Over-population...

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 :)
 
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 :)
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
valentino said:
Your restrictions sound like something out of a future sci-fi novel right now, but I can definitely see something like that happening. In China I don't think there are any actual laws prohibitting a couple from having more than two children, but I do think that those who do are looked down upon and don't have as many oppurtunities for job advancement. That's just one step in the direction of greater restrictions.
Click to expand...

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?
 
spuriousmonkey said:
It caused a lot of misery.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top