PDA

View Full Version : Population Growth



actenneson
19 May 06,, 18:02
With the dangers of over population, poverty, deforestation and polution, does anyone think that it should be a goal of the global community to level off population growth?

dalem
19 May 06,, 19:28
With the dangers of over population, poverty, deforestation and polution, does anyone think that it should be a goal of the global community to level off population growth?

1) Where is there "overpopulation"?

1a) What are the dangers of "overpopulation"?

2) How is poverty related to "overpopulation" and how is poverty dangerous?

3) Where is there deforestation that concerns you, how is it related to "overpopulation" and how is it dangerous?

4) What kinds of pollution do you believe are dangerous?

Demographics and statistics clearly show that societies that grow wealthy begin to slow their birth rates. Many countries on the planet (see Russia or Italy for instance) are looking at serious problems regarding insufficient populations.

So it seems that the problem of the future is likely to be underpopulation rather than "overpopulation".

-dale

astralis
19 May 06,, 19:35
dalem,


Demographics and statistics clearly show that societies that grow wealthy begin to slow their birth rates. Many countries on the planet (see Russia or Italy for instance) are looking at serious problems regarding insufficient populations.

unfortunately not all parts of the world are wealthy.

gunnut
19 May 06,, 19:38
With the dangers of over population, poverty, deforestation and polution, does anyone think that it should be a goal of the global community to level off population growth?

Increase our consumption of gasoline to produce more green house gases, melt the polar ice caps with the resulting global warming, and wipe out the coastal population. Over 70% of the world's population inhabits the coastal regions. We can decrease human population by 70% using global warming. So get out and buy your SUVs with V8s. It's for the good of our children.

2DREZQ
19 May 06,, 20:37
It looks like world population will level out somewhere around 9 billion, a number which is not unreasonable to expect the earth to carry indefinitely.

Poverty is, as a percentage of population, at its lowest level in centuries, probably in human history.

Prosperity is a sure cure for deforestation.

Any attempt to actively manage the activities of humanity on a global scale (the only way to do what you seem to be suggesting) will inevitably devolve into the worst imaginable tyranny, and, quite probably, passive (maybe even active) genocide on a truely titanic scale.

Just let things go the way they have been. Humanity has been doing real well if you look at the big picture.

gunnut
19 May 06,, 21:49
No no no, we must pass laws and mandates and redistribute income and resources so we can turn this wretched planet into a utopia.


Humanity has been doing real well if you look at the big picture.

No we have data dating back 4 days in which violence level has jumped by 900% across the world. At this rate, humans will destroy ourselves and the planet within the next 5 months.

actenneson
24 May 06,, 18:58
1) Where is there "overpopulation"?

1a) What are the dangers of "overpopulation"?

2) How is poverty related to "overpopulation" and how is poverty dangerous?

3) Where is there deforestation that concerns you, how is it related to "overpopulation" and how is it dangerous?

4) What kinds of pollution do you believe are dangerous?

Demographics and statistics clearly show that societies that grow wealthy begin to slow their birth rates. Many countries on the planet (see Russia or Italy for instance) are looking at serious problems regarding insufficient populations.

So it seems that the problem of the future is likely to be underpopulation rather than "overpopulation".

-dale


1. Japan, China, India

1a. Congestion, difficulty in providing for all, shortages of resources; food, water, energy, educational etc.

2. Lack of resources lead to poverty, poverty leads to unrest and is it self dangerous for the people that live in poverty.

3. growth in population means greater need for food, cattle farmers in Brazil I believe are slashing and burning forest to have more land. In the US more and more homes are finding there way into areas which used to be all forest, notice those houses always getting burned down in forest fires.
4. WHAT? I don't know lol air, water, land, pollution all seem dangerous don't you think?

Wealthy countries are slowing down in birth rates yet poor countries are growing faster and faster. This means that over time more and more of the world's population will be poor and uneducated. These areas also have a tendency to be rife with conflict.

Bill
24 May 06,, 19:07
Africa is where all the population explosion problems are really rearing their ugly head.

Overpopulation leads to famine, drought, squalor, revolution(usually the bad kind), endless warfare, and genocide.

All of which is in evidence in SPADES in Africa.

dalem
24 May 06,, 19:16
dalem,

unfortunately not all parts of the world are wealthy.

Irrelevant - wealth is increasing and as more societies are uplifted from their susbsistance-level existance, birthrates will decline.

-dale

dalem
24 May 06,, 19:29
1. Japan, China, India

Okay, how do these countries define "overpopulation"?



1a. Congestion, difficulty in providing for all, shortages of resources; food, water, energy, educational etc.

Shortages these days are universally the result of poor management, not lack of resources. How does "overpopulation" (OP) lead to educational shortages anyway? How are any of these things "dangerous"?



2. Lack of resources lead to poverty, poverty leads to unrest and is it self dangerous for the people that live in poverty.

See my comments about distribution above.

And poverty doesn't lead to unrest. Plenty of poor people are restful. Oppression and fomentation leads to unrest.



3. growth in population means greater need for food, cattle farmers in Brazil I believe are slashing and burning forest to have more land. In the US more and more homes are finding there way into areas which used to be all forest, notice those houses always getting burned down in forest fires.

Your facts are wrong. It's not more people that leads to slash & burn, it's a continued reliance on Stone Age agricultural processes.

Many (not all) of the wildfire problems in the U.S. arise from environmental restrictions created by f*cking drool-dripping morons that prevent clearing of underbrush kindling and flashpoints.



4. WHAT? I don't know lol air, water, land, pollution all seem dangerous don't you think?

No, that's my point. You're indoctrinated to reflexively respond that way. I'm asking you to think about the correlation between various forms of pollution and "danger".



Wealthy countries are slowing down in birth rates yet poor countries are growing faster and faster. This means that over time more and more of the world's population will be poor and uneducated. These areas also have a tendency to be rife with conflict.

You are wrong. Except for Africa, most of the world's populations are enjoying a steady overall increase in wealth and safety.

-dale

actenneson
24 May 06,, 19:31
Irrelevant - wealth is increasing and as more societies are uplifted from their susbsistance-level existance, birthrates will decline.

-dale

tell that to Africa, south east asia, rural china, and all those other places in the world with great amounts of poverty. Wealth is increasing but for who? In the US the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, I think that the same is true for other parts of the world too.

dalem
24 May 06,, 19:39
tell that to Africa, south east asia, rural china, and all those other places in the world with great amounts of poverty. Wealth is increasing but for who? In the US the gap between the rich and the poor is growing, I think that the same is true for other parts of the world too.

Oh dear, "the gap between the rich and the poor" phrase. What does that mean? Please define it for me.

As far as the "tell it to" list, I already crossed off Africa as an exception, SE Asia is doing very well, rural China is part of China and China is doing well overall, which, over time if they continue Capitalization of their economy, will lift their rural areas as well. Here in the U.S. the rural South was uplifted by the industrial booms of the North, etc. It's how market economy countries work.

You know, history, facts, reality, that sort of thing.

-dale

actenneson
24 May 06,, 19:57
Oh dear, "the gap between the rich and the poor" phrase. What does that mean? Please define it for me.

As far as the "tell it to" list, I already crossed off Africa as an exception, SE Asia is doing very well, rural China is part of China and China is doing well overall, which, over time if they continue Capitalization of their economy, will lift their rural areas as well. Here in the U.S. the rural South was uplifted by the industrial booms of the North, etc. It's how market economy countries work.

You know, history, facts, reality, that sort of thing.

-dale

The "gap" means that the amount of money made every year and the % of the nations wealth owned by the top grows while those on the bottom loose money.

If rural china is doing so well why are there so many people moving into slums in the big cities to find work? India has had a free market for along time but still vast millions are poor, the market does not always work, look at every economic crisis in the past 100 years. The market also does not guarantee anything in respect to the elimination of poverty or the assurance of social mobility (which is down in the US). Your "let the market solve the problem" denies the need for any type of regulation or labor laws.

I believe how far people go should be based on merit, but for that to be true everyone needs to start off on equal or near footing with education, health and transportation. The more people a nation has the harder it becomes to provide those services

dalem
24 May 06,, 20:40
The "gap" means that the amount of money made every year and the % of the nations wealth owned by the top grows while those on the bottom loose money.

Uh huh. How are those "at the bottom" (and what is "the bottom"?) losing money?



If rural china is doing so well why are there so many people moving into slums in the big cities to find work?

I didn't say they were doing well, I said that over time increased capitalization will lift those areas of the country just like it does in other free market economies. And the pattern of rural poor flocking to cities has been a constant throught history - it's how cities grow.



India has had a free market for along time but still vast millions are poor, the market does not always work, look at every economic crisis in the past 100 years. The market also does not guarantee anything in respect to the elimination of poverty or the assurance of social mobility (which is down in the US). Your "let the market solve the problem" denies the need for any type of regulation or labor laws.

I don't want to get sidetracked into a purely economic debate, so let's stick to my original challenge - how is overpopulation in and of itself dangerous?



I believe how far people go should be based on merit, but for that to be true everyone needs to start off on equal or near footing with education, health and transportation. The more people a nation has the harder it becomes to provide those services

I disagree with your egalitarian point of view at its base, and with your specific point of providing services (as if that is the point of a nation) - regardless, the opposite is true because people are resources themselves.

-dale

actenneson
24 May 06,, 21:03
How is a young boy denied an education and proper health care an equal resource to himself as a young boy who went to a great school and health care? How is it fair when one person can move around all the ywant to follow the jobs and the other person is stuck in a slum?

THL
24 May 06,, 21:27
How is a young boy denied an education and proper health care an equal resource to himself as a young boy who went to a great school and health care? How is it fair when one person can move around all the ywant to follow the jobs and the other person is stuck in a slum?
How is it fair that the person working is paying for the other person to live in the slums without a job? How is it fair that the person working gets up every morning and goes to school and actually studies or work and actually works while the other does not?

WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED. SOME OF US WORK FOR OUR CLOTHES AND SOME OF US WAIT FOR HANDOUTS. EITHER WAY - IT IS OUR CHOICE.

No one is DENIED an education. But if people want an education outside of the place that they live, they may need to get a job (or work to get a better job) and then work to be able to move. No one guards the gates of America's slum housing communities keeping people in. People can - AND DO - get out.

gunnut
24 May 06,, 21:35
The "gap" means that the amount of money made every year and the % of the nations wealth owned by the top grows while those on the bottom loose money.

How about this? You give me a "correct" gap between the rich and the poor, and then we'll take it from there.

gunnut
24 May 06,, 21:42
1. Japan, China, India

1a. Congestion, difficulty in providing for all, shortages of resources; food, water, energy, educational etc.

2. Lack of resources lead to poverty, poverty leads to unrest and is it self dangerous for the people that live in poverty.

3. growth in population means greater need for food, cattle farmers in Brazil I believe are slashing and burning forest to have more land. In the US more and more homes are finding there way into areas which used to be all forest, notice those houses always getting burned down in forest fires.
4. WHAT? I don't know lol air, water, land, pollution all seem dangerous don't you think?

Wealthy countries are slowing down in birth rates yet poor countries are growing faster and faster. This means that over time more and more of the world's population will be poor and uneducated. These areas also have a tendency to be rife with conflict.

Seems like people is the source of all the problems you described.

Do you believe in evolution?

What does evolution say about a species that overtaxes the environment they live in?

All we have to do is stop helping the regions of this world with poor management skills and the excess population will die off, thus restoring the balance of nature. Think about it, the poor usually die first, so that solves your problem of the "gap" between the rich and the poor. Fewer people means fewer mouths to feed, so less land is required. Less congestion, easier to educate the remaining "not so poor" people, same resources going to fewer people means better opportunity for them all.

I propose we turn over this overpopulation problem to mother nature. She'll decide who lives and who dies in the most efficient manner.

actenneson
24 May 06,, 21:57
Seems like people is the source of all the problems you described.

Do you believe in evolution?

What does evolution say about a species that overtaxes the environment they live in?

All we have to do is stop helping the regions of this world with poor management skills and the excess population will die off, thus restoring the balance of nature. Think about it, the poor usually die first, so that solves your problem of the "gap" between the rich and the poor. Fewer people means fewer mouths to feed, so less land is required. Less congestion, easier to educate the remaining "not so poor" people, same resources going to fewer people means better opportunity for them all.

I propose we turn over this overpopulation problem to mother nature. She'll decide who lives and who dies in the most efficient manner.

Great idea, lets forget about out duty to our fellow man, lets forget about compassion lets just give up and let millions die because we don't care.

Thatís BULL. For the first time in the history of the world there is enough food to feed everyone and we have the ability to get it to them. There are many factors but one and only one reason, apathy. I dare you to hold on to your view when itís your children that are starving. Any moral philosophy of merit would take great issue with your "let them die" approach.

gunnut
24 May 06,, 22:06
Great idea, lets forget about out duty to our fellow man, lets forget about compassion lets just give up and let millions die because we don't care.

What have you done to help these people? Let's hear it.

Bill
24 May 06,, 22:58
WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED. SOME OF US WORK FOR OUR CLOTHES AND SOME OF US WAIT FOR HANDOUTS. EITHER WAY - IT IS OUR CHOICE.

Very well put.

Kudos miss, kudos. :)

T-bone
24 May 06,, 23:18
1) Where is there "overpopulation"?

1a) What are the dangers of "overpopulation"?

2) How is poverty related to "overpopulation" and how is poverty dangerous?

3) Where is there deforestation that concerns you, how is it related to "overpopulation" and how is it dangerous?

4) What kinds of pollution do you believe are dangerous?

1)China, Japan and India.
1a)Overcrowding, depletion of natural resources.
2)Can lead to child labor. People without heat or food die sooner.
3)It not. It depend how many trees you are talking about.
4)To much air pollution and water pollution.

ArmchairGeneral
24 May 06,, 23:27
Just let things go the way they have been. Humanity has been doing real well if you look at the big picture.
That's funny, I was just thinking about maybe putting up a poll about that very question. Maybe I will.

ArmchairGeneral
24 May 06,, 23:44
1)China, Japan and India.
China and India have exploding economies. Japan is doing just fine. Look at the quality of life there and compare it to, say Ukraine. No overpopulation there.

1a)Overcrowding, depletion of natural resources.
In the Mexican Commie thread, there is a portion about the world population and Texas. Read it. We continually find more efficient ways of using and recycling those resources. Ever heard of Paul Ehrlich's bet? Look it up.

2)Can lead to child labor. People without heat or food die sooner. What's wrong with child labor? It was the norm until 100 years ago. If I ever have a kid, you can be sure I'll work his butt off. Without heat? Look at where the people are. They think 90 Farenheit is a cold day. Food is a matter of distribution, not production.

3)It not. It depend how many trees you are talking about.
What?

4)To much air pollution and water pollution.
What's wrong with air/water pollution? Show me any two countries, one with a better economy and worse pollution than the other, and I'll bet the one with a better economy has a higher quality of life.

Parihaka
24 May 06,, 23:46
Great idea, lets forget about out duty to our fellow man, lets forget about compassion lets just give up and let millions die because we don't care. Have you happened to notice all the aid programmes currently underway throughout the world?


Thatís BULL. For the first time in the history of the world there is enough food to feed everyone and we have the ability to get it to them. There are many factors but one and only one reason, apathy. I dare you to hold on to your view when itís your children that are starving. Any moral philosophy of merit would take great issue with your "let them die" approach.Actually there is an oversupply of food at the moment, as Dale pointed out it's a distribution problem.
Apathy is not the problem, corrupt and incompetent leaders in the areas that have starving people ARE.
I strongly doubt that anyone who posts on this board would ever allow the situation to arise where their children starve.

gunnut
24 May 06,, 23:48
1)China, Japan and India.


Oh dude, I almost missed this one.

Japan? Overpopulated? Are you nuts?

Japan's population growth rate has been on the decline for a while. Their birth rate is at 1.4 children/woman, well below the replacement ratio. Their aging population structure will run into some serious problems 25 years down the line. Overpopulation is the least of their concerns.

T-bone
25 May 06,, 00:03
China and India have exploding economies. Japan is doing just fine. Look at the quality of life there and compare it to, say Ukraine. No overpopulation there.
So why does China have a one-child policy? Did you not know Japan has so little room they are thinking about building artificial islands.



What's wrong with child labor?
That for another thread.



What? Don`t you know what photosynthesis is?




What's wrong with air/water pollution?To much of it will kill you.



Show me any two countries, one with a better economy and worse pollution than the other, and I'll bet the one with a better economy has a higher quality of life.When did I say it would not be?

ArmchairGeneral
25 May 06,, 00:20
So why does China have a one-child policy? Did you not know Japan has so little room they are thinking about building artificial islands.


That for another thread.


Don`t you know what photosynthesis is?


To much of it will kill you.

When did I say it would not be?
1) China's gov't was afraid of overpopulation. As I said, Japan is doing fine, and as gunnut pointed out, their birthrate is dropping like a stone.

2) Okay

3)Yes. A bunch of photons are absorbed by chlorophyll A molecules in a macromolecular complex. These excite electrons to a higher energy level. The electrons are passed to the central chlorophyll B molecule, in the manner of a radio antenna. This central molecule absorbs another photon, which stimulates it to release an energized electron attached to an electron carrier, possibly cytochrome something or other. This is just the beginning of a very complicated system, the light system of photosynthesis, which produces (I think) NADH and FADH2, activated electron carriers.
That's from memory. If you want to know more, I'll look it up for you. :biggrin:

4)Yes, but unsanitary conditions and starving to death will kill you a lot quicker.

5) Pollution, at our present state of knowledge, is necessary for economic growth. I choose economic growth over clean air and water.

actenneson
25 May 06,, 00:30
Japan economically is not over populated, but socially and culturally they are. They are always bunched up like sardines in subways, busses and trains. They live in very small houses that are close together, they lack the space for more buildings, their beaches are over crowed and they were having a large amount of trouble trying to expand one of their airports using artificial islands. So yeah they do have a problem with over population, unless you like not having any personal space.

The current global population is fine, 8 billion I think. Growing your population while many still live in poverty makes as much sense as building a new house before your old one has a foundation.

gunnut
25 May 06,, 00:58
Japan economically is not over populated, but socially and culturally they are. They are always bunched up like sardines in subways, busses and trains. They live in very small houses that are close together, they lack the space for more buildings, their beaches are over crowed and they were having a large amount of trouble trying to expand one of their airports using artificial islands. So yeah they do have a problem with over population, unless you like not having any personal space.

They have land. They just choose not to use it. Mostly due to their powerful agriculture lobby. Get rid of some farm land and built houses. Get rid of some scenic places and build houses. They choose to preserve their land as it was for centuries. Sorry, but if they can't adapt, that's not my problem.


The current global population is fine, 8 billion I think. Growing your population while many still live in poverty makes as much sense as building a new house before your old one has a foundation.

I totally agree. All the industrialized nations are not adding to this problem. It's the ones with the most problems that are adding to overpopulation.

Another thing, have you ever thought of why there's an overpopulation problem in the undeveloped/developing world?

The birthrate of an African woman has remained largely unchanged for hundreds of years, at over 7 children per woman per lifetime. What changed was infant mortality. It used to be over 5. If we put these 2 numbers together, we get 2 surviving adult children per African woman per lifetime, right at the replacement ratio. The infant mortality rate is reduced to something like 2 or 3 from 5. Boom! Each family now has double the kids reaching to adult age.

Nothing else changed for that continent. Culture, resources, practices, war, just about everything remained largely intact from centuries before, except for one thing, antibiotics.

Western medicine and basic hygenic knowledge drastically reduced infant mortality rate. In our rush to help these poor people who suffer from high infant mortality rate, we unleashed things 10 times more horrible onto them. Famine, disease, war, genocide, mass migration, refugees...basically the worst nature has to offer. The ones who survived barely have anything. Most of them are malnurished. Kids with stunted growth and limited IQ due to lack of food in the childhood years.

We messed with nature's balance without regard to the consequenses. Our compassion was the problem. They must gain the wisdom to deal with this problem on their own. We did. We used to have high infant mortality rate. We lowered it, but very slowly over many years. We thought we were so cool to conquer diseases. Little did we know nature has something else planned.

ArmchairGeneral
25 May 06,, 01:18
Japan economically is not over populated, but socially and culturally they are. They are always bunched up like sardines in subways, busses and trains. They live in very small houses that are close together, they lack the space for more buildings, their beaches are over crowed and they were having a large amount of trouble trying to expand one of their airports using artificial islands. So yeah they do have a problem with over population, unless you like not having any personal space.

The current global population is fine, 8 billion I think. Growing your population while many still live in poverty makes as much sense as building a new house before your old one has a foundation.
In 50 years Japan won't have any worries at all. Like the majority of developed countries, their birth rate is declining, in their case well below replacement level already. As for the global population, you're only off by a couple billion. ;) The thing is, nobody is intentionally growing their population, they're just having babies like they always have, and less of them are dying because of advances in health and wealth. If we want to stop it, we have to go China style, with draconian and tyrannical laws that reduce freedom, and in China's case at least, lead to a massive sex imbalance.

Parihaka
25 May 06,, 01:27
So why does China have a one-child policy?Because they have the same dumb centralised system of administration that thought a few years back that killing all the sparrows would increase their crop yields?

Did you not know Japan has so little room they are thinking about building artificial islands.

Why is this a bad thing?

dabrownguy
25 May 06,, 01:44
Overpopulation, global warming, global dimming, massive poverty, droughts, insane weather....

are we screwed or what!
Whos to blame for this, and don't say humanity. Give me a good answer! :eek:

ArmchairGeneral
25 May 06,, 01:47
Very well. That decides it. I'm making a poll. My first! Yay.

gunnut
25 May 06,, 01:57
Whos to blame for this, and don't say humanity. Give me a good answer! :eek:

Oh, it's all Bushitler's fault of course. Everything is his fault. None of these things ever existed before he took office. As soon as he took office, boom, everything showed up.

dalem
25 May 06,, 07:45
How is a young boy denied an education and proper health care an equal resource to himself as a young boy who went to a great school and health care? How is it fair when one person can move around all the ywant to follow the jobs and the other person is stuck in a slum?

How are these things "denied"? And how does fairness enter into it? How is someone "stuck" in a slum?

-dale

dalem
25 May 06,, 07:52
Great idea, lets forget about out duty to our fellow man, lets forget about compassion lets just give up and let millions die because we don't care.

Thatís BULL. For the first time in the history of the world there is enough food to feed everyone and we have the ability to get it to them. There are many factors but one and only one reason, apathy. I dare you to hold on to your view when itís your children that are starving. Any moral philosophy of merit would take great issue with your "let them die" approach.

Apathy? How's this for apathy: I vote we waste every dictator and military man in Africa above the rank of Captain and keep doing it until stable governments emerge that can be relied on to get the food that is offered them to their people. I vote we wait for good intel on where Kim Jong Il is being insane that day and send the JDAM Faeries (thank you Snipe!) to pay him a visit so HIS people can get the food that is being offered them.

Etc., etc.

It's not apathy, sir, it's squeamishness. We could solve half the world's problems in a month if we were willing to shoulder the moral burden.

Or we could talk about it more, which is what we'll do.

-dale

dalem
25 May 06,, 07:55
1)China, Japan and India.

Okay.



1a)Overcrowding, depletion of natural resources.

How is this dangerous?



2)Can lead to child labor. People without heat or food die sooner.

How does overpopulation lead to these outcomes?



3)It not. It depend how many trees you are talking about.

Trees? F*ck the trees - I thought we were talking about danger.



4)To much air pollution and water pollution.

How are these dangerous?

-dale

dalem
25 May 06,, 07:58
3)Yes. A bunch of photons are absorbed by chlorophyll A molecules in a macromolecular complex. These excite electrons to a higher energy level. The electrons are passed to the central chlorophyll B molecule, in the manner of a radio antenna. This central molecule absorbs another photon, which stimulates it to release an energized electron attached to an electron carrier, possibly cytochrome something or other. This is just the beginning of a very complicated system, the light system of photosynthesis, which produces (I think) NADH and FADH2, activated electron carriers.
That's from memory. If you want to know more, I'll look it up for you. :biggrin:


Okay, I just fell in love with you.

-dale

T-bone
25 May 06,, 09:11
How is this dangerous?It depends on the economy.


How does overpopulation lead to these outcomes?
Not enough money .


Trees? F*ck the trees - I thought we were talking about danger.

Lol



How are these dangerous?


As I have said too much will kill you.

dalem
25 May 06,, 19:30
It depends on the economy.

Not enough money .

Lol

As I have said too much will kill you.

I still don't see any danger. Maybe some inconvenience, but no danger.

-dale

THL
25 May 06,, 19:41
Trees? F*ck the trees - I thought we were talking about danger.
Trees can be dangerous. Some of them get pretty darn big. What if one of them fall on you? Now THAT's danger.

Jay
25 May 06,, 19:57
And yeah trees cause forest fire to rage ;) :biggrin:

2DREZQ
25 May 06,, 20:27
massive poverty,



The number of people living in absolute poverty, as defined by less than $1 a day (adjusted for inflation), has dropped in both relative and absolute number in the last 25 years

THEN: 4.6 billion. in poverty:1.4 billion.
NOW: 6.4 billion. in poverty 1.1 billion.

This is an achievement brought to you by American Imperialism and Naked Rapacious Capitalism.

You're Welcome.

Now that both China and India have gotten on the bandwagon, I'll bet you a silver dollar that by the time the population levels off around 9.0 billion, the number of those in poverty will be under 900 million. And many of us will live to see it.

gunnut
25 May 06,, 21:24
And yeah trees cause forest fire to rage ;) :biggrin:

Strip mining prevents forest fire.

Jay
25 May 06,, 22:00
Strip mining prevents forest fire.
Ofcourse, I was just going with the flow that trees are dangerous ;)

Parihaka
25 May 06,, 22:33
Strip mining prevents forest fire.
And conveniently gets rid of all that organic composting, a known source of greenhouse gases

ArmchairGeneral
26 May 06,, 02:01
Actually, on the whole photosynthesis/deforestation/global warming thing. Some studies indicate that a majority (70%, maybe?) of photosynthesis happens in the ocean, from the phytoplankton like diatoms and dinoflagellates and such. Other studies indicate that certain areas of the ocean are nutrient deprived, resulting in low plankton levels. One experiment involved dumping a few tons of iron in an area in the South Pacific. Within a short time, there was a plankton bloom. So, perhaps we could fertilize the oceans, creating a vast carbon sink to remove CO2. Not only that, but we could harvest plankton for fertilizer, food, animal feed, etc. Also, this might have a domino effect, increasing productivity all up the food chain. Imagine vast schools of sardines with mackerel and tuna chasing Ďem. Yummy. And as an added benefit for our descendents, perhaps it would create a reserve of oil in a few eons.

2DREZQ
26 May 06,, 03:15
Hmmm....Terraforming Terra? Now THAT should drive the eco-freaks right out of their minds!

ArmchairGeneral
26 May 06,, 03:27
Hmmm....Terraforming Terra? Now THAT should drive the eco-freaks right out of their minds!
Not terra, aqua. :)

ArmchairGeneral
26 May 06,, 04:12
Okay, I just fell in love with you.

-dale
Oh yeah, you're in science somehow, aren't you? Can't remember, something in the physical sciences, no? I'm thinking about biochemistry or something myself.
ps Please don't quote me on that photosynthesis crap. :biggrin: I had just enough grip on it to get an A, and promptly forgot as much as possible. I was just trying to impress people 'cause of my inferiority/superiority complex. :redface:

dalem
27 May 06,, 00:20
Oh yeah, you're in science somehow, aren't you? Can't remember, something in the physical sciences, no? I'm thinking about biochemistry or something myself.
ps Please don't quote me on that photosynthesis crap. :biggrin: I had just enough grip on it to get an A, and promptly forgot as much as possible. I was just trying to impress people 'cause of my inferiority/superiority complex. :redface:

Nahh, just a well-schooled amateur with a passion for accuracy in scientific debate.

-dale

ArmchairGeneral
27 May 06,, 00:36
Dang, I'm going to have to watch my step. If I do any more fact mangling like the above, you might check on the accuracy. I'm screwed. :biggrin:

gunnut
27 May 06,, 00:52
Actually, on the whole photosynthesis/deforestation/global warming thing. Some studies indicate that a majority (70%, maybe?) of photosynthesis happens in the ocean, from the phytoplankton like diatoms and dinoflagellates and such. Other studies indicate that certain areas of the ocean are nutrient deprived, resulting in low plankton levels. One experiment involved dumping a few tons of iron in an area in the South Pacific. Within a short time, there was a plankton bloom. So, perhaps we could fertilize the oceans, creating a vast carbon sink to remove CO2. Not only that, but we could harvest plankton for fertilizer, food, animal feed, etc. Also, this might have a domino effect, increasing productivity all up the food chain. Imagine vast schools of sardines with mackerel and tuna chasing Ďem. Yummy. And as an added benefit for our descendents, perhaps it would create a reserve of oil in a few eons.

That's amazing! If it does work, we can vastly increase our food production while increase livable land at the same time. We have plenty of old ships we can sink. Hold a Sinkex at places with poor nutrients and boom! out come a bunch of planktons.

T-bone
27 May 06,, 02:15
The number of people living in absolute poverty, as defined by less than $1 a day (adjusted for inflation), has dropped in both relative and absolute number in the last 25 years

THEN: 4.6 billion. in poverty:1.4 billion.
NOW: 6.4 billion. in poverty 1.1 billion.
That is more than it should be.

ArmchairGeneral
27 May 06,, 03:13
That's amazing! If it does work, we can vastly increase our food production while increase livable land at the same time. We have plenty of old ships we can sink. Hold a Sinkex at places with poor nutrients and boom! out come a bunch of planktons.
Not exactly. If I understand correctly, it needs to be applied the same way fertilizer is applied, in an easily dispersed and absorbable form. At least, that was the way it was in the experiment I read about. They dropped iron, I believe iron oxide or something like that, from airplanes. I'm not sure, but I would expect it to be in powderized form. Also, we're talking pretty vast areas, hundreds of sq mi at least, so you would a heck load of ships to cover the area. However, it would seem to be very easy nonetheless. All you got to do is grind up those ships. :biggrin:

2DREZQ
27 May 06,, 05:38
That is more than it should be.

Unquestionably.

Any worldview that holds an improvement of this magnitude in disdain in favor of what "should be" had better put up or shut up. Unless we have a magic formula that will turn all of humanity into Mother Teresa clones, I say we go with what has worked so far.

dalem
27 May 06,, 06:39
That is more than it should be.

Why?

-dale

Obsidian_Masque
13 Jun 06,, 14:44
We do need to pay attention to our global water resources:

SYDNEY, Australia (mosaic) -- Rapid global warming poses a variety of security threats to the Asia Pacific region that have been "seriously underestimated," a new study says.

The report, released Tuesday by a Sydney-based think tank, paints a grim scenario of disease, food and water shortages, natural disasters, territorial tensions and mass population movements threatening political stability in the region.

Rising sea levels, for example, could threaten heavily urbanized parts of Asia, such as China's Yellow and Yangzi River deltas, and heavily populated low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, the report entitled "Heating up the Planet: Climate Change and Security," by the Lowy Institute says.

Warmer temperatures could see the greater spread of infectious diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, while extreme weather events could diminish food and clean water supplies.

dalem
13 Jun 06,, 14:57
We do need to pay attention to our global water resources:

SYDNEY, Australia (mosaic) -- Rapid global warming poses a variety of security threats to the Asia Pacific region that have been "seriously underestimated," a new study says.

The report, released Tuesday by a Sydney-based think tank, paints a grim scenario of disease, food and water shortages, natural disasters, territorial tensions and mass population movements threatening political stability in the region.

Rising sea levels, for example, could threaten heavily urbanized parts of Asia, such as China's Yellow and Yangzi River deltas, and heavily populated low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, the report entitled "Heating up the Planet: Climate Change and Security," by the Lowy Institute says.

Warmer temperatures could see the greater spread of infectious diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, while extreme weather events could diminish food and clean water supplies.

Please.

Yet another panic screed. We've plenty of water last time I checked.

-dale

gunnut
13 Jun 06,, 18:05
Earth is as warm and as cold as it has been for the last few million years. The difference is there are more people to be affected, so it seems like the climate is changing.

Remember the Dust Bowl of the 30s? If it happened today, it would be George Bush's fault.

2DREZQ
15 Jun 06,, 02:23
We do need to pay attention to our global water resources:

SYDNEY, Australia (mosaic) -- Rapid global warming poses a variety of security threats to the Asia Pacific region that have been "seriously underestimated," a new study says.

The report, released Tuesday by a Sydney-based think tank, paints a grim scenario of disease, food and water shortages, natural disasters, territorial tensions and mass population movements threatening political stability in the region.

Rising sea levels, for example, could threaten heavily urbanized parts of Asia, such as China's Yellow and Yangzi River deltas, and heavily populated low-lying countries such as Bangladesh, the report entitled "Heating up the Planet: Climate Change and Security," by the Lowy Institute says.

Warmer temperatures could see the greater spread of infectious diseases such as malaria and dengue fever, while extreme weather events could diminish food and clean water supplies.


And every one of these 'grim scenarios" only seem to negatively affect humanity. The rest of the planet will scarely notice the effects-Even if we are causing it, we cannot begin to compete with what mamma nature has done herself: Think ICE AGE. (no, not the cartoon!) Ocean levels have risen and dropped, tectonic plates have crashed together and ridden one another right out of existence (Pushed down into the mantle). What can we do that compares to that? So the earth warms up-so? So 3-4 billion humans croak because or climate change-so? We could Nuke ourselves right out of existence-the radiation would subside- and LIFE would go on with barely a hiccup.

Even if worst case scenarios are true. we still aren't 'destroying the planet'! We can't do that, even if we wipe ourselves out! Since a massive reduction in human population seems to be the only thing many brain-dead envro-nuts think will save the planet, what are they worked up about? If global warming works as they fear, they get exactly what they have been praying to gaia for!

Had these people been around 3.8 billion years ago, they would have screamed that something had to be done about the billions of tons of corrosive toxic Oxygen that was rapidly poisoning the very atmosphere!

dalem
15 Jun 06,, 02:47
Had these people been around 3.8 billion years ago, they would have screamed that something had to be done about the billions of tons of corrosive toxic Oxygen that was rapidly poisoning the very atmosphere!

Evil Eukaryotes! Taking away our precious reducing elements!

And what's this? Some sort of mitochondrial parasite with the gall to actually embed itself inside me and allow me to metabolize the new atmospheric components? Begone I say! Nothing but stasis in perpetuity for me!

-dale

2DREZQ
15 Jun 06,, 17:17
Evil Eukaryotes! Taking away our precious reducing elements!

And what's this? Some sort of mitochondrial parasite with the gall to actually embed itself inside me and allow me to metabolize the new atmospheric components? Begone I say! Nothing but stasis in perpetuity for me!

-dale

I've been one-upped, and with style!

My hat is off to you, sir!

gunnut
15 Jun 06,, 18:40
Ever noticed these enviro freaks who worship evolution and praise changes, yet the slightest alteration in the weather just scares them half to death?

Am I the only one who think they are hypocrites?

dalem
15 Jun 06,, 19:19
I've been one-upped, and with style!

My hat is off to you, sir!

You provided the fuel, sir, I merely kindled it into bright satiric flame.

-dale

dalem
15 Jun 06,, 19:22
Ever noticed these enviro freaks who worship evolution and praise changes, yet the slightest alteration in the weather just scares them half to death?

Am I the only one who think they are hypocrites?

No you are not. The types you mention simply have no idea that part of what they are doing is raising the concept of stasis to the level of worship.

-dale

ArmchairGeneral
15 Jun 06,, 23:41
Ever noticed these enviro freaks who worship evolution and praise changes, yet the slightest alteration in the weather just scares them half to death?

Am I the only one who think they are hypocrites?
Yes, I have, and it never ceases to annoy me. However, I don't think they are hypocrites. They lack the intelligence to realize the contradiction. I mean, plenty of people still think Paul Ehrlich has something worthwhile to say! After being proven wrong continuously for 30 odd years! :confused:

2DREZQ
16 Jun 06,, 05:16
plenty of people still think Paul Ehrlich has something worthwhile to say! After being proven wrong continuously for 30 odd years! :confused:

Isn't that amazing? He should be chained to Hal Lindsey and dropped off the edge of the earth.

ArmchairGeneral
17 Jun 06,, 04:50
Isn't that amazing? He should be chained to Hal Lindsey and dropped off the edge of the earth.
Is that the Late Great Planet Earth dude? Name's familiar, but don't know much if anything about him.

2DREZQ
17 Jun 06,, 06:23
Is that the Late Great Planet Earth dude? Name's familiar, but don't know much if anything about him.

He's been predicting Christ's emminent return since the 60's. He's been 100% wrong about everything, and he still has a TV show! People still listen to him!
It boggles the mind.

Even the freako political leftists are right once in a while, but not these guys!

Ever read "The Sceptical Environmentalist" by Lomborg? I highly recommend it.

fullstop
17 Jun 06,, 08:24
Overpopulation...

For overpopulation ethiopia is a fine example. Having feeing them with foreign aid they just multiplied like pigs now the would community has more mouths to feed. I say let mother nature do it's work. I have seen the Bob Gelof BBC documentary I think some 6 months ago and in that those ethiopians think that Allah has send them food and grains when it is clearly written UN on those bags. Some muslim clerics even dismissed the theory about over population and claimed that Allah forbids them to preach people to have less children. I say let mother nature do it's work and watch those morons going to their Allah. :biggrin:

But as such the term "over population" is a vague term. Under or over population is not the problem, the problem comes when man moves into areas where he hs not been there before and starts killing the natives. Now that is unacceptable! For millinea man has destroyed ecosystems to guarentee his existance. Now the last tracks of forests and other areas should be converted into No-mans land. Also I think banning Industrial fishing is a must. Trawlers moving over oceans sucking up every visible living thing like aquatic blackholes is not a very promising sight.

2DREZQ
18 Jun 06,, 19:26
For overpopulation ethiopia is a fine example. Having feeing them with foreign aid they just multiplied like pigs now the would community has more mouths to feed. I say let mother nature do it's work. I have seen the Bob Gelof BBC documentary I think some 6 months ago and in that those ethiopians think that Allah has send them food and grains when it is clearly written UN on those bags. Some muslim clerics even dismissed the theory about over population and claimed that Allah forbids them to preach people to have less children. I say let mother nature do it's work and watch those morons going to their Allah. :biggrin:

But as such the term "over population" is a vague term. Under or over population is not the problem, the problem comes when man moves into areas where he hs not been there before and starts killing the natives. Now that is unacceptable! For millinea man has destroyed ecosystems to guarentee his existance. Now the last tracks of forests and other areas should be converted into No-mans land. Also I think banning Industrial fishing is a must. Trawlers moving over oceans sucking up every visible living thing like aquatic blackholes is not a very promising sight.

Where, oh where do I even begin?

Please stay tuned-I promise a response within 36 hours.

T-bone
18 Jun 06,, 22:11
Why?

Do you think it is ok for people to live in poverty?

2DREZQ
19 Jun 06,, 03:09
For overpopulation ethiopia is a fine example. Having feeing them with foreign aid they just multiplied like pigs now the would community has more mouths to feed. I say let mother nature do it's work. I have seen the Bob Gelof BBC documentary I think some 6 months ago and in that those ethiopians think that Allah has send them food and grains when it is clearly written UN on those bags. Some muslim clerics even dismissed the theory about over population and claimed that Allah forbids them to preach people to have less children. I say let mother nature do it's work and watch those morons going to their Allah. :biggrin:

But as such the term "over population" is a vague term. Under or over population is not the problem, the problem comes when man moves into areas where he hs not been there before and starts killing the natives. Now that is unacceptable! For millinea man has destroyed ecosystems to guarentee his existance. Now the last tracks of forests and other areas should be converted into No-mans land. Also I think banning Industrial fishing is a must. Trawlers moving over oceans sucking up every visible living thing like aquatic blackholes is not a very promising sight.

Ethiopia has a population density of about 64/Km2. That puts it 103rd on the list. Japan at 337 per is 19th on the list. You are right that overpopulation is not the problem there; they've got HUGE problems: 44% of the people are under the age of 15, 4.4% of the people have HIV, only 8% of the women of reproductive age us contraception, less than 50% of the people have access to modern healthcare, the list goes on. We need to do MORE for them, NOT LESS. Frankly, I'm adverse to the idea that we can just let them all die off, and call it nature taking its' course. Man is a social creature. It is in our nature (albiet our better one) to take care of our own, and we should view all mankind as our own. If Africa is ever to get over the tribalism that has held them in bondage for millenia, they must be shown the way: Aid, incentives for companies that invest in economic development (IF the government is stable enough...), maybe even assistance with security issues; We have to deal with Africa sooner, or later. If America is EVER going to SHUT UP THE MORONS who keep harping on our history of slavery-we're going to have to boot all of Africa on to the right path, because they will NEVER start that way without outside help. It wasn't a paradise there before the Europeans showed up, but we left a bigger mess behind when we exited stage left than we found.

Man has been EVERYWHERE, and if he weren't what natives would there be to kill? To many people have this picture of ancient man and native tribes living in harmony with nature, in balance and never disturbing a thing...Horseshit! Just ask the Anasazi, Mayans, or Easter Islanders. I don't think you disagree with me on this. The point here is that modern technologically advance and economically prosperous societies are the ones who can afford to think of future generations. For everybody else it is always survival today and let tomorrow wait until tomorrow. Thus your statement about overpopulation isn't far off the mark, but viewing man moving into areas as the source of the problem is way off.
Deforestation isn't nearly as big a problem as we've been lead to believe, and isn't a problem at all in wealthy countries- you want trees? you need a wealthy populace. Make wood products valuable and tree farming starts ADDING to total forest acerage.
Overfishing is, indeed, a problem-but an outright ban is not going to happen. Enforcement would be a nightmare. Continued work on treaties is more likely to have the desired effect.

dalem
19 Jun 06,, 05:46
Do you think it is ok for people to live in poverty?

Of course I do.

-dale

gunnut
19 Jun 06,, 20:24
Do you think it is ok for people to live in poverty?

Do you think it's ok for people to live in luxury?

ArmchairGeneral
19 Jun 06,, 23:22
Do you think it is ok for people to live in poverty?
That is immaterial. Whether or not it's okay, that's life. That's the way it is. The world is a hard place, and we have to deal with reality, and reality is that as long as people are people, there's gonna be problems, and we can't fix all the problems. That's life.

fullstop
20 Jun 06,, 09:30
Ethiopia has a population density of about 64/Km2. That puts it 103rd on the list. Japan at 337 per is 19th on the list. You are right that overpopulation is not the problem there; they've got HUGE problems: 44% of the people are under the age of 15, 4.4% of the people have HIV, only 8% of the women of reproductive age us contraception, less than 50% of the people have access to modern healthcare, the list goes on. We need to do MORE for them, NOT LESS. Frankly, I'm adverse to the idea that we can just let them all die off, and call it nature taking its' course. Man is a social creature. It is in our nature (albiet our better one) to take care of our own, and we should view all mankind as our own. If Africa is ever to get over the tribalism that has held them in bondage for millenia, they must be shown the way: Aid, incentives for companies that invest in economic development (IF the government is stable enough...), maybe even assistance with security issues; We have to deal with Africa sooner, or later. If America is EVER going to SHUT UP THE MORONS who keep harping on our history of slavery-we're going to have to boot all of Africa on to the right path, because they will NEVER start that way without outside help. It wasn't a paradise there before the Europeans showed up, but we left a bigger mess behind when we exited stage left than we found.

Man has been EVERYWHERE, and if he weren't what natives would there be to kill? To many people have this picture of ancient man and native tribes living in harmony with nature, in balance and never disturbing a thing...Horseshit! Just ask the Anasazi, Mayans, or Easter Islanders. I don't think you disagree with me on this. The point here is that modern technologically advance and economically prosperous societies are the ones who can afford to think of future generations. For everybody else it is always survival today and let tomorrow wait until tomorrow. Thus your statement about overpopulation isn't far off the mark, but viewing man moving into areas as the source of the problem is way off.
Deforestation isn't nearly as big a problem as we've been lead to believe, and isn't a problem at all in wealthy countries- you want trees? you need a wealthy populace. Make wood products valuable and tree farming starts ADDING to total forest acerage.
Overfishing is, indeed, a problem-but an outright ban is not going to happen. Enforcement would be a nightmare. Continued work on treaties is more likely to have the desired effect.


I still say let mother nature do her work and bring the population to sustainable levels. All that AID money is doing nothing but compounding the problem. A few million deaths and they will be back on track.

And humans are not social creatures! They are capitalist creatures! So I say let capitalism do it's work of bringing the population to acceptable levels. It's a Dog eat dog world afterall...

dalem
20 Jun 06,, 19:21
I still say let mother nature do her work and bring the population to sustainable levels. All that AID money is doing nothing but compounding the problem. A few million deaths and they will be back on track.

And humans are not social creatures! They are capitalist creatures! So I say let capitalism do it's work of bringing the population to acceptable levels. It's a Dog eat dog world afterall...

Most populations increase their birthrate after crises. So let nature kill off 5 million, and in a generation you'll have, say, 8 million replacements anyway.

-dale

gunnut
20 Jun 06,, 19:41
I still say let mother nature do her work and bring the population to sustainable levels. All that AID money is doing nothing but compounding the problem. A few million deaths and they will be back on track.

And humans are not social creatures! They are capitalist creatures! So I say let capitalism do it's work of bringing the population to acceptable levels. It's a Dog eat dog world afterall...

Actually 2 economists from Kenya say the same thing. Aid money is bad. It encourages Africans to sit around and have more babies rather than work to reduce the number of bodies needed.

The population problem in Africa is rooted in a sudden increase in western aid, specifically the introduction of anti-biotics to reduce infant mortality. The average number of kids given birth by an average African woman has not changed much, at around 7 per life time. The infant mortality has decreased so out of those 7 children born, 5 or 6 make it to adulthood instead of 2 to 3. That is a very significant jump, especially figure in the population momentum over the following decades when these kids reach child bearing age.

astralis
20 Jun 06,, 20:29
I still say let mother nature do her work and bring the population to sustainable levels. All that AID money is doing nothing but compounding the problem. A few million deaths and they will be back on track.

the problem is not that we do not have enough food, the problem is STRICTLY political in nature. the underlying problem of african economies is NOT that there is "not enough incentive" due to western aid (which is intermittent, not always there, skimmed, or held hostage as political chips), it is because of the predatory leaders in the region.

dalem
20 Jun 06,, 21:11
Exactly. We PAY FARMERS TO NOT GROW FOOD here. Maybe they do the same elsewhere, I dunno.

Everyone with half a brain knows that, as astralis says above, the problem is distribution, not resources, and the problem with distribution is political.

Vote for the Dale Plan, people, we'll make huge strides.

-dale

Jay
20 Jun 06,, 21:44
I still say let mother nature do her work and bring the population to sustainable levels.

And this comes from a person who calls all the meat eaters as barbaric! Talk about forked tongue! :eek:

2DREZQ
21 Jun 06,, 04:21
I still say let mother nature do her work and bring the population to sustainable levels. All that AID money is doing nothing but compounding the problem. A few million deaths and they will be back on track.

And humans are not social creatures! They are capitalist creatures! So I say let capitalism do it's work of bringing the population to acceptable levels. It's a Dog eat dog world afterall...

Fix the governing problem and the current level will be quite sustainable.

Humans are social, just in a family/tribal/nationalist sense. What I'm striving for is an ideal that I believe we WILL reach one day ,where everybody is everybody else's concern. No, I don't expect a paradise on earth, but I do believe that it is possible to have a world where almost every government is a reasonable one where the people have rights.

fullstop
21 Jun 06,, 13:01
Most populations increase their birthrate after crises. So let nature kill off 5 million, and in a generation you'll have, say, 8 million replacements anyway.


Care to provide statictics?
And think about it logically, when you are skinny and not even able to get up who in the right mind would get horny?
Even if 8 million replacements do come they will die off soon as they is no food in the first place.




And this comes from a person who calls all the meat eaters as barbaric! Talk about forked tongue!

You still don't get it do you Jay? People chose to be capitalist in nature, it's what they chose and it is what they deserve! You never did give animals that choice, instead you just sacrifice them by beheading and jerk off their blood to your god!



Humans are social, just in a family/tribal/nationalist sense. What I'm striving for is an ideal that I believe we WILL reach one day ,where everybody is everybody else's concern. No, I don't expect a paradise on earth, but I do believe that it is possible to have a world where almost every government is a reasonable one where the people have rights.


Humans are capitalist creatures! They are only social to their family because of mostly biological and intimate relationship reasons. Or in other words when this biological and intimate bonding is taken out, they quickly become the capitalist scum they are.

And tell me, do you have have any biological bonding with a starving kid in chad or somalia? Plus remember this, the starving kid is capitalist as well, he has no reason to consider you as his brother. It's better off he dies since he is destined to do so under a capitalist society. It's all laws of nature.

A socialist society can be created but it can be only possible when the bonds between family members are broken and people are taught that socialism is more humane and efficient than capitalism when you consider all humans as brothers and sisters RATHER THAN ONLY YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS. This BTW is impossible to achieve, I guess.

I say let those people die off in peace and stop giving them the stupid aid.

PubFather
21 Jun 06,, 16:29
Exactly. We PAY FARMERS TO NOT GROW FOOD here. Maybe they do the same elsewhere, I dunno.

Everyone with half a brain knows that, as astralis says above, the problem is distribution, not resources, and the problem with distribution is political.

Vote for the Dale Plan, people, we'll make huge strides.

-dale
Exactly the same nonsense in Europe... paying farmers to cut production...

gunnut
21 Jun 06,, 18:35
Exactly the same nonsense in Europe... paying farmers to cut production...

We actually have a good reason to do this. If we don't, then farmers will increase production to make extra profit. As they increase production, unit price falls. If a bumper crop hits, the commodity market plunges and puts farmers out of work. If too many farmers leave the profession, then what happens if a poor season hits and the commodity market sky rockets?

Yes it's socialism. We don't do it to help out the farmers. It has more to do with stablizing the market.

Personally, I don't agree with it. But it's a major function of the Federal Reserve Board after its creation so we don't see another Great Depression.

2DREZQ
21 Jun 06,, 18:50
Care to provide statictics?
And think about it logically, when you are skinny and not even able to get up who in the right mind would get horny?
Even if 8 million replacements do come they will die off soon as they is no food in the first place.



You still don't get it do you Jay? People chose to be capitalist in nature, it's what they chose and it is what they deserve! You never did give animals that choice, instead you just sacrifice them by beheading and jerk off their blood to your god!



Humans are capitalist creatures! They are only social to their family because of mostly biological and intimate relationship reasons. Or in other words when this biological and intimate bonding is taken out, they quickly become the capitalist scum they are.

And tell me, do you have have any biological bonding with a starving kid in chad or somalia? Plus remember this, the starving kid is capitalist as well, he has no reason to consider you as his brother. It's better off he dies since he is destined to do so under a capitalist society. It's all laws of nature.

A socialist society can be created but it can be only possible when the bonds between family members are broken and people are taught that socialism is more humane and efficient than capitalism when you consider all humans as brothers and sisters RATHER THAN ONLY YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS. This BTW is impossible to achieve, I guess.

I say let those people die off in peace and stop giving them the stupid aid.

Maybe you should define what you mean by trhe term "capitalist". Your use of it in conjunction with the perjorative: "scum" is troubling.
As to the true nature of man, might I recommend "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley. The social listing I gave was hierarchical; That is to say family comes first, then tribe, then nation. Since nationalism is a proven fact, it shouldn't be impossible, given the right economic conditions, to extend that tree one more step to globalism.
Oh, What do you mean when you say: "take the biological and intimate bonding out"? How do you do that?

dalem
21 Jun 06,, 19:32
We actually have a good reason to do this. If we don't, then farmers will increase production to make extra profit. As they increase production, unit price falls. If a bumper crop hits, the commodity market plunges and puts farmers out of work. If too many farmers leave the profession, then what happens if a poor season hits and the commodity market sky rockets?

Yes it's socialism. We don't do it to help out the farmers. It has more to do with stablizing the market.

Personally, I don't agree with it. But it's a major function of the Federal Reserve Board after its creation so we don't see another Great Depression.

I understand it (while hating it) in terms of economics. I only brought it up to make the point that we have PLENTY of food, and can make more besides, but getting it to the people who need it is sometimes difficult.

-dale

gunnut
21 Jun 06,, 20:08
I understand it (while hating it) in terms of economics. I only brought it up to make the point that we have PLENTY of food, and can make more besides, but getting it to the people who need it is sometimes difficult.

-dale

I totally agree. Distribution is the problem. We can easily feed the world with our 3% farming population, if we crank up to full production. But there's no buyer for their product, because there's either protectionism or distribution problem.

Jay
21 Jun 06,, 21:40
You still don't get it do you Jay? People chose to be capitalist in nature, it's what they chose and it is what they deserve! You never did give animals that choice, instead you just sacrifice them by beheading and jerk off their blood to your god!
I asked my socialist cow and it said, its ok to kill it, so people can eat and be happy.

ArmchairGeneral
21 Jun 06,, 22:45
What I'm striving for is an ideal that I believe we WILL reach one day ,where everybody is everybody else's concern. No, I don't expect a paradise on earth, but I do believe that it is possible to have a world where almost every government is a reasonable one where the people have rights.
Interesting. I have the impression that you're a Christian. Do you have any views on eschatology, i.e., end times theology? Your semi-optimistic view of the future is rather preteristic, which is not very popular these days, at least compared to the pre-millenialist Left Behind view. Personally, I can't decide if it is possible to spread Western-style economics and legal systems much wider or not. But it's worth a try.

fullstop
22 Jun 06,, 13:08
Maybe you should define what you mean by trhe term "capitalist". Your use of it in conjunction with the perjorative: "scum" is troubling.


Well, truth hurts dosen't it?!

Capitalism, hmmmm... Capitalism is the condition where profits take THE number one role in society. Under these conditions the concept of trust and brotherhood is practically non-existent in the bigger picture.


As to the true nature of man, might I recommend "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley. The social listing I gave was hierarchical; That is to say family comes first, then tribe, then nation. Since nationalism is a proven fact, it shouldn't be impossible, given the right economic conditions, to extend that tree one more step to globalism.
Oh, What do you mean when you say: "take the biological and intimate bonding out"? How do you do that?

It's ancient, very very ancient! During ancient times (talking BC) in lands which is now called India, little children even as young as 4 or 6 are separated from their families and then left under the guidance of well learnt persons deep in no-mans land. There they are trained about everything. Learn't persons are usually maharishis (or esteemed scholar of religious backgrounds. I say religious background because during that time philosophy and religion was very intertwined.) Since the scholars at that time were very limited, the children were usually from royal and noble backgrounds. The training usually lasts for years together (where they are never allowed met their families during the training) and there they were taught about humanism, how to develop a strong social structure and of-course how to run the country and a host of other things.

The idea behind that is actually pretty simple. What those maharishis were doing were that they were breaking the bonds between them and their parents and replacing them with IDEAL/Utopian Ideas. Young Human minds are every fragile, easily grasping and can be easily moulded in a very young age. So they were creating the ideal next generation rulers. This was ofcourse only proved partially effective since the population they ruled over were just the normal capitalist scum they were.
Psychiatrists use terms like "less rigid" and "easily mouldable" to explain the young minds. Basically in that state when you inculcate a habit into those children, it creates permanent characters for the rest of their lives.

Have you every heard of the phrase "Catch them when they are young" ?. Well, this is what it means.

If the above explanation is too much for you to grasp, here is a simplified version- Seen the movie star wars Ep-I phantom menace? The scene where yoda says to obiwan that the young skywalker is too old for the training. And that the influences of his mother/parents is very much deeply engraved in him. Well that's what it's all about. Hope you get it.

If you are planning a socialist society better inculcate the ideals of socialism at a very young age by professionals NOT BY PARENTS! This fully (or atleast partially) demolishes the hierarchy which you mentioned above and creates a brother-hood/socialistic ideals in those children which they carry on for the rest of their lives.

Parihaka
22 Jun 06,, 13:54
Well, truth hurts dosen't it?! .................................................. .................................................. ...................
It's ancient, very very ancient! .................................................. .................................................. ...........................
If you are planning a socialist society better inculcate the ideals of socialism at a very young age by professionals NOT BY PARENTS! This fully (or atleast partially) demolishes the hierarchy which you mentioned above and creates a brother-hood/socialistic ideals in those children which they carry on for the rest of their lives.
Wouldn't be a fascist by any chance, would you?

fullstop
22 Jun 06,, 17:21
Wouldn't be a fascist by any chance, would you?

Dumb question!

gunnut
22 Jun 06,, 18:19
Dumb question!

Truth hurts?

2DREZQ
22 Jun 06,, 21:50
If the above explanation is too much for you to grasp.

At this point I get the impression that you are quite impressed with you own intellect. That's nice. I'm pretty impressed with mine. The difference between us is that I've got good reason to be.

Drop the pretentious, condecending attitude sonny. Leave that to those of us here who have earned the privilege.

Please don't think for a moment that I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post. Everybody here who knows me knows THAT ain't gonna happen; it's just that I've got actual blood-and-mucus work to do right now. I'll see you over the weekend...

2DREZQ
22 Jun 06,, 21:57
Interesting. I have the impression that you're a Christian.
Yes

Do you have any views on eschatology, i.e., end times theology?
Yes

Your semi-optimistic view of the future is rather preteristic, which is not very popular these days, at least compared to the pre-millenialist Left Behind view.
Can't stand the whole series-My views are at odds with the current mainline thinking. More in line with the early church fathers-Wesleyians.

Personally, I can't decide if it is possible to spread Western-style economics and legal systems much wider or not. But it's worth a try.
The best look at what I think can be found in Thomas Barnett's book: "The Pentagon's New Map"- I interviewed Barnett once on-air, I've got the CD if you're interested.

Parihaka
22 Jun 06,, 22:27
Dumb question!
That's because I tried to keep it really simple so you'd understand :)

Confed999
23 Jun 06,, 00:31
Funny, I had pegged him as a communist. Doesn't matter any more though...

Parihaka
23 Jun 06,, 01:12
Funny, I had pegged him as a communist. Doesn't matter any more though...
Fascism, Socialism, Communism, National Socialism, they were all big on the 'reprogramming' the children and usurping the role of the family. His let the 'poor die' routine with it's racial overtones pointed me towards Nat. Socialism or Fascism. Anyway, a fine regurgitated product of the late 19th and early 20th century.
http://media.euniverse.com/members_flowgo_com/images/thumbnails/07_2002/hairball_for_you.gif

2DREZQ
23 Jun 06,, 03:42
AUGH!! I thought you'd leave this one a little while!

NUTS!

Parihaka
23 Jun 06,, 03:53
Please don't think for a moment that I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post. Everybody here who knows me knows THAT ain't gonna happen; it's just that I've got actual blood-and-mucus work to do right now. I'll see you over the weekend...

AUGH!! I thought you'd leave this one a little while!

NUTS!
Never mind. We'll listen. Honest. :)

2DREZQ
23 Jun 06,, 17:03
Never mind. We'll listen. Honest. :)

Nah, There's no point now. He was the only one who didn't know that we have a pseudo-intellectual detector built into the system, and the little red light started flashing every time he hit the "submit reply" button.

If he sneaks in again, could we pretend not to notice for a few days? (PM me about it, though.)

ArmchairGeneral
24 Jun 06,, 03:28
Nah, There's no point now. He was the only one who didn't know that we have a pseudo-intellectual detector built into the system, and the little red light started flashing every time he hit the "submit reply" button.

If he sneaks in again, could we pretend not to notice for a few days? (PM me about it, though.)
You poor, pitiful individual. Your only satisfaction in life comes from toying with these unfortunates. Can't you pick on someone your own size? Meanie.

On the end times thing. As low quality entertainment with some interesting views of the future, I kinda liked the first two Left Behind books. After that there was a steady downward trend in writing quality and a steady upward trend in violence and gadgetry that seemed to be there only to attract readers. Still undecided on my own eschatological views, though I seem to be leaning toward a more post millenial/preteristic view, with the church bringing on a new age through its good influence, rather than a Rapturesque, big bang showy type of thing, with Antichrist and all. Maybe.

Oh, and what's this CD thing? I'm looking up Barnett right now.

HistoricalDavid
24 Jun 06,, 11:38
Yes it's socialism. We don't do it to help out the farmers. It has more to do with stablizing the market.

Better to maintain food stockpiles in a manner similar to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in that case, rather than not only encouraging stupidities - like paying people to be inefficient, making rich farmers richer, pouring milk down the drain (which happens in the EU anyway), keeping Africa in poverty, etc - but also hurting the poor most, since the price floors imposed on foodstuffs are inherently regressive.

PubFather
24 Jun 06,, 12:24
Better to maintain food stockpiles in a manner similar to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in that case, rather than not only encouraging stupidities - like paying people to be inefficient, making rich farmers richer, pouring milk down the drain (which happens in the EU anyway), keeping Africa in poverty, etc - but also hurting the poor most, since the price floors imposed on foodstuffs are inherently regressive.
In Europe, at least, it is more to do with helping the farmers (especially French ones). Farmers annoy me - they were all for the market led reforms that signalled the end of the coal industry in the UK, but whine when the same principles are applied to them.

The subsidies in Europe so inherantly anti-competitive it hurts, along with agricultural tariffs etc. European farmers (as currently established) cannot compete on price with world producers. Tough luck.

European farmers should diversify (as some are doing) and concentrate on high quality premium products. The rich can afford to buy them, the poor can buy cheaper imports.
The farmers with the ability to adapt survive, the rest can sell their land to people who can turn a profit from it. Europe gets rid of the CAP and spends the money on something worthwhile - like R&D or a proper military, or just a big old party where we burn French farmers.

I hate french farmers :mad:
(Although I do like French cheese, and ham, and sausages - and I will pay a premium for them.)

Shek
24 Jun 06,, 13:50
We actually have a good reason to do this. If we don't, then farmers will increase production to make extra profit. As they increase production, unit price falls. If a bumper crop hits, the commodity market plunges and puts farmers out of work. If too many farmers leave the profession, then what happens if a poor season hits and the commodity market sky rockets?

Yes it's socialism. We don't do it to help out the farmers. It has more to do with stablizing the market.

Personally, I don't agree with it. But it's a major function of the Federal Reserve Board after its creation so we don't see another Great Depression.

The Fed doesn't do subsidies. The US Congress does. So, there's a huge political interest component to this as well. The subsidies don't go away or decrease because it would be political suicide for the Congressmen from the farm states, who can logroll for votes on the issue.

Shek
24 Jun 06,, 13:51
In Europe, at least, it is more to do with helping the farmers (especially French ones). Farmers annoy me - they were all for the market led reforms that signalled the end of the coal industry in the UK, but whine when the same principles are applied to them.

The subsidies in Europe so inherantly anti-competitive it hurts, along with agricultural tariffs etc. European farmers (as currently established) cannot compete on price with world producers. Tough luck.

European farmers should diversify (as some are doing) and concentrate on high quality premium products. The rich can afford to buy them, the poor can buy cheaper imports.
The farmers with the ability to adapt survive, the rest can sell their land to people who can turn a profit from it. Europe gets rid of the CAP and spends the money on something worthwhile - like R&D or a proper military, or just a big old party where we burn French farmers.

I hate french farmers :mad:
(Although I do like French cheese, and ham, and sausages - and I will pay a premium for them.)

EU subsidies don't help farmers! They help the agrobusinesses! Once again, the smokescreens of lobbying groups claim yet another victim!

PubFather
24 Jun 06,, 15:51
EU subsidies don't help farmers! They help the agrobusinesses! Once again, the smokescreens of lobbying groups claim yet another victim!
Not true - subsidies do help EU farmers, its just that agrobusinesses are able to claim a proportionately larger share of the pot than an individual farmers, because they own and operate more land.

To give you an example - farmers in Scotland can claim a subsidy on every sheep that they rear. Its not unknown (amongst some farmers) to move their flocks onto each others farms - which promotes double counting of sheep and double subsidies.

Why would the French lobby so hard to maintain the CAP if this wasnt the case - France is very much the land of smaller (less effecient) farms than is the case in the UK. The French farming lobby is composed of individual farmers - not suited agrobusiness executives.

AFAIK, the level of subsidies is falling, and cant fall quickly enough for me.

2DREZQ
24 Jun 06,, 17:19
You poor, pitiful individual. Your only satisfaction in life comes from toying with these unfortunates. Can't you pick on someone your own size? Meanie.

I can't pick on people "my size" because they don't do things that need picking on.

Oh, and what's this CD thing? I'm looking up Barnett right now.

He literally 'wrote the book' on the future of geo-politics- two of them, in fact. I interviewed him for a radio talk-show that I co-host. It was great fun.

On the end-times; I recommend a book called "Last Days Madness" by Guy DeMarr, and one titled "Matthew 24: Fullfilled" - the authors name escapes me at the moment.

ArmchairGeneral
24 Jun 06,, 17:46
Interesting. Found his website, haven't looked at much, but the Core vs Gap idea is very interesting. Seems a little bit simplistic, considering the vast differences between say, Canada and Russia. Wonder if it'll become a cliche like the First/Second/Third World idea did?

I believe I have heard of "Last Days Madness." I have never read a book on the Preterist view, but I have had a Ph.D in Theology explain it to me over the course of a semester, so I think I have a pretty good handle on it. A couple of problems that I have are the contrast between the wacked out stuff in Revelation that seems to describe the end of the world and the actual course of the world today. As in the thread I started on the subject, I am still undecided on whether the world is on an upward trend or not. Of course, my problems with the Rapture stuff are far greater, to the point of being at a loss as to where people came up with the idea.

Shek
25 Jun 06,, 12:43
Not true - subsidies do help EU farmers, its just that agrobusinesses are able to claim a proportionately larger share of the pot than an individual farmers, because they own and operate more land.

Agreed. I spoke in haste and broke my own self-made rule not to argue in absolute arguments since they tend to be unsustainable. The primary beneficiaries are agrobusinesses even though the face put on the issue is the small farmer.

The subsidy cuts will continue to wane as the older farmers dies off and the agrobusinesses take on even more of the production. Eventually, there won't be enough political clout to protect a "way of life," since most won't consider agrobusiness as a "way of life" in dire need of protection.

PubFather
27 Jun 06,, 19:45
Hopefully: cant come quickly enough for my tastes... if we have to pay farmers, why not encourage them to grow crops for bio-diesel, power-generation, something more useful than growing nothing, or growing excess for no reason...

gunnut
27 Jun 06,, 20:13
Hopefully: cant come quickly enough for my tastes... if we have to pay farmers, why not encourage them to grow crops for bio-diesel, power-generation, something more useful than growing nothing, or growing excess for no reason...

We have that here too. We pay farmers not to grow too much. Growing and harvesting too much, worst case scenario, a bumper crop, will destroy the commodity market. The ripple effect will cause the stock market to take a dive, in turn affecting the entire economy.

Maybe the answer is like what you said, have the farmers grow stuff for bio-diesel, ethanol, anything that can quench our thirst for oil. However, it may not be cheap. Oil must continue to rise in price to make it profittable for the 1st generation bio fuel to sustain itself on the market. Hopefully, eventually, with more time and research and incentive to lower the cost will make bio fuel an effective competition for oil, especially if crude continues to rise in price.

Parihaka
28 Jun 06,, 00:14
We have that here too. We pay farmers not to grow too much. Growing and harvesting too much, worst case scenario, a bumper crop, will destroy the commodity market. The ripple effect will cause the stock market to take a dive, in turn affecting the entire economy.

Maybe the answer is like what you said, have the farmers grow stuff for bio-diesel, ethanol, anything that can quench our thirst for oil. However, it may not be cheap. Oil must continue to rise in price to make it profittable for the 1st generation bio fuel to sustain itself on the market. Hopefully, eventually, with more time and research and incentive to lower the cost will make bio fuel an effective competition for oil, especially if crude continues to rise in price.
I noticed an article a while ago about some corn farmers in the States who were making ethanol out of it and that seemed to be profitable, but maybe there was a subsidy in there somewhere...

ArmchairGeneral
28 Jun 06,, 01:20
but maybe there was a subsidy in there somewhere...
Very much so.

Jay
28 Jun 06,, 02:15
I noticed an article a while ago about some corn farmers in the States who were making ethanol out of it and that seemed to be profitable, but maybe there was a subsidy in there somewhere...
Gow Jatropha, we do it in India and IIRC we do get a subsidy for it...
http://www.jatrophaworld.org/14.html
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/09/02/stories/2005090202950100.htm

The next time you travel to Pune and board a Pune Municipal Transport (PMT) bus, take a deep breath of satisfaction. Your lungs would appreciate it.

Starting 1 July, 2006, PMT will be running over 100 buses on bio-diesel, thanks to the cultivation of jatropha and its conversion into bio-diesel in Maharashtra.

Of course, if a municipal bus is not quite your style, you could still savour the experience of a clean fuel ride in the luxury of a Mercedes C-class car.

Surprised? The world's leading automobile makers are thinking alternatives these days. DaimlerChrysler is now in the second phase of its bio-diesel project, and it is working on the consistency and sustainability of jatropha as a form of bio-diesel.

"We have an agreement to procure 80,000 litres of bio-diesel from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in the second phase -- spread over 2006-07. We are running Daimler's fleet of cars on bio-diesel produced from jatropha," says Suhas Kadlaskar, director, corporate affairs and finance, DaimlerChrysler Bio-diesel Project.

And what is the advantage of a car running on bio-diesel? Going by Daimler's test runs last year (on such difficult terrain as Leh), jatropha oil has a much higher "flashpoint" -- it can withstand temperatures of up to 150 degrees celsius, unlike fossil fuels which have a flashpoint of only 50 degrees. This tolerance translates into safety. The fuel's "cetane number" is also high, which makes for quick ignition and a smoother drive.

The company, along with its partners, is currently working on a co-operative model village in Gujarat that will sustain itself on jatropha. The sums involved are not large. With a project cost of Rs 7.5 crore (Rs 75 million) for the second phase, Daimler is contributing Rs 4 crore (Rs 40 million), the rest being funded by Germany's DEG.

But don't dismiss it as just another alternative fuel bluff. The fuel opens up new possibilities -- which is why Daimler is not the only motoring company looking at bio-diesel. Mahindra & Mahindra and Tata Motors are also on to it. Reliance Industries, an oil player itself, has made a beginning too, by getting into jatropha cultivation in Andhra Pradesh.

The plant has its attractions. It flourishes in tropical wastelands where little else might grow of any value. This suits India just fine, with 130 million hectares of estimated wasteland. According to CSMCRI, an affiliate of CSIR, some 10 million of that is perfect for jatropha.

The rest of the world seems to have noticed. Paul Bennett, fuels policy advisor, fuels management group, BP Technology Centre, is based in the UK, but his heart lies in India nowadays.

Since February, he has been making increased trips to India -- all for alternative fuels. The company has committed a sum of $9.4 million over five years to the initative; BP is eyeing 8,000 hectares in Andhra Pradesh.

"BP is working on the possibility of sourcing bio-diesel out of India," says Bennett, "and this money will be spent on research, marketing and creating a supply chain for BP, and we expect this project to become self financing after five years."

Another UK-based company, D1 Oils, is looking at jatropha as a feedstock for fuel, and India as the biggest hub for its supply. Its business model: contract-farming.

"D1 provides farmers the technological support, ensures buyback of produce, and help in tie-ups with banks for financial support," says Sarju Singh, chairman, D1 Oils India, which hopes to cover around 20,000 hectares in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh.

Hyderabad-based Nandan Biomatrix also runs a contract-farming model. It sources jatropha, and proposes to use four production centres to supply oil to government refineries.

"We are aiming to develop large catchment areas spread over 2.5 lakh (250,000) acres for both pongemia and jatropha," says C S Jadhav, director, marketing, Nandan Biomatrix.

But is bio-diesel something the government is keen on? For its part, it has announced a bio-diesel purchase policy of Rs 25 a litre. But industry players are not entirely sure if the fuel will prove commercially viable.

Jatropha cultivation has its supporters in the government, all the same, which is running a funding programme of Rs 75 lakh (Rs 7.5 million) per district, managed by district collectors. One can sell pongemia saplings at Rs 8-10 per plant and jatropha at Rs 5-6 per plant to the programme, says Jadhav. Energy strategems are all very useful, it'd seem, but not at the cost of the Indian farmer's security.
http://inhome.rediff.com/money/2006/jun/24spec2.htm

Ellopian
02 Jul 06,, 19:24
How is it fair that the person working is paying for the other person to live in the slums without a job? How is it fair that the person working gets up every morning and goes to school and actually studies or work and actually works while the other does not?

WE ARE ALL BORN NAKED. SOME OF US WORK FOR OUR CLOTHES AND SOME OF US WAIT FOR HANDOUTS. EITHER WAY - IT IS OUR CHOICE.

No one is DENIED an education. But if people want an education outside of the place that they live, they may need to get a job (or work to get a better job) and then work to be able to move. No one guards the gates of America's slum housing communities keeping people in. People can - AND DO - get out.

Who do you zink you are man? No really? Zis is zo pretentious... If you were born in Afrika do you zink you'd had ze possibilitad to write down all zese nonsences? Zorry for you, but just for information, das III Reich, it iz over.... Auf wiedersen kamarad

Confed999
02 Jul 06,, 19:27
No really? Zis is zo pretentious...
Why is it wrong to expect people to work for a living? No really?

Ellopian
02 Jul 06,, 19:38
Why is it wrong to expect people to work for a living? No really?

He says that it's a choice. Do you think that we are born with the same chances and possibilities... I'd like to see him if he was born in a favela of Rio, he would not play smartguy like now..
Some people just don't have the choice.

Confed999
02 Jul 06,, 19:44
He says that it's a choice.
Work, or don't work, seems simple enough to me. You should also read the part she quoted to get a greater context of her post, so you don't go around accusing people of being facists without due cause.

Ellopian
02 Jul 06,, 19:51
Work, or don't work, seems simple enough to me. You should also read the part she quoted to get a greater context of her post, so you don't go around accusing people of being facists without due cause.

I did.... It changes nothing.

Confed999
02 Jul 06,, 20:01
I did.... It changes nothing.
Last I checked, Rio wasn't in the USA...

Ellopian
02 Jul 06,, 20:04
Last I checked, Rio wasn't in the USA...

Ok, replace Rio by Bronx them. Her argument is still a fascist argument. :tongue:

Confed999
02 Jul 06,, 20:07
Ok, replace Rio by Bronx them.
People from the Bronx get jobs and work for a living.

Her argument is still a fascist argument.
I still do not see how it is, enlighten me.

Ellopian
02 Jul 06,, 20:16
I still do not see how it is, enlighten me.

Confeed, i cannot do all the WORK for you.

Confed999
02 Jul 06,, 20:18
Confeed, i cannot do all the WORK for you.
Your accusation, you have the burden of proof...

ZFBoxcar
02 Jul 06,, 20:23
The absence of welfare packages is not fascism.

Ellopian
02 Jul 06,, 20:26
Your accusation, you have the burden of proof...

Don't take it bad man, it was a joke... Even if we have opposite pov i have some sympathy for you :eek: , ok?
Now, i mean that her arguments are classic "hard right wing" arguments. Those who work are respectable, and the others are lazy, blabla, blabla... I 'm sure that she was born into a family with good social position, its so easy to critisize the poor people when you were born in the good part of the frontier, thats all.

Ellopian
02 Jul 06,, 20:28
The absence of welfare packages is not fascism.

Viva Quebec! Viva Quebec, ole ole ole!!

Confed999
02 Jul 06,, 20:32
Those who work are respectable, and the others are lazy, blabla, blabla...
She didn't say that, she said it wasn't fair to ask someone to pay for someone else who has made the choice not to work.

Confed999
02 Jul 06,, 20:32
The absence of welfare packages is not fascism.
Don't confuse him with too many facts I guess...

Ellopian
02 Jul 06,, 20:48
Don't confuse him with too many facts I guess...

If you have to say something tell it to me, its better

Confed999
02 Jul 06,, 20:54
If you have to say something tell it to me, its better
"The absence of welfare packages is not fascism."

Ellopian
02 Jul 06,, 21:15
"The absence of welfare packages is not fascism."

Don't you think that stigmatising like that a part of the population, brings us back to dark periods?
Anyway, the best would be her to take part of the discussion, it'll be much more interesting...

Confed999
02 Jul 06,, 21:38
Don't you think that stigmatising like that a part of the population, brings us back to dark periods?
Telling someone they have to work for a living isn't wrong in any way I can see.

Ellopian
02 Jul 06,, 21:51
Telling someone they have to work for a living isn't wrong in any way I can see.

I agree.
But the way she wrote it (big letters, cheap formulas that youl'll find in every neo-nazi program) is not acceptable.

Confed999
02 Jul 06,, 21:54
But the way she wrote it (big letters, cheap formulas that youl'll find in every neo-nazi program) is not acceptable.
LOL :) Whatever. Saying people decide to work, or not to work, is in no way "facist"...

ArmchairGeneral
02 Jul 06,, 23:48
Fascism has always seemed to me a sort of a fuzzy philosophy, more of a nasty attitude than anything else, but here's the essentials as I understand them. Extreme nationalism; big gov't statism; aggressive, grasping foreign policy; blaming all problems on some evil group or force, such as Bolshevists or Jews; brutal suppression of opposition. Don't see anything about cutting off welfare in there.

T-bone
09 Jul 06,, 23:14
Do you think it's ok for people to live in luxury?It depends if they try to make the world a better place and how they made the money.

T-bone
09 Jul 06,, 23:19
That is immaterial. Whether or not it's okay, that's life. That's the way it is. The world is a hard place, and we have to deal with reality, and reality is that as long as people are people, there's gonna be problems, and we can't fix all the problems. That's life.With that kind of attitude it will never change.

It is people like dalem and ArmchairGeneral why I think the Wall Street Crash is the best thing to happen to the US.

Confed999
10 Jul 06,, 02:22
It depends if they try to make the world a better place
Unless they're hiding the money under their bed, they're making the world a better place just by having it...

ArmchairGeneral
10 Jul 06,, 02:24
With that kind of attitude it will never change.

It is people like dalem and ArmchairGeneral why I think the Wall Street Crash is the best thing to happen to the US.
Huh? Do you mean the Great Depression? What has Wall Street got to do with it?

I'd like to clarify my position. My "attitude" is not that we can't fix anything. Rather, my position is that we can't fix everything, and that sometimes attempts to fix a problem make it worse. It's not that I don't feel for all the people in misery around the world; I do. Perhaps not as much as I should, because I'm not a very emotional person. But what I see is a lot of people running around shouting about how horrible everything is, and demanding that we fix it, and they don't look at the situation and think, "what, exactly, do we plan to do to solve this problem, and is it possible to make the problem worse?" It's kind of like the old saying: "don't just do something, stand there."

I look at the world, and I can see that it's broken. For me, my beliefs and my feelings demand that I do what I can to help fix the problems in this world. However, I also do not want to worsen the situation in any way. Of course, action always carries the risk of failure. So one must make a decision; do the rewards of success outweigh the costs of failure? And that decision must not be made hastily.

Confed999
10 Jul 06,, 02:32
what I see is a lot of people running around shouting about how horrible everything is, and demanding that we fix it
I always wonder why they don't get up and work on their own problems, instead of complaining about them. :(

ArmchairGeneral
10 Jul 06,, 03:14
I always wonder why they don't get up and work on their own problems, instead of complaining about them. :(
Depends on who "they" is. I was mainly referring to bleeding hearts of all persuasions who think that there are simple solutions to all the world's problems. And the ones who think it's all the fault of evil rich people plotting to get more money and more power.

As to the people with the problems, it depends on the people. I have little sympathy for gang thugs, even less for drug dealers, almost none for butchers like Charles Taylor or that LRA maniac in Uganda, although I try. However, the vast majority of people in all the bad situations aroound the world are ordinary people, trapped in a bad deal, trying to make the most of what they have. And it's not easy. We in the West are sitting on top of millenia of trial and error, and it hasn't been pretty, and we haven't fixed all of our own problems yet. So how am I to expect that people without the traditions or the institutions that have proven necessary for prosperity should somehow be able to fix everything in a century or less?

I do resent it when people blame everything on "the Man." Sometimes America, sometimes rich people, sometimes politicians, never ourselves. We can't blame everything on one person or group. We're all responsible in some degree for the state of the world. We in America should be willing to take our share of the blame, but not all of it.

gunnut
10 Jul 06,, 03:29
It depends if they try to make the world a better place and how they made the money.

Exactly.

Income redistribution will not solve anything. Let me ask you this one thing: how do the people on welfare make their money?

gunnut
10 Jul 06,, 03:30
I always wonder why they don't get up and work on their own problems, instead of complaining about them. :(

Because it's hard to refuse free money.

Confed999
10 Jul 06,, 05:53
Depends on who "they" is.
All of 'em. Both the people with problems, and the people with a problem with people having problems. :tongue:

T-bone
12 Jul 06,, 00:18
Unless they're hiding the money under their bed, they're making the world a better place just by having it...

So are you say someone with money in the Mafia is making the world a better place just by having money?

T-bone
12 Jul 06,, 00:46
Huh? Do you mean the Great Depression? No, but you could add the Great Depression to what I said.


What has Wall Street got to do with it? To do With the Great Depression, or why I think things like the Wall Street Crash are good thing?



I'd like to clarify my position. My "attitude" is not that we can't fix anything. Rather, my position is that we can't fix everything, and that sometimes attempts to fix a problem make it worse......

I look at the world, and I can see that it's broken. For me, my beliefs and my feelings demand that I do what I can to help fix the problems in this world. However, I also do not want to worsen the situation in any way. Of course, action always carries the risk of failure. So one must make a decision; do the rewards of success outweigh the costs of failure? And that decision must not be made hastily.

How the hell do you make poverty worse?


Income redistribution will not solve anything. Let me ask you this one thing: how do the people on welfare make their money?They don`t.

There are two kinds of people on welfare, people who want to work but can`t (people with physical and mental illness) and the other type is people who are lazy. The two sorts of people on welfare should not be confused.

ArmchairGeneral
12 Jul 06,, 00:51
So are you say someone with money in the Mafia is making the world a better place just by having money?
What do you mean by money "in" the Mafia? The Mob is not a bank. Any sensible Mob boss keeps his money in the bank, just like anybody else. And if the money's in a bank, yes, it's doing good, being lent out to people to buy a car or house, start a business, or upgrade their business. Busy being capital, one of the foundations of prosperity.

Confed999
12 Jul 06,, 00:58
Any sensible Mob boss keeps his money in the bank, just like anybody else. And if the money's in a bank, yes, it's doing good, being lent out to people to buy a car or house, start a business, or upgrade their business. Busy being capital, one of the foundations of prosperity.
Exactly. :)

Confed999
12 Jul 06,, 01:00
How the hell do you make poverty worse?
Make people dependant on the government.


The two sorts of people on welfare should not be confused.
I don't think anyone is confused...

gunnut
12 Jul 06,, 01:02
They don`t.

There are two kinds of people on welfare, people who want to work but can`t (people with physical and mental illness) and the other type is people who are lazy. The two sorts of people on welfare should not be confused.

So neither of which makes the world a better place. Yet we are forced to give them money. We have no choice in who we want to help. Is that the system you like?

ArmchairGeneral
12 Jul 06,, 01:09
To do With the Great Depression, or why I think things like the Wall Street Crash are good thing?
The second option.


How the hell do you make poverty worse?
Um, by making people poorer, maybe? :confused: I was not referring only to poverty, but it's quite easy to make poverty worse: there's a distinct difference between almost starving and starving. Do you think that Mexico or Albania are not in a better position than Mozambique or Somalia? All four are poor nations, but some are poorer than others. And if you compound poverty with violence, I'd consider that a worsening of the situation. Poverty is relative. By American standards, you could say that my family is poor. By the world's standards, we have an almost fabulous standard of living.

dalem
12 Jul 06,, 06:28
With that kind of attitude it will never change.

It is people like dalem and ArmchairGeneral why I think the Wall Street Crash is the best thing to happen to the US.

Huh?

-dale

Ironduke
05 Dec 06,, 02:16
With the dangers of over population, poverty, deforestation and polution, does anyone think that it should be a goal of the global community to level off population growth?
Current trends suggest that the world population will level off in the near future, then begin to fall.

Julie
08 Dec 06,, 15:05
Current trends suggest that the world population will level off in the near future, then begin to fall.Especially with the "morning after pill" now on the shelves.