Leftist indoctrination movie shown to 9 yr olds in school

I haven't even touched upon the environment and climate change - which is a fact. I won't argue the causes, but the facts are there, the temps are rising, and farmland around the world is being threatened. The pentagon has studies on how America should react to global food shortages.

Here's an interesting viewpoint from a 90 something that is at peace with what he is saying. Rather disturbing stuff:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mLA-Sn6bi-U&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mLA-Sn6bi-U&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 
Quote from Misthos:

Look at the world in total - not individual countries. The population is still growing. Did you not see that chart? It's frickin parabolic. And you think it will magically taper off without dieoff?

The US, by the way, is proud that it has a growing population, unlike many European countries. That's a source for economic growth. Russia, on the other hand, is encouraging pop growth because of those same economic consequences.

As for other individual countries that are stagnating, yes, that is happening. However, they will face crushing budgets to care for their elderly. Will they be able to? Those are the same countries that are going broke, by the way. Hence, dieoff, yet again.
More...

No one is going to die off because of crushing budgets. Taxes will be raised and healthcare will fall. Have you ever heard of rationing you dumb ox?

Individual countries are important to look at because they show the fact that after countries reach a certain economic stage populations stagnate and even decrease. That means that population growth is not exponential.

Based on your argument it shows that you have no knowledge about how economies affect population.
 
Quote from NeoRio1:

No one is going to die off because of crushing budgets. Taxes will be raised and healthcare will fall. Have you ever heard of rationing you dumb ox?

Individual countries are important to look at because they show the fact that after countries reach a certain economic stage populations stagnate and even decrease. That means that population growth is not exponential.

Based on your argument it shows that you have no knowledge about how economies affect population.
More...

Show me a successful economy with a stagnating population over at least a 50 year period (2 or more generations). I'll give you one: the uninhabited Easter Island. LOL.

You used the word rationing! You're making progress. It's a lot to think about. Let it sink in. Now think of all the consequences of a stagnating population over the long haul.... and think what the government would ultimately do to reverse it when "the rationing" sets in and the old folks die off early. Didn't Russia recently have a "birth a patriot" day? LOL...

Look, no country wants or can afford a shrinking population. They will fight it and it will be a race to the bottom (wars) in the grand scheme of things.

More importantly, my argument is not just pop growth, but about the corresponding increased resource use by existing populations that don't live like us, pollution, and the conflicting goal of constant economic growth, which needs a growing pop, more production, more energy use, and subsequent pollution. It's called a feedback loop. It doesn't stop, it collapses.

Read this if it helps:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wwiii-population-wars-a-12-bomb-equation-2009-09-29

Also, ask yourself, how did this happen? (see chart below) What are the underlying causes? Could those underlying causes eventually change, therfore making a corresponding change to the population?

World_Population.jpg


Hard to believe that WWII barely put a dent on that chart.
 
Quote from Misthos:

Show me a successful economy with a stagnating population over at least a 50 year period (2 or more generations). I'll give you one: the uninhabited Easter Island. LOL.

You used the word rationing! You're making progress. It's a lot to think about. Let it sink in. Now think of all the consequences of a stagnating population over the long haul.... and think what the government would ultimately do to reverse it when "the rationing" sets in and the old folks die off early. Didn't Russia recently have a "birth a patriot" day? LOL...

Look, no country wants or can afford a shrinking population. They will fight it and it will be a race to the bottom (wars) in the grand scheme of things.

More importantly, my argument is not just pop growth, but about the corresponding increased resource use by existing populations that don't live like us, pollution, and the conflicting goal of constant economic growth, which needs a growing pop, more production, more energy use, and subsequent pollution. It's called a feedback loop. It doesn't stop, it collapses.

More...

Seriously ask yourself this question. Does it make sense for a population to increase exponetially meaning forever just because it has an elderly generation that outnumbers all the other generations? There is only one thing that will happen. The taxpayer will be burdened for the next 20 years because of this bubble in the population but it will have no affect when it comes to future population numbers. Once the population bubble of baby boomers dies off a huge burden will be lifted off our backs. This in my opinion will probably create the next great bull market. That bull market may create another new economic stage and a new population bubble but guess what? The country and the world will DEAL with it. Your hideous feedback loop is merely a small correction in the whole scheme of things. Things will progress and adapt. That is the nature of things. I don't recommend arguing with nature.

Your whole prophecy of collaspe because of population is WAY overstated. Fast forward 10-15 years in the future. The result of baby boomers needing care has increased taxes and the quality of care they are getting is about 5% less than it is today. The reason is because the top 5% high end of healthcare results in 25% of the costs. That means losing MRI's, very expensive lab tests, very expensive surgeries and the most expensive drugs. And drum roll please. What is the final result of your horrific prophecy of population collapse? On average the baby boomer will live a month or two less.

A month or two less?! What a disaster! Oh the agony!

Oh you think that loss of 5% of high end healthcare will actually result in much more devastation?

In 1934 the average person that made it to the age of 65 lived to be 75. In 2006 the average person that made it to the age of 65 made it to the age of 77. With the massive progression of healthcare in the last century the average person that makes it to the age of 65 only lives two years longer.

And you're predicting a collapse based on losing 5% of healthcare? Ha!
 
Quote from Misthos:

Look at the world in total - not individual countries. The population is still growing. Did you not see that chart? It's frickin parabolic. And you think it will magically taper off without dieoff?

The US, by the way, is proud that it has a growing population, unlike many European countries. That's a source for economic growth. Russia, on the other hand, is encouraging pop growth because of those same economic consequences.

As for other individual countries that are stagnating, yes, that is happening. However, they will face crushing budgets to care for their elderly. Will they be able to? Those are the same countries that are going broke, by the way. Hence, dieoff, yet again.
More...


do us a favor ... put a bullet in your head
 
Quote from FeenixRizin:

do us a favor ... put a bullet in your head
More...

Dude, that's pretty harsh. But I won't take it personally. When I started arrving at the conclusion I stated here, I was angry and in denial for awhile.

It's tragic stuff, and if anything, I apologize for being so flippant about it. After awhile, I realized that there is little that can be done. You can't escape the law of exponential growth - not the markets, not people, not resources.

Everything has limits.

And that woman on the videos is stating an obvious fact. I commend her because unlike me, she is trying to do something about it. I'm not as optimistic.
 
Quote from Misthos:

Show me a successful economy with a stagnating population over at least a 50 year period (2 or more generations). I'll give you one: the uninhabited Easter Island. LOL.

You used the word rationing! You're making progress. It's a lot to think about. Let it sink in. Now think of all the consequences of a stagnating population over the long haul.... and think what the government would ultimately do to reverse it when "the rationing" sets in and the old folks die off early. Didn't Russia recently have a "birth a patriot" day? LOL...

Look, no country wants or can afford a shrinking population. They will fight it and it will be a race to the bottom (wars) in the grand scheme of things.

More importantly, my argument is not just pop growth, but about the corresponding increased resource use by existing populations that don't live like us, pollution, and the conflicting goal of constant economic growth, which needs a growing pop, more production, more energy use, and subsequent pollution. It's called a feedback loop. It doesn't stop, it collapses.

Read this if it helps:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wwiii-population-wars-a-12-bomb-equation-2009-09-29

Also, ask yourself, how did this happen? (see chart below) What are the underlying causes? Could those underlying causes eventually change, therfore making a corresponding change to the population?

World_Population.jpg


Hard to believe that WWII barely put a dent on that chart.
More...

In the same manner as a population of bacteria in a petri dish is a "closed biological system", so is Planet Earth.

I've seen where population biologists have estimated that the planet can sustain in a healthy way, a population of only about 3 Billion people. We already have 7 Billion.

Eventually, we will "populate ourselves into extinction"...
 
Quote from Scataphagos:

In the same manner as a population of bacteria in a petri dish is a "closed biological system", so is Planet Earth.

I've seen where population biologists have estimated that the planet can sustain in a healthy way, a population of only about 3 Billion people. We already have 7 Billion.

Eventually, we will "populate ourselves into extinction"...
More...

Not another one.

In a natural system the population will increase and decrease naturally. Search Rostows stages of economic developement and educate yourself.
 
Quote from NeoRio1:

Not another one.

In a natural system the population will increase and decrease naturally. Search Rostows stages of economic developement and educate yourself.
More...

I am familiar with Rostow.

I give more weight to the opinions of scientists - physicists, biologists, geologists, etc.. than economists.

As Galbraith said, "Economics exists to make astrology look respectable."

So back to the parabolic growth of the world's population. (SEE CHART) When will it slow down? How? No need to answer - just stuff to think about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top