06-11-12, 12:50 AM #81
06-11-12, 02:24 AM #82
It's the same class of problem you see with many "peak oil" theories, where they assume that prices won't adjust to equilibrate supply and demand. Sure, life will change, and life may be less (or more) luxurious for future generations, but how much do we want to curtail actual liberty today, for a speculative gain in standard of living in the far off future?
The answer is not "we will curtail no liberties" and the answer is not "anyone caught having more children than their government permit allows will see those children executed," but it lies somewhere between the two extremes.
We can't even successfully model what the economy will look like in a year, or ten, or even make a compelling guess about what policy changes by have a beneficial effect on the current economy (despite mountains of data on it and the fact that in the short run, ceteris paribus is a more compelling assumption). So don't put too much faith in UN projections of the worldwide macroeconomy many decades from now, because macroecon is more voodoo than science.
Further, that leaves aside the fact that U.N. is not always, or even often, a disinterested arbiter in these issues. Have you ever seen a U.N. report that said, "After extensive study, we find that there are no problems with the status quo"? Pols at the U.N., who are doing their best and aren't trying to be deceitful, have a bias towards wanting there to be action. It's a combination of personal interest (they get to keep their current jobs, if the problem they are working on is not yet solved...if it were not a serious problem, no need to pay them any more salary) and confirmation bias (you wouldn't be placed on a the UN panel on sustainability, if you weren't already interested in sustainability issues...and people interested in those issues almost all think sustainability is a problem...very few people take an interest, politically, in things that are not problematic (or perceived as problematic) in some way).
So, the question is "what will you give up today to solve that potential problem tomorrow?" I think environmental regulation and government subsidies into sustainable tech is fine, in general. But I still see nothing compelling to urge me to want to see us go further. As problems go, the world would be better off if we dedicated that effort to vaccine dissemination or treating/preventing malaria (though that would tend to increase populations and, if overpopulation is a problem, exacerbate the situation).
Last edited by Cavalier; 06-12-12 at 02:11 AM.
07-08-12, 11:36 AM #83
07-10-12, 06:30 PM #84
I haven't read this thread, but I'm thinking that if we keep the world busy and working they won't have time for children.
07-10-12, 07:54 PM #85
07-16-12, 12:16 PM #86
I can't believe how the establishment (educational institutions, MSM, etc.) has conditioned so many to believe that "overpopulation" exists or is a problem.
A large global population is dangerous for one reason, it is harder to control for a small group of elite international interests who wish to control events, wealth, information, science, truth, and resources. (Look at the birth rate in Greece, look at how easy it is to control.)
07-16-12, 01:04 PM #87
If you don't mind, I didn't check your videos. If you can't explain yourself in 2-3 sentences, you don't have a point...
it is harder to control for a small group of elite international interests who wish to control events,
Do you care to debate further, or you acknowledge your loss???
07-16-12, 01:44 PM #88
Listen, frankly, if you can't be bothered to watch a couple short informatory clips, which tell you about how society has falsely propagated the notion that there is an overpopulation crises, I won't bother you. The videos also have links to statistically backed up research. I don't want to get into it with you. Both China and the US would like to have a lot less people in them. Which nation has, and is the first to institute a population control policy?
And now US tax payers are funding our very own voluntary population control policy. I feel bad for kids that come from broken homes, kids that have downs syndrome, AD/HD, Autism, ODD, OCD, bipolar, etc. In the past ten years school have been getting troubled kids on a host have medications to control them. Now I'll be by the time they graduate, the state will start influencing parents to get some of these same kids sterilized before they ever discover how unique and wonderful they truly are.
They Want To Sterilize American Women: Sterilization Won't Cost Women A Penny Under Obamacare
07-16-12, 02:44 PM #89
By the way, the Rulers love continuous growth, so they would never tell you we have too many people. More people, more profit. So who is the one who has been misled???
Edit: I took a look at the last video, it is easily refutable. The overpopulation is more complicated than just a simple food issue. You need ENERGY, LAND and WATER to have more food. Land isn't a problem but water and energy are. Also, the main issue is, just what kind of level you want those people to live on? Amish? Fine, we could have 20 billion people. But if you want a Western society's level, we have already too many of us.... You think all that 1-1 billion Chinese and Indian will live on a middle class American's level? Dream on....
Last edited by Syzygys; 07-16-12 at 04:32 PM.
07-16-12, 04:23 PM #90
Quick point. More people indicate the need for more food. More people means more farmers means more food. Just saying.
07-16-12, 04:25 PM #91
07-16-12, 04:27 PM #92
07-16-12, 05:14 PM #93
07-16-12, 05:31 PM #94
07-16-12, 05:42 PM #95
I don't get why people don't realize this, the countries that are the point of civilization and industrialization, they have a declining national populations, the birth rate is very low. The influx of population comes from third rate world countries with uneducated untrained mostly with disease people. And the ones who promote the idea of overpopulation are the ones who don't realize that the people in their country are loosing their own people and jobs, to immigrants. The recent Bill Gates foundation devoted billions of dollars into contraceptives...for who? for the women of urbanized first world countries who are already loosing the battle of population to the Chinese/Arabs/Mexicans you name it.
07-16-12, 05:53 PM #96
The oligarchic powers are the ones who control the energy, the land, and the water. There is plenty for all. They are the ones that release reports from foundations and MSM that have you believing that there isn't enough. Likewise, they horde what little there is to themselves. Hell, they even make it illegal for the people to gather rain for pity sake.
Western states, including Utah, Washington and Colorado, have long outlawed individuals from collecting rainwater on their own properties because, according to officials, that rain belongs to someone else.
As bizarre as it sounds, laws restricting property owners from "diverting" water that falls on their own homes and land have been on the books for quite some time in many Western states. Only recently, as droughts and renewed interest in water conservation methods have become more common, have individuals and business owners started butting heads with law enforcement over the practice of collecting rainwater for personal use.
The housing bubble was meant to get the population dynamics to change, out of their houses, and more people into cities. Go on, buy a new house or flat. I am sure you will get a much better mortgage deal for a place in a densly populated area rather than a rural area. Your terms will be much more generous. They will break your financial back if you want any help with a mortgage that attempts to acquire property in an area outside of the UN's goals laid out under Agenda 21.
Likewise, those in power also control technological progress in terms of new energy technologies by controlling all access to patents. A new technology comes out to challenge established energy companies? They can just buy it and sit on it. The scarcity paradigm benefits the oil companies and governments after all, doesn't it? To raise the living standards of all the people we have in the world? We could probably do it quicker and cheaper than we are doing. But a happier, healthier, better educated population would start to question why we need to have such barbaric rulers and hateful dull media seperating us all making us attack one another.
07-16-12, 06:17 PM #97
07-16-12, 07:36 PM #98
07-26-12, 05:55 AM #99