Is The Human Race Doomed? Deutsche Bank On "One The Most Important (Future) Turning Points In History"

Tyler Durden's picture




 
0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 05/24/2011 - 13:55 | 1305880 Crisismode
Crisismode's picture

Genome, bitchez!

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 14:00 | 1305907 Hugh G Rection
Hugh G Rection's picture

Looks like the great culling missed a spot

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 14:11 | 1305951 redpill
redpill's picture

Fire up them cloning vats!

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 14:20 | 1306019 Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

Ah-nold is contributing to increase the fertility rate in Cali.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 14:40 | 1306138 silberblick
silberblick's picture

Not sure if the human race is doomed, but Obama may be. Black social activist and university professor Cornel West calls out Obama as being a part of the oligarchy and challenges Americans to rise up like people in Europe and the Middle East are doing. Maybe this will save the human race?? Read here:

http://redpillfactory.blogspot.com/2011/05/cornel-west-calls-out-obama.html

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 14:57 | 1306204 zaknick
zaknick's picture

"Deutche Bank" us a front for the Warburgs (Rothschild lackeys). They bought Bankers Trust (TGE Banksters Trust). Involved in 911 and every other genocidal scam.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 15:06 | 1306260 nope-1004
nope-1004's picture

Tyler:

Good article.  No where have I read the truth, that is, that there are ALWAYS more males born in every species than females.  Everyone seems to think it's 50/50.

Just one point to add:  If you look at death rates among aged 55+, you will see that more women die than men.  The reason is that the male in most species is supposed to "fight" and defend the family, causing them to behave in much more aggressive nature.  Men also are the majority in wars.  Also, boys aged 15-24 egage in riskier activities.  So although more males are born than females, there are more females living at older ages due to differential mortality.  Men act in ways that put them more at risk to dying young, which is why most species have evolved to have a male slanted birth rate.

Gotta love nature.

 

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 17:36 | 1306797 forexskin
forexskin's picture

And since global reproduction will not be net additive, it will be net subtractive... and on a long-enough timeline the world's population will drop to zero...

really sounds like someone is trying to get the eco-nazis excited...

 

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 19:50 | 1307209 mkkby
mkkby's picture

Tyler was joking with that comment.

Peak energy, commodities and debt will all work together to drastically raise the cost of living.  So I think over the coming decades the trend will point even more steeply downward.  The long term sustainable population may be under 2 billion, which is the number of people currently earning over $10 per day now.  Everyone else will be priced out of life's necessities.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 22:15 | 1307651 FEDbuster
FEDbuster's picture

Who's going to pay for my Social Security?  The Ponzi needs new people to pay for the older ones, so all you under 40 couples out there, "start reproducing".

Wed, 05/25/2011 - 12:04 | 1309304 forexskin
forexskin's picture

ummm, my response was joking too.

thanks for being wise enough to point out the obvious to the resident idiot here...

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 20:05 | 1307256 Absinthe Minded
Absinthe Minded's picture

Stud services, Bitchez!!!!!

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 20:09 | 1307261 Absinthe Minded
Absinthe Minded's picture

Dup.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 20:10 | 1307263 Absinthe Minded
Absinthe Minded's picture

Trip.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 20:12 | 1307268 Absinthe Minded
Absinthe Minded's picture

Quadruplicate! Jeez the fuckin'servers are slow tonight, aren't you guys supposed to be watching Dancin' with the Idles or something.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 20:39 | 1307357 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Well, at least someone is reproducing ;-)

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 23:27 | 1307799 Milestones
Milestones's picture

Informative post. Thank you.       Milestones

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 15:30 | 1306351 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture

Ok I'll accept that "it will show a different trend than before." But human history doomed? Thats the most sensational assumption ever. Perhaps it would be better to say "The largest number of humans living on the globe ever, will be reduced, with no guarantees of a constant decline thereafter." Population size is directly related to the amount of resources available to be consumed. As with any organism. I deny there is some sort of "actual limit" considering "better use of resources" and or innovations could completely negate statements about population limits, particularly by 2020. Sure perhaps with our current "technology" and path of a maximum limit could be reached.

Doomed? Please.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 16:08 | 1306495 l1xx3r
l1xx3r's picture

I agree. I should also add that I think humans have trouble breeding in captivity. You could correlate the losing of freedoms, with the lowering of the birth rate very well. It might not be causation, but most animals do not breed well in captivity, why not humans too?

 

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 16:17 | 1306543 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

I agree. I should also add that I think humans have trouble breeding in captivity.

You must be a public school graduate. Ever heard of slavery? They breed quite well. Populations decrease in good times due to love of self.

The worst thing that can happen to a population is it finds itself rich and self-absorbed.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 17:54 | 1306868 mophead
mophead's picture

"Population size is directly related to the amount of resources available to be consumed."

I hate to differ with you. Last time I checked, dogs, geese, wales and other organisms aren't having to spend ridiculous amounts of money on health "insurance". Do you know how much it costs to bring a baby into this world?

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 18:56 | 1307064 Ratscam
Ratscam's picture

bringing it into this world is easy and mostly costless, however bringing it up roughly cost you 800K for the first child in CH, the second comes at a discount of 600K and these are 2005 figures. still want kids?

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 21:43 | 1307561 A Nanny Moose
A Nanny Moose's picture

It's up to you to figure out how to turn your rugrats into a positive sum game.

Wed, 05/25/2011 - 02:35 | 1308082 Ratscam
Ratscam's picture

never goin to happen, but I guess young rugrats are not about money.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 23:29 | 1307801 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

I'm curious about these numbers. Do you have a reference? $800K/18 years= $44,444/year, and the median household income is just shy of 50k/year. I'd believe something closer to $20k/year/child, but I don't think most folks could possibly spend 89% of their net income on their kids, whether they wanted to or not.

Wed, 05/25/2011 - 02:51 | 1308101 Ratscam
Ratscam's picture

http://www.beobachter.ch/familie/artikel/familienplanung_was-kostet-ein-kind/

see grey box at the end, or check out Bundesamt für Statistik (BFS).

BTW: Figures are for 20 years, do not include state subsidies but do include opportunity costs. Parents simply lower their living standards when rugrats are swarming the house.

Looking at upper middle class, where most of the women work as opposed to the fifties, just them nannies cost 2'500 per month reducing the opportunity costs by increasing their total cost basis.

I know its not a sexy topic to talk about - simply facts as ZH is all about.

Wed, 05/25/2011 - 03:37 | 1308149 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

A Switzerland site? I don't see the numbers applicable to the US, but I do appreciate the reference, even if I can't understand all of it.

Thanks.

Wed, 05/25/2011 - 04:50 | 1308186 Ratscam
Ratscam's picture

that's why I wrote in CH, which stands for confoederatio helvetica or Switzerland.

Try google translation. I guess the figures for the US are less but not by far, the principle stays the same in all western countries. Woman have to unfortunately work in order to afford a child.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 19:09 | 1307090 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Norman Borlaug bought the world time, but we spent it screwing and exploding the population.

Humans are not rational.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 21:05 | 1307419 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture

Is that really your argument? You dont' have to get health insurance. (except forcibly by the government) Nor even to "bring a baby into the world." There are still people who have kids the old fashion way, or with home water births. I'd say it is a luxury to have a child in a hospital, that we've taken for granted for decades.

 

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 18:29 | 1306979 Id fight Gandhi
Id fight Gandhi's picture

As quality of life and life conditions get better, fertility rates fall. That's why you have poor countries and poor people have more children.

At this rate there should be a population explosion in the USA as we get poorer

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 19:21 | 1307136 NewThor
NewThor's picture

Doomed?

Relative to what?

I'm willing to bet a packet of Fun Dip that Elenin's 9.7 Earthquake

on or around September 26th, 2011 reduces the population quite a bit,

and that's just the beginning.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 16:23 | 1306553 Reptil
Reptil's picture

pff that guy took his damn time..

I spoke with him in a professional sense a decade or so ago. Typical american believer in the "system". Nothing wrong with that, but if a policy ("war on drugs") is devastating minority communities, you'd expect a slightly less meek attitude.

As for the "great culling". There's a number of issues that will lower the birthrate dramatically. All of these are linked to the destruction of our natural habitat. At some point we'll see a real division. Those that are "in" and can afford genetical changes, to counter greater amounts of toxins, and a sort of collective with AIs. And on the other side the ones that are "out", left to their own devices, and what the little nature that's left offers them. We'll see more agressive diseases emerge once the GMO food (toxins), industrial pollution (toxins) and raised level of base radiation (alpha particles everywhere) will weaken the human immune system. That is, IF we don't do anything. There's always a fighting chance. Give up, and inmediately you've lost the battle. So I'm getting a bit grumpy of all these "rapture" (wasn't that supposed to happen last weekend) or "2012" predictions of people that can't tell me anything but hazy generalisations and bleak images of grim reapers and zombie armies. bleh boooringgg

A square several hundred kilometers in the Sahara desert can provide power to most of the present energy need. There's too much food right now, on a planetary scale we actually have to scale it down, the only BIG problem now is.... who's in? And who decides that with what criteria? I'm genuinely curious. I guess "money" will play a big role, but healthy genes even more..

(yeah I can back all of that up, but you find it yourself ;-)

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 17:22 | 1306757 bbq on whitehou...
bbq on whitehouse lawn's picture

This report is not about population it is about money. Namly inflation.

The deflation that is caused by population will slow.

Governments will still print money for themselves so you will get added inflation to the money supply as population slows.

Basicly it adds to what we all ready know in the next decade.  Vary high inflation comes this way.

PS: male/female ratio is biological not cultural.

Y chroms are lighter then X chroms so they move faster. Better chance of being a boy over a girl but only slightly.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 18:38 | 1306983 mophead
mophead's picture

"We'll see more agressive diseases emerge once the GMO food (toxins), industrial pollution (toxins) and raised level of base radiation (alpha particles everywhere) will weaken the human immune system."

For starters. There's no such thing as an immune system. Yet another big lie, "the system" promotes. Show me the immune system. Take a picture of it. Draw it. Describe it. It can't be done. Because it doesn't exist.

Secondly, year after year we hear about these so called "new diseases" that are right around the corner, ready to mug you. Where are the diseases, where? They're not coming. The only diseases man has to worry about are the same diseases that have plagued us for centuries. These diseases are caused by two things: malnutrition and/or psychological trauma.

There isn't a shred of evidence that GMO foods will harm you. And as for toxins, the amounts are so small that it's pointless to even discuss. Nevertheless, if you ate something that was toxic and it didn't kill you the first time, then it will never kill you in the future. The idea that toxins build up in our bodies and weaken our immune systems, which then make us more susceptible to disease is beyond ridiculous. You may as well believe in Santa Clause.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 18:47 | 1307031 AurorusBorealus
AurorusBorealus's picture

Mophead, The book to read is Plagues and Peoples.  In the long run of things, humanity has enjoyed a brief respite of infectious disease between roughly 1770 and the present. Euro-Asian diseases spred to all corners of the world and much of the world's population passed genetic immunity on to their children.  However, this fortunate respite, upon which many of the "advances" of modernity rest,  this ecological golden age for humanity, will inevitably come to an end.  Any time human population centers grow dense, with domesticated animals living among peoples, new diseases have decimated populations.  There have been respites in the past when population grew rapidly, but each time a new plague arose to harvest human hosts.  This has occurred many times to humanity and for thousands of years.  Another disease will come, and population will drop rapidly.  Nature's law, not mine.

Wed, 05/25/2011 - 18:25 | 1307087 mophead
mophead's picture

Thanks for the recommendation. But I don't like to read propaganda unless it's for reference. Speaking of "infectious disease". If some diseases are truly infectious, then please explain to me how a doctor can be around hundreds, if not thousands of infectiously diseased patients, yet never contract the disease him/herself? The reason so many people died in those plagues are: a) malnutrition and/or b) psychological trauma. That's it.

Here's a question: why is it that some people (a very tiny minority of the population) die after getting stung by a bee? There is no medical explanation, is there?

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 19:00 | 1307067 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Dude, how can you argue with a 100 million dollar industry?

Did you know corn flakes got their start as a miracle cure food?

Heh. Every scam gets recycled every other generation. People are morons.

 

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 19:58 | 1307225 mophead
mophead's picture

Not every corporation/industry is trying to poisen you so they can increase their profits. The scam that you're not seeing is that the tables are being turned on us once again like with global warming/climate change: at first it was the big bad corporations that were polluting the environment and something had to be done, so they gave us carbon credits and made everyone a polluter, forcing new regulations upon the world, basically, driving up the cost of doing business and ultimately, the cost of living. NOW what's unfolding is that the big bad food producing boogeymen are selling us GMO/Toxic food. So what's the solution? Regulation. Which does what? Drive up the cost of food thanks to the artificial scarcity that will be created by banning the pesticides and eventually the GMO foods. We will also have more starvation. Would you rather starve or eat a cucumber with wax on it? OMG OMG -- that cucumber has wax on it -- it'll...it'll give you cancer !!!

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 20:08 | 1307259 Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

I agree our doom is that now the government is part of the scam.

I don't see a way out.

When EPA requires a hazmat response to a milk spill, the inmates are running the asylum.

And the proles cheer. Crazy, crazy times.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 23:37 | 1307811 Milestones
Milestones's picture

Never used wax on cukes--a cap full of vegetable oil in a couple of gallons of water when ya wash them before going to market.   Milestones

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 20:01 | 1307211 Reptil
Reptil's picture

The immune system is a part of the body focussed on mopping up any invasive organisms. It's several glands supported (not seperate) from the rest of the body. Lymphatic nodes is one part of it. Your answer seems very strange to me. Are you discussing semantics or throwing mud?

Everything changes in nature. Flu viri evolve to take one example. Technically that's a new organism.

As for the evidence that GMO food will harm you, I just posted two links to credible research that says just that. What have you got? Hot troll air? Seems so. Post real (not sponsored) independent research that proves it's safe, or take a hike please. I'm not joking around.

FYI: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/human-race-doomed-deutsche-bank-one-mos...

--

Here's another interesting snippet:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4441564.stm

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 20:19 | 1307288 mophead
mophead's picture

"The immune system is a part of the body focussed on mopping up any invasive organisms."

Ridiculous. For that matter, the entire human body is an "immune system". Even if it existed, then explain exactly how it is weakened or strengthened, in a purely scientific way. No bullshit hypothesis.

"Everything changes in nature. Flu viri evolve to take one example. Technically that's a new organism."

Did I say everything stays the same? Or are you now trying to baffle me with bullshit?

"As for the evidence that GMO food will harm you, I just posted two links to credible research that says just that. What have you got? Hot troll air? Seems so. Post real (not sponsored) independent research that proves it's safe, or take a hike please. I'm not joking around."

Your research blows as much as you do. First of all, let's define "harm", because if it makes your balls itch for 2 minutes, I hardly consider that harm. On the other hand, if you're trying to say it causes cancer or some other serious disease, then it needs to be 100% scientifically provable. Otherwise, it's horse shit.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 20:30 | 1307326 Reptil
Reptil's picture

Well, there's what I found, do with it what you like. Scientific research conclusions published in an open letter and scientific publication. Names and references.

I don't know if you're a persona or if you genuinely don't know about these things. If you don't, try a google, there's whole tribes that have written books about it. (and websites)

Best of luck though.. really. I don't want to insult anyone needlessly, but if you're this clueless about medical science and modern food production, you'll need it.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 21:17 | 1307452 mophead
mophead's picture

"Well, there's what I found, do with it what you like. Scientific research conclusions published in an open letter and scientific publication. Names and references."

The problem is that this stuff is rarely if ever scientific. The research is based on statistics. The situation is so bad that they resort to bullshit terms like, "Scientific Hypothesis". Basically, an oxymoron. A hypothesis is an educated guess, which is a polished turd. The guess is the turd, and the education is the polish. A guess is anything, ANYTHING but scientific, in fact, one could argue that it is the EXACT OPPOSITE OF SCIENCE. So a "Scientific Hypothesis" literally translates to "Unscientific Science".

"I don't know if you're a persona or if you genuinely don't know about these things. If you don't, try a google, there's whole tribes that have written books about it. (and websites)"

That's the whole problem in a nutshell. There are thousands upon thousands of research papers explaining how everything works, yet to this day, after spending TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS on medical research, modern medicine has yet to to cure a single disease. I repeat AFTER SPENDING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RESEARCH, DECADE AFTER DECADE, THERE IS NOT A CURE FOR ONE FUCKING SINGLE DISEASE. What does that tell you?

The reason they can't cure a single disease is because they're looking in all the wrong places. If your glucose is this, or your vitamin B is that, is it not logical to consider that perhaps your MIND made it that way? Why must "the cause" ALWAYS be external/separate from the psyche? Put it this way, if you turn on your car and your gas pedal gets stuck, all the way floored, and then your car starts shaking violently, does it make sense to have the chassis reinforced to prevent the shaking, or is it just better to get the gas pedal fixed? Doh.

"Best of luck though.. really. I don't want to insult anyone needlessly, but if you're this clueless about medical science and modern food production, you'll need it."

"Medical Science"? Ya gotta be kidding me. FYI, modern medicine incorporates I believe over 3000 hypothesis. A "Scientific Hypothesis" is by virtue an "Unscientific Science". If you believe in that, then I don't need to insult you, you've insulted yourself.

Tue, 05/24/2011 - 23:52 | 1307864 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

I repeat AFTER SPENDING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN RESEARCH, DECADE AFTER DECADE, THERE IS NOT A CURE FOR ONE FUCKING SINGLE DISEASE. What does that tell you?

It tells you that it is more profitable to treat the symptoms of disease rather than to identify the actual causes and address them. And BTW, polio has been largely eradicated. Same with Smallpox. Same with Cholera except when water sources are polluted. Try googling John Snow.

Wed, 05/25/2011 - 08:08 | 1308339 mophead
mophead's picture

"And BTW, polio has been largely eradicated. Same with Smallpox."

There is no cure for polio, neither is there one for smallpox. Being largely eradicated does not qualify as a cure, not even close.

Wed, 05/25/2011 - 08:09 | 1308376 tarsubil
tarsubil's picture

Eradicating a disease is better than curing one. It prevents morbidity instead of treating it. Would you rather get sick and cured rather than never get sick at all?

Wed, 05/25/2011 - 18:19 | 1310265 mophead
mophead's picture

First of all, none of these diseases have been eradicated. And if they have, they can still "return" according to modern medicine. So a cure is far, far better. Nevertheless, it appears no one can step up to the plate and answer one simple question: why is there no cure for even ONE SINGLE DISEASE after centuries of modern medical research and TRILLIONS of dollars spent? The answer is simple: diseases are caused by psychological trauma.

Thu, 05/26/2011 - 02:48 | 1312206 geekgrrl
geekgrrl's picture

Lifespan histories strongly suggest you are mistaken. Modern sanitation greatly increased lifespans, and this has nothing to do with psychological trauma. And in more recent times, the discovery and administration of penicillin and other antibiotics have also increased lifespans These treatments have nothing to do with psychological trauma, so I am perplexed as to the source of your convictions. Do you have any actual evidence to support your view?

Peace Corp training manuals talk at length about disease in remote areas, and one of the low-hanging fruits for reducing disease is creating village latrines. Not much psychological trauma involved there, but low and behold, the incidence of disease miraculously decreases when these simple sanitation steps are taken.

I'm not sure what axe you're grinding, or who you're representing, but your arguments lack soundness and are wholly unpersuasive. If psychological trauma was solely responsible for disease, then lifespans should have been decreasing all throughout the 20th century, but when you look at the actual empirical evidence, lifespans have never been so long.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!