What if Earth's population was only 100?

by FlyingHighNow 69 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Not really. Some of them are probably completely useless, and in fact, a burden on the rest of you.

  You sound just like this: (We all know what was done with such citizens, don't we? Conservative America is dangerously close to this kind of solution sounding palatable )

  This poster is from the 1930’s, and promotes the Nazi monthly Neues Volk (New People}, the organ of the party’s racial office. The text reads: “This genetically ill person will cost our people’s community 60,000 marks over his lifetime. Citizens, that is your money. Read Neues Volk, the monthly of the racial policy office of the NSDAP.”
• 

  botchtowersociety

  I have this feeling that the 100 people would probably make sure the doc gets some R & R and he'll probably train a nurse or some assistant to help while he is off on the other side of the island.

  But that isn't the scenario from previously. There are 100 people, and one doctor. However, with the modificiation, if the one doctor takes a vacation, there would be a person not fully trained to deal with every situation.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  But that isn't the scenario from previously. There are 100 people, and one doctor. However, with the modificiation, if the one doctor takes a vacation, there would be a person not fully trained to deal with every situation.

  Originally there was a doctor. It was someone else who brought up sending him on vacation. If there are 100 people, the doctor would obviously want to train another doctor or nurse or someone with EMT type training, in case he himself got sick or was unavailable. The point is, there are only 100 people. They have to be smart and figure out how to make it work, or they won't survive. They have to value each other and have each other's backs.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  But people don't always value each other or have each other's backs. People are more likely to value themselves and watch their own backs, at least part of the time. This is the reality of human nature, and it applies to the the doctor as well. The more people there in a group, the more people will behave in this way towards the group at large. In a small group of people, where they all live closely together and intimately, such as a family, this will occur less. There isn't a hard limit, but in some studies of humans, it might be as many as a dozen people at the very most. In your scenario of 100 people, almost all the people will be like this, at least part of the time.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Think about it, Botch, 100 people don't have the luxury of being pissy and selfish. Think about tribes: they have to take care of each other or they fail.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  They may not have the option in yout opinion, but people don't always agree on things. I doubt you will get 100 people to agree unanimously on many things. I also doubt that they would all freely choose the same goals. Even in tribes, this is the case. Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel covers this subject of psychology and governance of tribes. He lived among New Guinea tribes for years.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  This is the reality of human nature,

  The Republican party is trying hard to persuade everyone that it is. I'm looking forward to the day that society swings back in the direction of human kindness and looking out for neighbors. It will, too. I have faith that people will reach out in the darkness and unite. For united we stand, divided we fall. I remember that the whole philosophy of the WTBTS was to be selfish. Some people don't shake that survival of the fittest think when they exit.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=460INShy3BU

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqLRd4neGGE
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  I doubt you will get 100 people to agree unanimously on many things.

  That doesn't mean they cannot come out with a system that works for the good of all. Families do it all the time.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  The Republican party is trying hard to persuade everyone that it is.

  You turn this into a partisan political discussion, which is not the subject of my posts. You counter what I think are real world observations on how humans behave with idealism. That's fine, I guess, but it does not address the story of the 100 people.

  That doesn't mean they cannot come out with a system that works for the good of all. Families do it all the time.

  Yes, but as I mentioned earlier small groups operate differently from large ones--far smaller than 100 people. Small groups can sustain daily face to face interaction and extensive interpersonal communication between every member with every other member. Larger groups cannot. We are evolutionarily wired to work well in small groups, not large ones.
• 

  botchtowersociety

  Jeff, if there are only 100 people...

  If there is a doctor...

  The people will have to get only the care this one doctor can give. Universal means they all have access to this doctor's care: no one is denied. Doctors could not always do what they do today. Relatively a short time ago, they were debating whether micro-orgamisms cause disease. But the doctors could set bones, sew people up, perform some surgeries, deliver babies, treat a lot of illnesses.

  And back then most people never saw the age of 50. While setting bones, delivering babies while giving the mothers puerperal fever and performing surgeries likely to lead to infection, doctors were likely to kill their patients. It took Semmelweis' ideas on sanitation and later Pasteur on germs to begin to put an end to it. Is inferior better than superior if it is universal?