affect doing things many of us enjoy everyday:- --Eating meat/eggs/milk (animals factory farmed and executed) --Buying clothes (harsh treatment in animal production) --Avoiding risk (fear of taking action if you witness a crime) --Looking attractive (animal testing of cosmetics) --Staying clean (testing of cleaning and bathroom products) --Health of self, family, friends (testing of drugs) After all, it's been a hard day at work. Grab another coffee, switch the channel.

Question: Wouldn't a large scale asteroid impact on Mars be a very bad thing? Question for any of you with insight into the astronomical world: Isn't a large scale impact on Mars a BAD thing for humanity? In the news they keep saying how "excited scientists are," but couldn't this set back our society for potentially decades? Wouldn't a large scale impact make the Mars environment too hostile for human exploration, and being that it's really the only planet other than ours that we can explore safely, leave us with a great deal of lost opportunity until the planet stabilized? Obviously there are still many other bodies worth exploring, but Mars I'd say is the most reasonable foreign body other than our moon. Even to go to the Jovian moon's would take a great deal more advancement and travel time.

Answer: It wouldn't be bad, since the conditions of a life killer asteroid on Earth are different conditions than what the same asteroid would do on Mars. Mars will still be there and explorable after something the size of an asteroid hits it. If you are thinking of the amount of dust kicked up, remember that the atmosphere is thinner and the gravity lower, so not as much dust would hang around to obscure the planet as you would think.

Question: What might we call a small-scale social entrepreneur? A buzz word in the field of development is social entrepreneur. From the definitions I've looked up, this term generally refers to a dynamic individual who introduces a large-scale idea to the world that will help transform society. But what of the leaders within small communities around the world, that think of small ideas, which changes the lives of their neighbors and makes their corner of the world better with negligible support from the outside. I'm trying to think of a catchy title for a proposal that is meant to empower such individuals in Cambodia.

Answer: Local change agent entrepeneur.

Question: What impact does social division still have on society? Although the extremes of poverty and aristocracy are no longer expressed openly in society what impacts does social division through class still have on the community and on a larger scale of the world?

Answer: division separates, impact would be negative due to alienation.

Question: Why is a government takeover of medical care for the rest of society a good idea? What large-scale government program has not eventually spiraled out of control, let alone stayed within its projected budget? Why should anyone believe that nationalizing health care would create the first major government program to "pay for itself," let alone get smaller rather than larger over time?

Answer: It might spiral out, it might not. At least the govt. wouldn't be out for a profit or be allowed to deny anyone because they have a preexisting condition! This plan is ideal for people who cant get insurance through the other large-scale faceless insurance companies. Nationalized health care works for all the other countries that do it, why are you such a cry baby about it? Look up health care in other countries and see how much happier and healthier they are. No one in Canada has ever lost their home or had to declare bankruptcy because they got sick! Fox News never talks about that!

Question: If you had to implement a new idea on a large scale...? how would you go about doing it. Assuming that the society is so set in it's ways, how would you go about showing that this new idea or simple change can improve the community.

Answer: Use religion, it's like a mgic wand...and i mean use and not misuse religion. This is the case for Egypt and i believe arab and islamic countries as well.If you can find support for this idea in religion, you're sure to have people heart and soul with you, and the first hurdle will be cleared. Then use the media and any other tools to communicate it to everbody. The key is Religion.

Question: How does a small business initially get their name out quickly on a LARGE scale, and how much $$ does it take? I am starting a small business with a friend. We have a great product, and business experience on the small business scale, but we're just not sure how to get our name out there on the next level. We want to go really big really fast because we don't want someone with more $$ to come in and take over the idea. All I can say about the product now is that it's collectible, durable goods, and a portion of our proceeds will be going to a different charity every year (American Cancer Society, ADA, etc.) One of our big "pitches" is that we are a charitable organization...how can we best utilize our idea?? Thanks for any help!

Answer: you have to define big. but in general you have to advertise and promote where the mass audiences are - so if you are going to be online, you have to be on the largest portals and mass audience consumer sites. Tie that in with tons of smaller relevant content sites which tie nicely into your message. If you need to do this very quickly, budget for no less than $500K and do some very impactful positioning. Or go with TV...something like the superbow. Budget $200K to produce a spot, another $10 million to advertise and another $350K in agency fees... Any way, you need the help of a professional ad services firm, contact me if you want a lead in that area.

Question: Which type of society would you prefer to live in? I say abundance industrialism FTW! "Abundance industrialism" = Super Tech; Barker & Erickson imagined that unlimited economic growth could continue indefinitely - if we can move large-scale mineral extraction and manufacturing into outer space, to the abundant resources of other planets and asteroids, and successfully develop commercial fusion power. (i.e. Galactic Domination) "Scarcity industrialism" = Limits Tech, with its emphasis on energy efficiency and reviving mass transit systems; but Greer clearly sees such a society as an inescapable and temporary downward slope, not a sustainable future to be striven for. He didn't see the possibility of waste-to-energy technologies becoming a permanent substitute for fossil fuels, or of ecosystem restoration becoming a major force in the global economy. "Salvage Societies" sounds like your basic post-holocaust dark age, with communities dependent on the material leftovers of a glorious past, sliding ever further into deprivation and ignorance, with the inevitable neo-feudal or tribal governments and vast social inequality. "Ecotechnic Socieies" may equate to Local Tech &/or Nature Tech, based on hi-tech elements which can be based entirely on renewable, natural processes - advanced but not heavily industrial. (Basically where people live in their own sustainable house powered by renewable energy and everyone is happy most of the time, and just sit around e-mailing other people across the world and composting)

Answer: I would want to be in a futureistic type society. I could not live without technology. I think that would be a good society that I would like to live in.

Question: Does anyone think a revolution is still possible in today's American society? I'm not radical, or a terrorist, I am merely inquiring if you guys think it is possible for Americans as we know them to revolt on a large scale. I don't by the way Discuss thanks

Answer: I do, and I actually see it coming down to that if the government doesn't change a few things soon!!! People as a whole, they'll only tolerate so much!!! :@)

Question: When proponents of large scale migration and economic migration? defend the migrants by attacking the low-paid British worker ie "We need Polish workers because British chavs are all too lazy to work"/ Polish workers are more qualified and harder workers than the stupid lazy British"/"Its the British worker's fault he's low paid as he didn't go to university" etc etc etc Aren't they being a bit hypocritical don't you think? In standing up for the poor persecuted immigrants they are attacking some of the most powerless and disadvantaged people in their own society, and thats just hypocrisy, surely? Spike I'm talking about LOW-PAID workers not the unemployed. Read the Q. Keypointist - I often wonder why the Government takes about £300 a month from my family's wage in tax and then gives us about the same back in Working + Child Tax Credits. Its a bit pointless really don't you think? And like you says it keeps us dependent on the state.

Answer: It's not just the fact that immigrants are taking low paid jobs. It's the fact that British workers are losing their jobs in favour of immigrants who will work for a lot less. 18 months ago one firm I do work for had a full British workforce, now there are 3 British workers and the rest are immigrants. The only advantage from this situation is increased company profits.

Question: Which of the following was NOT a significant trend of sixteenth and seventeenth century English society? A. a large scale displacement of rural people from the land B. a dramatic increase in population C. the elimination of gender hierarchies D. enlarged public debate over the meaning of freedom

Answer: Terry, are you study (hope not cheating) for an exam? The answer is C. Although these were the times of late Renaissance and early industrialization for Great Britain, women were still expected to conform to the cult of domesticity. Enclosure of rural Britain meant an increase in the urbanization and future factory labor, thus rural people were displaced. Public debate grew in Parliament and we see the English civil war and later the Bloodless Revolution. Freedom was important for the former nobles and landed gentry of England.

Question: what is the ideal size population needed to make a 'successful' permaculture society? too small - not enough diversity, or an 'eco-village'? too large - not a community, but now a collection of communities? what is the optimum size of a population to allow a permaculture-based society to thrive? it would seem easy to do with a handful or couple dozen people, but has there been any attempt at doing this on a large scale? what might the difficulties be with either extreme? how would they be solved? philosophy of permaculture... http://permaculture.org.uk/

Answer: Two views, the traditional Eco Village view which is well researched and the concept of ideal population size is highly contested See paper Eco Village Sustainable Lifestyle For a typical outcome. See Key Finding Number 3: 'The size of eco-villages varies There is no agreement as to the most desirable size of an eco-village. From the examples visited in Europe the smallest was the Hockerton Housing Project, near Nottingham in England with only 5 houses, nine adults and a number of children. By contrast the 4 eco-villages which comprise the Damanhur Federation, near Turin, Italy have a combined total of 400 full time residents. Within the Damanhur Federation, the citizens interact on a daily basis with a more manageable unit of people living in 20 houses. Discussions in Damanhur indicated that this unit for social interaction and decision making for some matters was now considered to be too large. A more reasonable number of houses was probably around the 6 to 13 as enabled by Byron Local Environmental Plan, 1988 and the Byron Rural Settlement Strategy, 1998. Perhaps such a cluster could be regarded as an eco-hamlet with a grouping of such clusters as an eco-village. Implication' The second view is that any size population, few houses, village, city can be made into a successful permaculture society merely by those within it ARE PARTICIPATING IN A PERMACULTURE LIFESTYLE.This model is a better fit for city/town living where ownership is usually a mixture of privately owned, landlord owned, council house owned etc. The main failing of 'eco-villages' and other commune living is the diversity in opinion, funding, experience, ability, effort etc within that eco-village. This diversity should be it's strength, however, co-ownership often denies uniqueness so many eco villages fail. A city permaculture lifestyle relies on reciprocity but can not demand it. Therefore in my opinion, it encourages diversity and co-operation so is, perhaps, a more workable model.

Question: to what extent does the vanity of the reigning monarch affect the artistic ambition of society? do narcissistic royals encourage patronage of the arts on a larger scale?

Answer: They certainly can. Aside from creating opportunities for many artists to work for them and glorify their reigns via art, their projects may inspire other patrons to commission new works of art and architecture for their own glorification. It has often happened that one important patron's activities in this area trigger something of an artistic explosion in a given area.

Question: Do we as a society, make the brain out to be more complex than it already is? Basically, we may think that the brain is more complex but on a larger scale it is not as hard as it seems. Basically saying "I give up I can't figure this puzzle or math problem out." When in reality we just are too lazy to waste our time on it.

Answer: I'd have to say no, for the following reasons: 1. Saying that the brain is complex is not a cop out - it is the opposite. When scientists note the complexity of the brain it is not because they want to stop studying it but rather to justify continued studying (and financial support for studying) the brain. 2. The brain has a LOT of neurons. Recent work has also highlighted the role of other cells in the brain (specifically glia) as being relevant in neural computation. This discovery adds an order of magnitude to the potential number of "computing" cells in the brain. 3. Attempts to replicate brain functions, ie. artificial intelligence, have typically been less successful than expected. We have not yet created a computer that can distinguish between the image of a cat and a dog (something that a 3 year old can do). 4. The brain is complex in the mathematical sense. Here the word complex describes a system where cells are constantly interacting. This isn't equivalent to complexity in the English sense, but essentially means that the output of a neural system can be unpredictable. This unpredictability does indeed yield some (English sense of the word) complexity. 5. Behavior is complex, and the brain has a large role in regulating behavior. Neuroscientists are still coming up with data explaining how the brain of a fly works - a brain with many fewer cells than ours. 6. I actually didn't give up, I went on to study the brain. I wasn't the only one, neuroscience is one of the fastest growing fields of research throughout the world. All these people obviously didn't "give up" and many advances have come out of this field (including neural prostheses and pharmaceuticals to name a few).

Question: Which of the following was NOT a significant trend of sixteenth-and seventeenth-century English society? A. a large-scale displacement of rural people from the land B. a dramatic increase in population C. the elimination of gender hierachies D. enlarged public debate over the meaning of freedom

Answer: C

Question: What causes teen girls to ignore a pregnancy until the birth? I'm talking about the occasional case of a young woman who somehow ignores a pregnancy until a baby suddenly arrives. This often ends in tragedy when the girl panics and abandons the child. What influences could lead to this behavior? 1) On a small scale - what sort of family dynamics might she have, what sort of personality, etc. What might pre-dispose a young woman to ignoring a pregnancy? 2) On a larger scale, is our society somehow leading to this problem? Is there such shame involved with teen pregnancy? Is it a lack of resources for mothers? Is it an emphasis on career over motherhood? Or, could it be an emphasis on avoiding abortion? Any and all ideas are welcome. A pregnancy is often not seen as a blessing, even for women with adequate resources. Even a surprise pregnancy in a 25 year old with a job is greeted with "oh no!" by friends and family. That's what I mean by "an emphasis on career over motherhood".

Answer: speaking as a person who was pregnant I can answer the reasons that I did not tell anyone. Yes I knew I was pregnant. Did I try to ignore it? yes I did. My reason (although I know how stupid they are now) was mainly fear. Fear my mother would disown me, fear my boyfriend would leave me, fear that my friends would no longer want to be around me. Fear that my older sister would kill me. Shame that I had let myself get this way. Fear that people at school would find out. I waited so long to tell an "adult" that a doctor would not see me as I was to far along and had not seen a doctor. The only doctor who would take me was the local health department. Now 17 years later and my daughter I gave birth to is now the age I was when she got pregnant. I make sure she is informed and aware of what can happen. I knew she had a steady b/f for a year, I took her down and had her put on birth control. Want to break the cycle.

Question: Modern society and role models question? We hear a lot of bark from separate groups claming that celebities have a poor, yet powerful influence on society, espcially children, due to their displays of consumerism, bad language, & overall media **** shovelling and reaching people on a large scale. With the advent of the internet, an otherwise anonymous voice can be seen by 1000's or millions on a global network & there has been a rising interest in what those voices are saying & who's listening. One doesn't need to go far to find out that the internet can be a pretty foul place. Anybody who's ever been to the ill-fated Yahoo 'Discussion boards' knows that what went on in there was anything but discussion. More of a racist/sexist/xenophobic cesspool. Kids can wander onto these sites & read some weird, twisted points of view on the world. Not all the time, but it happens & they are exposed to the same garbage everyone complains about with celebrities and much worse in an unfiltered typically unmonitored fashion. Question is this: Where is our sense of individual social responsibility? Why do we wait for others to get the job done when it comes to social problems and do you think it’s possible to overcome this indifference?

Answer: There is one thing you really can't base on being biast and that is society is always changing. Today we live in a big pond of information, consumerism and anything else we want on in our hands! One thing is I have noticed is people HAVE to get their opinions to be heard. There is nothing wrong with that but it just shows how if everyone wants to get their opinion heard nobody will listen to anyone else's. So that is why the Media will make everyone want to hear the negative side of the story whenever possible. The quote "You never really know a person until you stand in their shoes and walk around in them" does really show how an individual can be influenced from their own life observations and I know that is what alot of people need these days.

Question: Does anyone believe in a Utopian society? Can it work? I have major doubts. I do not believe that hierarchy would be extinguished. How would the society be implemented without large scale revolution and war? Could it be maintained without dissent? A proper Utopia would need no military (that is just communism). How would this be achieved if there is going to be opposition to the new society? Is it possible to create a society where all humans have equal resources and are provided with the necessities equally? Can this be done with no central governance? Can human society exist with out governance? Please, any Utopians out there, I need convincing. Michael, I am a smoker. I am not talking about a communist society with central governance. Read the question. I am speaking about a Utopia in the true sense. Where money doesn't exist, nor does State, religion, poverty, debt, power consolidation, political parties or commodity. I know it is uncomprehensible, doesn't mean it could not exist. Don't project a communist regime of power onto something that transcends political ideals. Bundygil, I fear you are correct. Does that then mean that humans can only exist with a degree of slavery, be it monetary or otherwise?

Answer: I believe in something like that. But I know that the requirements are big, that is, all of us have to have much above the average mental and emotional IQ and very very large and economic energetic resources. Communism is OK as a system (not the so called "comunism" in the desintegrated countries), but human mentality is way back to deal with such an advanced system. Simply, humans, as a race, are not that developed yet, dealing (and occupied!) everyday with their primal impulses, still guided by the system of punnishment. So for monkeys like us, capitalism is our sweet little cage. Additional note: Recession proved that the economy need central power, the goverment and the state, otherwise where to get the money infusion? That was totally uncapitalistic, actually it was very much socialistic. So is it that capitalism is just the connecting thread for the new system?