Technology isn't an excuse for laying people off (if you take excuse as not meaning reason), it's a good reason! Why pay 1000 people when you could pay some small overhead and cut 500 of them? It's some people's jobs to improve technology (and you are damn lucky for it) - do you think they should be layed off instead? It's economics. They aren't opening businesses to help people. It's to make money. It's in everybody's best interests to have everybody employed, but not to have them employed unnecessarily. There are many safeguards too: free money so you can be unemployed and look for another job, easy loans to get better training. There are lots of jobs and people need to stop being lazy and look for them. Where do you think the money of the money-making people goes? And I fail to see how unemployement really relates to overpopulation.
jjhlk good points i believe you would be in a majority of sorts two questions and very relavant ones at that --- Where do you think the money of the money-making people goes? --- to other over pricing rich people genraly look at the world of art as an easy example the most prised paintings are all of dead artists and swapped between the rich elite for millions and inbetween you have the other less rich people who make huge commisions off it the business world is a good example as well if you have enough money you can employ accountants and get tax deductions so the taxt paying office workers subsididises your accountants wages of 1000 dollars per hour who is most likely your golfing buddy or your best friends idle son or daughter and the company only pays about 2-3 % tax while all the other people/ office workers labourers tradespeople lower income people pay about 30% tax then all the realy rich people who sack the 500 people as you say have no wish to put money from profit into social services for those who have no job or need re-training and they vote for a person who will abandon support for lower income people and those without jobs and health care and education it is one side of the political landscape the basic names could be used as like capitalism Vs socialism you live in the working example just look around yourself === And I fail to see how unemployement really relates to overpopulation --- why do poor people have lots of kids? to be earners to support the family income like building a business its a common theme that has been running for thousands of years feed the poor and educate them give them somthing to focus development on and you will reduce population explosion increase technology growth and a few other things but most people are currently too selfish and lazzy minded Quote There are lots of jobs and people need to stop being lazy and look for them --- poor people are not lazzy in genral because they go to great effort to buy and sell drugs to make money to feed their family they steal items from other people who have more than them that is the capitalist way no moral difference in placing 500 people on the unemployment line just to make an extra 2 % profit capitalism would work fine if it was regulated by the government and all people had housing and food and education and healthcare have you ever seen a 5 year old that has been given a taste of icecream for the first time then told not to touch one while the parents are not looking you need to attach a bit more reality to the working example of what you think is the current working model motivators the pyramid system is fine if you are sitting on the top i find it funny how the rich ones at the top complain when others have to walk on them to get to where they are preaching from its called being a hypocrite children learn this at an early age groove on all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Where do you think the money of the money-making people goes? I think there is something in regards to this that makes sure the massive amounts of money of the elite doesn't get locked away (taken out of the economy so people somewhere are getting shafted): investment. Rich people invest their money to make money. I don't think many smart rich people just let it sit around. They want more money. But at no time is the money really all in their hands. The bank is borrowing it from them and investing, or they're investing. I'm sure some money gets lost though. Makes me wonder how much money is really in the whole system - since people all have as much labour as they're willing to give, in theory there should be enough money to cover everyone. (Unless they're lazy or very unlucky. I think most people tend to think the latter when they're really the former - and it kills their motivation.) The idea of government housing, food and medicare is interesting. Welfare almost does that, except I'm sure it's almost impossible to live on it since costs depend on your region. Medicare is kind of optional. (Maybe non-free medicare would spur people into getting jobs - or they DIE! BWAHAHA. OK not really.)
jjhlk quote since people all have as much labour as they're willing to give, in theory there should be enough money to cover everyone. (Unless they're lazy or very unlucky. I think most people tend to think the latter when they're really the former - and it kills their motivation.) --- so are you saying that in the majority those who are poor are only poor because they do not commit enough crime? quote The idea of government housing, food and medicare is interesting. Welfare almost does that, except I'm sure it's almost impossible to live on it since costs depend on your region --- welfare is put in place to stop the poor from over throwing the rich that is the only reason it is still running it serves the rich not the poor by definition it gives the rich people a false truth that they are doing something to make the world a better place and the few that actualy set out to help are often manipulated by the greedy and the religouse nutters example you may well ask well heres one that is not exactly what you might want to think about lets say the government put the price of petrol up for one month by 2 cents per litre how much money would be made? enough to build a hospital i would expect but who would actualy recieve the majority of themoney would be the people who are already very wealthy making highpayed boards and councils to soak up all the cream to a point that renders the money inadequate to build the hospital completely MADiCARE is a working joke on the premis of the concept of capitalism if you are treating those who have no money to pay how can you run it as a profitable concept thats just completely retarded and flawed logic hence money buys life hence survival of the ones who can obtain money through any means i can sympathise with the medical staff knowing they will be most likely over worked and risk possible burn-out and so try to look to equate the value of their own life through their wages yet must be expected to treat only those who have money so while some may wish to help all people are more likely to be caught between the hypocracey hence the real issue are the majority of the worlds population ready to take responsability to be involved in the control of the birth rates and distribute food and housing and medical care equaly i dont think so WHY is the only relevant question any thoughts? groove on all Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You keep trying to build straw man arguments with mine. I didn't say people don't commit enough crime. If they were stealing things then it would go against my argument that the system isn't finite (of course, it isn't infinite, but I didn't have another term handy), because people can contribute labour if they have nothing else. Labour for themselves to steal things isn't the same thing. Welfare isn't to keep people in check. It's used to give people something to fall back on so they can prepare to become productive again if they lost everything for whatever reason. If you recently spent all your money on something, and then got fired, you'd be pretty screwed if you lived in a city and didn't know anybody. Enter welfare. I don't see how welfare helps the rich either. If it prevents poor people from attacking the rich, then what do they want instead?Some form of free money...? Medicare is good and "profitable" because it keeps people healthy enough to work. If you come down with a rare disease and you don't have any money you might be out of luck though. Medicare is somewhat free in canada, so nobody is really excluded because of their status. No I don't know if all countries can distribute "food, housing, and medicare", but that doesn't mean welfare and medicare are bad. It also doesn't have any relevancy. Now I'm confused whether you think welfare and medicare are bad or not.
Over-population the reason we have a concept of overpopulation is because of the in-equality of the distribution of natural resources its that simple nothing more nothing less a small group take the majority of profit from the land that everyone lives on jjhlk to get an idea of how unfair the system is just look at the real tax that companys pay compared to the "blue collar" employee a flat tax would be fair why should people expect poor people to abide by the law when they have no access to health care the more money you have the better health care you get regardless of the humanity of the indevidual or how they got the money private hospitals remove money from the main health system which downgrades the basic genral level of health care for all the population specificly for those on low incomes who work just as hard as those who have high incomes so what do the poorer people do they have more children to provide more income for the family its a cycle that seves the elite rich and maintains the inequality and crime rates and is the primary cause for the population problem simple reaLY! GROOVE ON Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
To nearly all of you in this forum, I have one thing to say. Dictators are a dying breed, so if you want the world to listen, educate! You can not force the world to put on condoms any more easily than you can force the world to f__k. Educate! And in the meantime, don't bicker, just talk. Those of us who are already here should spend their --- our --- time investing in education and discussing the options. Bickering gets us no further than dictatorships. p.s. to whomever it was who insisted that India and China are the two leaders in producing offspring, if you have to be argumentative, get your facts right first.
Actually humanity should actually should be seeing a slowing down, and even decline in population by the end of the century so I am not that worried.
we went from about 700 million in 1750 to 1.2 billion in 1900 (2x increase in 150 yrs). Then we went from the 1.2 billion 1900 to 6 billion in 2000 (5x increase in 100 years). Perhaps we will level off in another century but we could be in serious trouble before then.
Not necessarily, the developed world’s population’s growth rate is pathetically low. The replacement rate (not growth rate) is 2.1 children per woman, Bologna Italy has less then 1, and most European states are at 1.2 or a tad more. Because of so much economic and social development happening in China and India their populations should start to slow down, frankly China is already below 2.1 levels. China’s population should start to decrease after 2050. India is the problem, but with concurrent losses of population in the West, we can have some more space. Africa really doesn’t scare me all that much, AIDS will sadly get worse in that continent and millions will die, and have much shorter lives. I am personally rather optimistic about the world’s population. I think it should stabilize at our current levels or hopefully just a bit less. The real problems come when according we run out of artificial carrying capacity like Oil.
they used to be really strict on it, i heard a story about 2 cops cutting open a womans stomach, pulling ou the baby and killing it. now they are being sensible, giving benifits to familys with 1 or no children and taxng those who have more
I do believe that the current US misadministration is following Zbigniew Brzezinksi’s 1997 book "The Grand Chess Game" very closely. I haven't read it myself but I understand it calls for the death of 2/3 of the global population. For cowboys who feel "there is not enough room for the both of us, pardner" that might be in the plans.
I support China's Family Planning policies. It works. They've prevented as many births as the entire population of Germany since the early 1980's.
A bitter pill to take. But look at modern China now... Once hated, the one-child policy in the 80s and 90s is now hailed as a visionary policy by a majority of the Chinese population. Hello one-child India?
A Majority of the chinese population who grew up with no sublings would probably not no any different.
You mean... 1.Needless killing of newborn females to get a male child, 2.Forced abortions, including late-stage ones where formaldehyde is injected into the skull of a fetus, or 3.Giving birth to a second child, knowing that the government will not recognize it and deem his/her existence as illegal? YEAH. I won't deny that China's family planning policies do in fact cause misery. Such is the case for the bias against China's perspective on human rights. The truth is, these are experienced by a handful of people who are either incredibly stupid dumbfucks (referring to the 1st case) or don't follow the law (as in the 2nd or 3rd). The third one is a little sad, but that can still change. Much of the laws are still rudimentary, and they're still working it out. This is why I still support Family Planning. India must control its population problem.