Like a half a dozen political science impaired people before you, you don't understand that the word socialist has multiple meanings and in those countries and actually to most people is isn't the one associated with communism. Socialism is commonly a concept of social wealth redistribution without any implication on any type of governmental structure. It predates Marx. The confused drivel is the fact that many "capitalists" fail to even try to acknowledge any definition other then the communism one and imply any steps towards social programs such as health care is a step towards communism.
social democracies run under socialist ideals. Canada least so of those three. USSR is the Marx socialist is much more specific. It would be like people running around saying computers are all laptops. When presented with a desktop, they scream about that not being a computer.
Just to clarify,
socialism = super set
communism = sub set of socialism
Canada, Denmark, Sweden = somewhere in the Socialism set.
USSR, PRC, Cuba = somewhere within the communism subset.
In all fairness, it's not really socialism - none of the countries mentioned (Netherlands, Canada, Scandinavian countries, etc.) have command economies, state ownership of property, and so forth. A lot of Americans seem to think that a national health care system automatically equals gray concrete walls and red stars, but it's not so.
Depends on your definition of "socialism". The more common one would apply, ie that we apply ideas of social wealth redistribution.
I call bullshit on that. -- any european want to chime in here? from ANY country to any country- so long as it's all EU? I simply find that ubelievable...
and therefore- the rest of it I find hard to believe...
You'd have every right to call bullshit.. 20 years ago. Right now western Europe acts as basically one nation assembled from various nation states. The European union.
Just because someone else (or, really, everyone else) pays for it doesn't mean it's free.
Considering every western nation spends less tax dollars then the US per person I'd say you don't have much of a point. The total spending is enormous because the system rampantly profiteers off those who need it in the US while most of the rest of the world has a saner system. If you are in the top 5% who can pay for everything themselves then the US is the best system with least line ups and most advanced care. If you live as the other 95% then you are either on par or worse off then Canada, or much of Europe. In either case you are spending twice as many tax dollars and triple in total for you care.
You are focusing on the tradition way to build a telecom infrastructure. What unregulated competition encourages is "lean and mean" telecom providers that can survive by creating a cost-effective infrastructure... even if it requires them to mountn $10 hubs on telephone poles.
Since no where on earth (no country I have ever read about) has had a company build the infrastructure from scratch if there is already an existing infrastructure, it strongly suggests that the situation you desire for "true" competition is impossible and this crippled regulatory "competition" is the best we can manage. Idealists (as capitalists are) tend to neglect data and lean heavily on appeals to emotion, authority, or down right repetition. True unbridled capitalism is impossible due entirely to not making the right assumptions about people. Just as Marxist communism is impossible because it fails to account for the same thing. Given the ability to really compete or to bride, cheat, and monopolize all companies would prefer the later.
It's a pretty sad life where your purpose in life is dictated to you by an imaginary person. Believe as you want but don't attempt to denigrate others beliefs because you lack the capacity to see their point of view.
Irony already noted. I was trying to be non judgmental in the reply. I failed miserably.
If you don't believe in a creator of some sort or something greater than yourself, then human existence as something to be sustained means nothing.
With or without a creator Life has meaning. We organize meaning into it for ourselves. If you want it to be God that yours choice. If not we still have a biological purpose to survive and a drive to grow. Need I a god to be happy? It's a pretty sad life where your purpose in life is dictated to you by an imaginary person. Believe as you want but don't attempt to denigrate others beliefs because you lack the capacity to see their point of view.
Communism is a phase that is supposed to follow socialism. In communism the means of production are allegedly shared by everyone but this is preceded by socialism which consist in the dictatorship of the proletariat and state ownership of means of production.
Sweden, Denmark are social-democracies, not socialist countries even though they do rely on socialism as an ideology.
Socialism has multiple definitions. Most people refer to the Sweden, Canada, Denmark kind when using the word. You are scarecrowing. While we are refering to one definition you are argueing against something else. A wonderfully overused logical fallacy. Although this one would only fool those who are already on your side as most of the rest of us can tell the difference. It is also a Fallacies of definition.
Socialism as in the term associated with communism is actually just communism. The idea itself hasn't killed or changed anything but the implementations have. But the impovrishment arguement is also inane. Because most of the countries were mostly impoverished before as well.
Don't hold your breath. It took almost 3 years - and a new OS - to get Halo 2 to the PC. Halo is an XBox experience, not a PC experience, and it seems in Microsoft's best interest to keep it that way.
It's in MS xbox divisions best interest. For bungie the best interest would be a multi platform release but their owner is MS.
I might just swap with my GF's brother. When I finish MGS4 and he finishes halo 3 we'll swap systems and games.
Good for them. We have no practical need to land humans on Mars. The bottom line is that it serves no real scientific purpose that can not be achieved better and cheaper with machines.
Everybody says that but a the reason would be monetary. It's much easy to get a antionalistic government to bank role "get a man to mars to prove we're better then them" then "send 400 probes to mars for scientific reasons". So while it's mroe efficient to send 400 unmanned missions it's easier to get bankrol from attempting to send people. Also the advances in space travel ebineering that would be a required is worth it all on it's own.
Yeah, and those Swedes really have their shit together. It may be confused drivel, but socialism isn't a utopia of any sort once you factor in human nature.
Did I make any sort of value statement? There is no ideal system, no pure implementations. Socialism is a set of ideas, communism is another set. The original statement abotu socialism wanted to confuse socialism with communism. The difference is socialism does not require any particular sort of organization but only a few ideas about wealth redistribution. communism contains many ideas of not only the roel btu the structure fo the government. Thus socialism != communism and the reference to murdered people is more in line with the murders of communist states such as the former USSR, Cuba, post revolution China, Cambodia etc..
Sorry to admit, as a Canadian, I confirm we can't be considered socialists, especially with the actual Conservative government and the power of the oil industry in the western provinces.
I'm a registered conservative. Sorry to break it to you but compared to the states dems even I am a pinko communist in their eyes. The Repub and Demos are both right of centre in relation to canada and european political scales. The Libs and conservatives are left of centre. We have and believe in universal health care and verious other socialist ideals. We beleive welath redistribution is good and thus it makes us a fairly socialist state. Socialism does not preculde corruption or large corporation. It's a political point of view that stresses the state as a method of wealth redistribution and social safety net. AISH, Health care, welfare, dep of native afafirs etc... all a socialist style programs.
The assumption that the clones of IBM were not legitimate or that anybody that clones the iPhone is inherently cheating is completely incorrect. Anybody that opens an iPhone up and reads the logic, who then uses that to duplicate the iPhone completely would be opening themselves to lawsuits. Using the Chinese wall method, has been found many times to be a legitimate form of reverse engineering.
That is how capitalism works, somebody has an idea, and sells it, somebody else finds a way of duplicating it for less money and endeavors to drive the first guy out of business. Just because what we have now is so bastardized from capitalism, doesn't mean that the definition should change.
Reverse engineering / Chinese wall is simply a more abstracted way to copy and use someone elses ideas. I agree it's pretty much a intergral part of capitalism.
Fascism != Communism. USSR and China are fascist dictatorships. Cuba kind of is, but a more benevolent one perhaps. Anyway, don't confuse the evils of fascism with communism.
They are for sure facists now. But durign the great leap forward or stalins starvation of the unkrainians or political purges it was "communist" in the sense of what marx had in mind. The state of what government would be after a revolutions but before you could reprogram all your workers into happy egalatarian communes. I doubt they would have ever gotten there left on their own.
Socialism killed millions of people and impoverished billions. Regulation is a violent intervention in peaceful trade, it's legitimate to oppose it, with force if necessary.
Communism != socialism. Sweden, denmark, Canada etc.. are socialists. USSR, China and Cuba are Communist. Stop it with the confused drivel.
Maybe because they aren't completely 'making' the product when they copy the internal workings of another? Development costs are a real factor in the manufacturing of a product. Someone who gets to copy another's product without paying the development costs reaps an unfair advantage, it's just like industrial espionage.
Capatalism doesn't diallow this. Your trying to attach notions of innovation with capalism but it's not an inherent part. Look at the free wheeling capalism at the turn of the century. Or even the capalaism of the US ve Europe. MAssive technical espionage and stealing of ideas, designs, machines etc...Even as little as 25 years ago with the massive cloning of the IBM PC. The Theft of ideas has always been a part of capalism.
Correction: Most people who buy a Wii don't care what the differences in the hardware specs are between the systems. They only look at the gameplay.
Not quite. The majority of wii games have the gameplay value of a ad support crapware game. It's a mass of mini games the "hardcore" or "mediumcore" got bored of back before puberty. But the mainstream market haven't played them yet so that is where a lot of the games are pandering. Rayman, Warioware, etc.. are all really poor "gameplay" to those who play a lot. We prefer warcraft 3, counter strike, Odin sphere and GTA. The mainstream isn't looking at "gameplay" their just getting used to this stuff. It's all new to them.
I cannot give you what you seek, but I can at least share with you something I remember from the PS2 launch. When the PS2 was launched in Japan, the launch selection sucked. In addition to that, DVD players were a recent thing and the PS2 offered a lower-cost solution. Not long after the launch, Next Generation magazine had an article about fears expressed regarding the PS2's DVD compatibility. They found that lots of people were buying PS2s and several DVDs, but few of them were buying more than one game. This was a problem for Sony because they were taking a loss on the system and needed to sell an average of 4 games per system to turn a profit.
the 4 game attach rate to profitability is a myth. Sony stated after the first month the PS2 was sold at a profit. Few corporations have deep enough pockets or are fool hardy enough to do what MS and Sega did with their consoles. NAmely take a loss on each unit.
Who they asked is as important as what they asked. IF they did an exit poll of PS3 buyers and asked "hey do you know what blu-ray is?" the 40% who are clueless parents buying it for their kid would obviously say "huh?".
I might be some strange freak but I never read reviews on games or movies before I play or buy them. Why? because they are often laced with mild spoilers and tainted you by setting up or bringing down your expectations. They point out "flaws" you may not have cared about or noticed until they did this or they might be useless fluff. Similiarly I avoid trailers. I do read them after I have played them. But more often to see how others felt about what I liked/disliked. If I went to see Borne ultamatium I want to see reviews afterwards to see if others had the same impression i did. Sort of a anonymous one sided water cooler conversation. If I hated it I'd like to see others savage the movies/game. If I loved it I want to see what others liked or disliked about it.
I find I'm occsionally disappointed by spending when I shouldn't have (child of mana) but on the flip side I get gems that fit my gaming needs I might have otherised passed up due to low review scores (Izuna).
It has long been understood that evolution tends towards less specialization and more generalization as environments rapidly change and become more diverse and challenging, and as species range further. The necessity of mental abstraction and self-alienation will become more evident as we delve into our more recent evolution. (And from this will come insights into the need for our so-called "religious practices" that semi-moderate this alienation. But that's a topic for another day!)
No not really. phenotypes drift in all different directions and specialist sometimes out compete generalists. When the environment shifts, who ever can still survive continues. In rapidly shifting environs generalists are favored. Areas that border two non static environment types like a Jungle and a veld that grow and contract. Environments that are more stable tend to favor specialists.
sorry for the double reply
PS. From the gist of your original post I'm guessing your(sic) either gay or infertile. Neither, actually. well.. color me wrong and dyslexic.
Yes, I know. I'm not arguing that this isn't the case. I'm saying that this NEEDS TO CHANGE. If we keep going down that path we're going to live in a world with 10B or more people. Why does it stop at 10B? Because that's about the point where famine, disease, war and genocide will balance out production (give or take some depending on technological advances or other things we can't predict). And then the real fun begins! Population wars. Conflicts over WATER will make this centuries oil conflicts look like a Sunday afternoon in the park. Combine that with the fact that it's nearly possible for any nation state with even a modest amount of money to spend on defense to have a nuclear program and you're going to have the bloodiest period of human history we've ever seen. It's only going to work differently if every culture on earth were to agree, at the same time, to change. This wont happen, we can agree on that at least. So your mind set does fit the (sad) reality of our current world, but damn it we HAVE to try for something better.
Well, nukes do require immense infrastructure. ICBMS require a space program. The reason smaller satellite nations like Iran, korea, and Isreal developed them is due to them pooling their resources in the former two cases and a liberal amount aid from bigger nations in all three. You go through a lot of ore to get enough uranium. You need a lot of engineering skill as well. That little genie is a fairly costly affair.
Change is hard. The logistics of such a cultural shift of such magnitude it is nearly impossible to orchestrate. You would need something roughly 116 times as big and brutal as the romance of the three kingdoms to bring everyone under one thought umbrella. I doubt there is any way to do it short of violence. The shift to smaller numbers is hard because it goes against core principle of all successful culture. That is the belief that growth is good. Just as Marxism needs violence to re-educate those who have that sharing is good and that violence will likely be needed to convince the patriarchy that men and women are functionally equal (I am certain we are not fully biologically equal). You need to bitch-slap the idea that 5 citizen workers are better then 10. The opposing side is not willing to change. The ideas aren't that sexy anymore and we can't convert their children and disturbingly they are converting ours. I'm more pragmatic and vote we just reproduce more and find technological hedges and small cultural shifts to shift us green rather then attempt to erase a (pseudo?) biological drive to spread and multiply. I'm not an good idealist. I'm a messy sometimes wrong but always trying to get ahead pragmatist with an culture to protect. I feel at least 3 more of me would be a good thing.
On a darker note: Biology tends to self inhibit our numbers. Our world wide fecundity is dropping faster then the drop in the west should account for. I think we're either poisoning ourselves or biology has a few limiting mechanisms we aren't' familiar with yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Like a half a dozen political science impaired people before you, you don't understand that the word socialist has multiple meanings and in those countries and actually to most people is isn't the one associated with communism. Socialism is commonly a concept of social wealth redistribution without any implication on any type of governmental structure. It predates Marx. The confused drivel is the fact that many "capitalists" fail to even try to acknowledge any definition other then the communism one and imply any steps towards social programs such as health care is a step towards communism.
social democracies run under socialist ideals. Canada least so of those three. USSR is the Marx socialist is much more specific. It would be like people running around saying computers are all laptops. When presented with a desktop, they scream about that not being a computer.
Just to clarify,
socialism = super set
communism = sub set of socialism
Canada, Denmark, Sweden = somewhere in the Socialism set.
USSR, PRC, Cuba = somewhere within the communism subset.
socialism
In all fairness, it's not really socialism - none of the countries mentioned (Netherlands, Canada, Scandinavian countries, etc.) have command economies, state ownership of property, and so forth. A lot of Americans seem to think that a national health care system automatically equals gray concrete walls and red stars, but it's not so.
Depends on your definition of "socialism". The more common one would apply, ie that we apply ideas of social wealth redistribution.
I call bullshit on that. -- any european want to chime in here? from ANY country to any country- so long as it's all EU? I simply find that ubelievable...
and therefore- the rest of it I find hard to believe...
You'd have every right to call bullshit.. 20 years ago. Right now western Europe acts as basically one nation assembled from various nation states. The European union.
Free. Right. Yeah. That's cute.
Just because someone else (or, really, everyone else) pays for it doesn't mean it's free.
Considering every western nation spends less tax dollars then the US per person I'd say you don't have much of a point. The total spending is enormous because the system rampantly profiteers off those who need it in the US while most of the rest of the world has a saner system. If you are in the top 5% who can pay for everything themselves then the US is the best system with least line ups and most advanced care. If you live as the other 95% then you are either on par or worse off then Canada, or much of Europe. In either case you are spending twice as many tax dollars and triple in total for you care.
You are focusing on the tradition way to build a telecom infrastructure. What unregulated competition encourages is "lean and mean" telecom providers that can survive by creating a cost-effective infrastructure... even if it requires them to mountn $10 hubs on telephone poles.
Since no where on earth (no country I have ever read about) has had a company build the infrastructure from scratch if there is already an existing infrastructure, it strongly suggests that the situation you desire for "true" competition is impossible and this crippled regulatory "competition" is the best we can manage. Idealists (as capitalists are) tend to neglect data and lean heavily on appeals to emotion, authority, or down right repetition. True unbridled capitalism is impossible due entirely to not making the right assumptions about people. Just as Marxist communism is impossible because it fails to account for the same thing. Given the ability to really compete or to bride, cheat, and monopolize all companies would prefer the later.
It's a pretty sad life where your purpose in life is dictated to you by an imaginary person. Believe as you want but don't attempt to denigrate others beliefs because you lack the capacity to see their point of view.
Irony already noted. I was trying to be non judgmental in the reply. I failed miserably.
If you don't believe in a creator of some sort or something greater than yourself, then human existence as something to be sustained means nothing.
With or without a creator Life has meaning. We organize meaning into it for ourselves. If you want it to be God that yours choice. If not we still have a biological purpose to survive and a drive to grow. Need I a god to be happy? It's a pretty sad life where your purpose in life is dictated to you by an imaginary person. Believe as you want but don't attempt to denigrate others beliefs because you lack the capacity to see their point of view.
Communism is a phase that is supposed to follow socialism. In communism the means of production are allegedly shared by everyone but this is preceded by socialism which consist in the dictatorship of the proletariat and state ownership of means of production.
Sweden, Denmark are social-democracies, not socialist countries even though they do rely on socialism as an ideology.
Socialism has multiple definitions. Most people refer to the Sweden, Canada, Denmark kind when using the word. You are scarecrowing. While we are refering to one definition you are argueing against something else. A wonderfully overused logical fallacy. Although this one would only fool those who are already on your side as most of the rest of us can tell the difference. It is also a Fallacies of definition.
Socialism as in the term associated with communism is actually just communism. The idea itself hasn't killed or changed anything but the implementations have. But the impovrishment arguement is also inane. Because most of the countries were mostly impoverished before as well.
Don't hold your breath. It took almost 3 years - and a new OS - to get Halo 2 to the PC. Halo is an XBox experience, not a PC experience, and it seems in Microsoft's best interest to keep it that way.
It's in MS xbox divisions best interest. For bungie the best interest would be a multi platform release but their owner is MS.
I might just swap with my GF's brother. When I finish MGS4 and he finishes halo 3 we'll swap systems and games.
apologies for the typos. doh!
Good for them. We have no practical need to land humans on Mars. The bottom line is that it serves no real scientific purpose that can not be achieved better and cheaper with machines.
Everybody says that but a the reason would be monetary. It's much easy to get a antionalistic government to bank role "get a man to mars to prove we're better then them" then "send 400 probes to mars for scientific reasons". So while it's mroe efficient to send 400 unmanned missions it's easier to get bankrol from attempting to send people. Also the advances in space travel ebineering that would be a required is worth it all on it's own.
HAlo 3 and mass effect are the only two things that might tempt me to get a 360. I susupect they may eventually get PC editions.
Yeah, and those Swedes really have their shit together. It may be confused drivel, but socialism isn't a utopia of any sort once you factor in human nature.
Did I make any sort of value statement? There is no ideal system, no pure implementations. Socialism is a set of ideas, communism is another set. The original statement abotu socialism wanted to confuse socialism with communism. The difference is socialism does not require any particular sort of organization but only a few ideas about wealth redistribution. communism contains many ideas of not only the roel btu the structure fo the government. Thus socialism != communism and the reference to murdered people is more in line with the murders of communist states such as the former USSR, Cuba, post revolution China, Cambodia etc..
Sorry to admit, as a Canadian, I confirm we can't be considered socialists, especially with the actual Conservative government and the power of the oil industry in the western provinces.
I'm a registered conservative. Sorry to break it to you but compared to the states dems even I am a pinko communist in their eyes. The Repub and Demos are both right of centre in relation to canada and european political scales. The Libs and conservatives are left of centre. We have and believe in universal health care and verious other socialist ideals. We beleive welath redistribution is good and thus it makes us a fairly socialist state. Socialism does not preculde corruption or large corporation. It's a political point of view that stresses the state as a method of wealth redistribution and social safety net. AISH, Health care, welfare, dep of native afafirs etc... all a socialist style programs.
These are not related. IBM chose to use off the shelf components which could be reverse engineered using interestingly enough a Chinese wall.
Here is a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_wall
The assumption that the clones of IBM were not legitimate or that anybody that clones the iPhone is inherently cheating is completely incorrect. Anybody that opens an iPhone up and reads the logic, who then uses that to duplicate the iPhone completely would be opening themselves to lawsuits. Using the Chinese wall method, has been found many times to be a legitimate form of reverse engineering.
That is how capitalism works, somebody has an idea, and sells it, somebody else finds a way of duplicating it for less money and endeavors to drive the first guy out of business. Just because what we have now is so bastardized from capitalism, doesn't mean that the definition should change.
Reverse engineering / Chinese wall is simply a more abstracted way to copy and use someone elses ideas. I agree it's pretty much a intergral part of capitalism.
Fascism != Communism. USSR and China are fascist dictatorships. Cuba kind of is, but a more benevolent one perhaps. Anyway, don't confuse the evils of fascism with communism.
They are for sure facists now. But durign the great leap forward or stalins starvation of the unkrainians or political purges it was "communist" in the sense of what marx had in mind. The state of what government would be after a revolutions but before you could reprogram all your workers into happy egalatarian communes. I doubt they would have ever gotten there left on their own.
Socialism killed millions of people and impoverished billions. Regulation is a violent intervention in peaceful trade, it's legitimate to oppose it, with force if necessary.
Communism != socialism. Sweden, denmark, Canada etc.. are socialists. USSR, China and Cuba are Communist. Stop it with the confused drivel.
Maybe because they aren't completely 'making' the product when they copy the internal workings of another? Development costs are a real factor in the manufacturing of a product. Someone who gets to copy another's product without paying the development costs reaps an unfair advantage, it's just like industrial espionage.
Capatalism doesn't diallow this. Your trying to attach notions of innovation with capalism but it's not an inherent part. Look at the free wheeling capalism at the turn of the century. Or even the capalaism of the US ve Europe. MAssive technical espionage and stealing of ideas, designs, machines etc...Even as little as 25 years ago with the massive cloning of the IBM PC. The Theft of ideas has always been a part of capalism.
Correction: Most people who buy a Wii don't care what the differences in the hardware specs are between the systems. They only look at the gameplay.
Not quite. The majority of wii games have the gameplay value of a ad support crapware game. It's a mass of mini games the "hardcore" or "mediumcore" got bored of back before puberty. But the mainstream market haven't played them yet so that is where a lot of the games are pandering. Rayman, Warioware, etc.. are all really poor "gameplay" to those who play a lot. We prefer warcraft 3, counter strike, Odin sphere and GTA. The mainstream isn't looking at "gameplay" their just getting used to this stuff. It's all new to them.
I cannot give you what you seek, but I can at least share with you something I remember from the PS2 launch. When the PS2 was launched in Japan, the launch selection sucked. In addition to that, DVD players were a recent thing and the PS2 offered a lower-cost solution. Not long after the launch, Next Generation magazine had an article about fears expressed regarding the PS2's DVD compatibility. They found that lots of people were buying PS2s and several DVDs, but few of them were buying more than one game. This was a problem for Sony because they were taking a loss on the system and needed to sell an average of 4 games per system to turn a profit.
the 4 game attach rate to profitability is a myth. Sony stated after the first month the PS2 was sold at a profit. Few corporations have deep enough pockets or are fool hardy enough to do what MS and Sega did with their consoles. NAmely take a loss on each unit.
Who they asked is as important as what they asked. IF they did an exit poll of PS3 buyers and asked "hey do you know what blu-ray is?" the 40% who are clueless parents buying it for their kid would obviously say "huh?".
I might be some strange freak but I never read reviews on games or movies before I play or buy them. Why? because they are often laced with mild spoilers and tainted you by setting up or bringing down your expectations. They point out "flaws" you may not have cared about or noticed until they did this or they might be useless fluff. Similiarly I avoid trailers. I do read them after I have played them. But more often to see how others felt about what I liked/disliked. If I went to see Borne ultamatium I want to see reviews afterwards to see if others had the same impression i did. Sort of a anonymous one sided water cooler conversation. If I hated it I'd like to see others savage the movies/game. If I loved it I want to see what others liked or disliked about it.
I find I'm occsionally disappointed by spending when I shouldn't have (child of mana) but on the flip side I get gems that fit my gaming needs I might have otherised passed up due to low review scores (Izuna).
It has long been understood that evolution tends towards less specialization and more generalization as environments rapidly change and become more diverse and challenging, and as species range further. The necessity of mental abstraction and self-alienation will become more evident as we delve into our more recent evolution. (And from this will come insights into the need for our so-called "religious practices" that semi-moderate this alienation. But that's a topic for another day!)
No not really. phenotypes drift in all different directions and specialist sometimes out compete generalists. When the environment shifts, who ever can still survive continues. In rapidly shifting environs generalists are favored. Areas that border two non static environment types like a Jungle and a veld that grow and contract. Environments that are more stable tend to favor specialists.
Neither, actually. well.. color me wrong and dyslexic.
Yes, I know. I'm not arguing that this isn't the case. I'm saying that this NEEDS TO CHANGE. If we keep going down that path we're going to live in a world with 10B or more people. Why does it stop at 10B? Because that's about the point where famine, disease, war and genocide will balance out production (give or take some depending on technological advances or other things we can't predict). And then the real fun begins! Population wars. Conflicts over WATER will make this centuries oil conflicts look like a Sunday afternoon in the park. Combine that with the fact that it's nearly possible for any nation state with even a modest amount of money to spend on defense to have a nuclear program and you're going to have the bloodiest period of human history we've ever seen. It's only going to work differently if every culture on earth were to agree, at the same time, to change. This wont happen, we can agree on that at least. So your mind set does fit the (sad) reality of our current world, but damn it we HAVE to try for something better.
Well, nukes do require immense infrastructure. ICBMS require a space program. The reason smaller satellite nations like Iran, korea, and Isreal developed them is due to them pooling their resources in the former two cases and a liberal amount aid from bigger nations in all three. You go through a lot of ore to get enough uranium. You need a lot of engineering skill as well. That little genie is a fairly costly affair.
Change is hard. The logistics of such a cultural shift of such magnitude it is nearly impossible to orchestrate. You would need something roughly 116 times as big and brutal as the romance of the three kingdoms to bring everyone under one thought umbrella. I doubt there is any way to do it short of violence. The shift to smaller numbers is hard because it goes against core principle of all successful culture. That is the belief that growth is good. Just as Marxism needs violence to re-educate those who have that sharing is good and that violence will likely be needed to convince the patriarchy that men and women are functionally equal (I am certain we are not fully biologically equal). You need to bitch-slap the idea that 5 citizen workers are better then 10. The opposing side is not willing to change. The ideas aren't that sexy anymore and we can't convert their children and disturbingly they are converting ours. I'm more pragmatic and vote we just reproduce more and find technological hedges and small cultural shifts to shift us green rather then attempt to erase a (pseudo?) biological drive to spread and multiply. I'm not an good idealist. I'm a messy sometimes wrong but always trying to get ahead pragmatist with an culture to protect. I feel at least 3 more of me would be a good thing.
On a darker note: Biology tends to self inhibit our numbers. Our world wide fecundity is dropping faster then the drop in the west should account for. I think we're either poisoning ourselves or biology has a few limiting mechanisms we aren't' familiar with yet.