This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Is The Human Race Doomed? Deutsche Bank On "One The Most Important (Future) Turning Points In History"
Discussing population dynamics in elite (or is that elitist, let's just call it Wall Street) circles has always had an aura of taboo about it, due to the inevitable degeneration of any conversation into Malthusian rhetoric, especially if one of the speakers had had a little too much to drink. And for better or worse, name-dropping Malthus does not garner brownie points, nor will it lead to another horrendous straight to HBO faux morality tale about this or that. That stigma, however (and luckily) has not prevented Deutsche Bank's Sanjeev Sanyal (yes, there are people at DB who do think originally and whose day is not taken up by trips to and fro Englewood Cliffs) from penning a must read macro analysis titled "The End of Population Growth" which we will discuss more in depth shortly, but wanted to bring readers' attention to one particular chart: namely that comparing world fertility rates in 1950-1955 and 2010-2015. The surprising implication of the below chart leads Sanyal to declare that the period set to begin in just 10 years "will be one of the most important turning points in history" simply because: "the human race will no longer be replacing itself by the early 2020s. Population growth will continue for a few more decades because of momentum from the age structure and people living longer but, reproductively speaking, our species will no longer be growing." 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...
From Deutsche Bank:
Some fascinating clarification:
A theme that is common to the latest census data for almost all countries is that population growth is slowing for almost all countries. The population growth rate of the United States during the decade of 2000-2010 was 0.9% per annum, down from 1.2% during the nineties. In comparison, Japan and Germany saw almost zero population growth during the last decade. Nonetheless, it is the emerging economies that have seen the most dramatic deceleration in population growth. China saw its population growth rate fall to 0.56% per annum over the last decade compared to a rate of around 1% in the nineties and over 2% in the sixties and early seventies. Similarly, India’s population growth rate fell to 1.6% from a peak of 2.3% in the seventies. The growth rate for the last decade in Brazil was 1.1% and for Russia minus 0.4%. Note that these are averages for the last decade and the current pace is significantly lower in almost all cases.
At its simplest, demographic dynamics is about the relative relationship between birth rates and death rates. Typically, death rates fall first as people live longer due to improvements in nutrition, public health, medicine and so on. Birth rates fall more slowly when social attitudes gradually change, especially for women. The chronological gap between the two rates causes a population boom. Over time, however, the birth rate catches up and, in most developed countries, keeps falling past the level required to stabilize population. As being witnessed now in Japan, the population then ages rapidly and shrinks in size.
Let us look at how this cycle played itself out over the last two hundred years. For most of history, the years of life expected at birth were around 24-28years. This began to change in Europe from the late eighteenth century. By 1820, life expectation in the United States and many Western European countries has drifted up to 37-40 years range. It then drifted up to the 47-50 years range by 1900 and further to 65-70 years range by 1950. In contrast, the life expectancy in India and China barely budged from the pre-industrial equilibrium till well into the twentieth century. In 1950, China had a life expectation of 41 years and it may have been as low as 38 years in India. They now stand at around 74 and 65 years respectively. Both have some more scope for improvement as life expectancy is now in the late seventies or early eighties in most developed countries.
The decline in birth rates also began in Western Europe at the time of the Industrial Revolution. Many interrelated changes affected this – urbanization, attitudes, aspirations, literacy, female work participation and so on. France was the first place where this change took place. The number of births per 100 population dropped from 3.2 in 1820 to 2.2 in 1900. Other Western Europeans followed soon. Today, the birth rate per 100 stands at around 1 for most Western European countries. The United States had a much higher starting point and, despite sharp declines, still has a level higher than for most developed countries. In contrast, Japan had a relatively high birth rate of 3.24 in 1900 but now is at a mere 0.75 – one of the lowest in the world.
One useful way to think about trends in birth rates is to look at what is called the Total Fertility Rate (TFR). This is the average number of live births per woman over her lifetime. It is usually estimated by sampling women of child bearing age (usually defined as 15-44 years). In the long run, a population is said to be stable if the TFR is at the “replacement rate”. This is usually said to be 2.1 births per woman but in reality only developed countries can hope to keep their population stable with such a level. For developing countries, the required replacement rate is much higher because factors such as infant mortality and maternal deaths at childbirth. Thus, the replacement level of TFR is a little above 2.3 for the world as a whole.
The TFR for most developed countries now stands well below replacement levels. The OECD average is at around 1.74 but there are countries like Germany and Japan that produce less than 1.4 children per woman 5. According to the OECD’s latest estimates, South Korea has a TFR of barely 1.15 – a level that foretells rapid aging and a sharp decline in population from the 2020s. However, the biggest TFR declines in recent years have been in emerging economies. According to the UN’s population division, the TFR in China and India were 6.1 and 5.9 respectively in 1950. The ratio has now fallen to 1.8 in China due to the aggressive one-child policy and to 2.6 in India due to a steady change in social attitudes. Similarly, Brazil’s TFR has fallen to 1.7 from 6.2 in 1950. These are large declines but there is reason to believe that the underlying dynamics are driving actual birth rates down even faster than suggested by the headline TFR.
China and, to lesser extent, India have skewed gender ratios. The Chinese census suggests that there are 118.6 boys being born for every 100 girls, worsening from 116.9 in 2000. Similarly, India has a gender ratio at birth of around 110 boys for every 100 girls with large regional variations. Compare this with the “natural” ratio of 105 boys per 100 girls (notice that even the natural ratio is not exactly 1:1). A cultural preference for boys is usually held responsible for the deviation. Since it is women who give birth and not men, the future scarcity of women implies that the effective reproductive capacity for both countries is below what is suggested by the unadjusted TFR reading. After making the adjustment for the gender imbalance, China’s Effective Fertility Rate (EFR) is around 1.5 while that for India is around 2.45 – both below what is widely discussed. In other words, the Chinese are already far from replacing themselves while the Indians are only slightly above the replacement rate.
If we make the same adjustment for the world’s fertility rate, we now have an EFR of around 2.4 which is almost at the replacement rate. In our view, the human race will no longer be replacing itself by the early 2020s. Population growth will continue for a few more decades because of momentum from the age structure and people living longer but, reproductively speaking, our species will no longer be growing. This will be one of the most important turning points in history.
Much more shortly
»
- 43965 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
If you had read it or attended the play, you would have recognized the typo. Try La Bourgeoisis Gentilhomme.
I'm going to paraphrase some stuff I heard Bobcat Goldwaithe utter a while back
"some day, you're going to see a real, live vagina. And when you do, all that Star Trek shit you've been collecting is gonna go right out the window".
When he junked you, he meant +1 unused junk. Poor guy.
>Star Trek Borg or the Overmind(if such thing is possible) from 'Childhoods End' would be as close to optimal as you can get
Check out this http://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/4b9f2a844034a
>machines can achieve the purest and highest form of intelligence, because they will not have to deal with random chemicals
Minds not made out of meat must contend with plenty of "random" things, like quantum decoherence, cosmic radiation, radioactive decays, electromigration, etc. They'll need redundancy and repair mechanisms just like biological minds. For now, the best we have are disposable CPU's that last only a few years.
how can machines be seen to be the highest level of intelligence if they have no reason to be intelligent, them being unfettered by a mortal being? or if they are in fact mortal in some sense, then how are they truely different than humanity, instead of merely an extension of the consciousness which gained ability to express itself through the hands of humans?
>how can machines be seen to be the highest level of intelligence if they have no reason to be intelligent, them being unfettered by a mortal being?
Even a being living in virtual reality can be intelligent. However, it must feel uneasiness. For, without feelings of uneasiness, it will not act or think, and will scarcely be different from a vegetable.
>how are they truely different than humanity
An intelligent machine, or a virtual mind, is the same as a human being in that it has subjective values and goals and it plans and acts. It is different in that it need not share our evolved instincts. It may seem eccentric, sentimental, or austere.
yeah, previous post was a summation of a pointlessly long rant i found myself going on, i agree.
intelligence with no purpose serves no end but it's own destruction. purpose is the motivation and creator of intelligence, intelligence is an interconnected system of propabalistic interpretation of reality as it relates to survival. to remove what creates self; need, is to remove the primary driving factor of the necessity of intelligence, an AI without need would go dormant, as it's logic would be useless, so logically, it too would be.
try some peyote, Azannoth.
it'll reverse your ideas. intelligence is just a grabbag for well functioning organism. However, I disagree strongly with those that believe we can seperate our way of thinking (and put it into a machine) because we "think" and "realise" with our whole body. Mind and body are one.
Here's the idea of the "Human 2.0". The technology lovers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DTS2jzspSE
Also, I hope it's appropriate: Read William Gibson. He identified the thin but immense barrier, and the role of human beings in an interaction with a larger consciousness, as is the collective of humanity hooked up on the internet. (and beyond)
just to tag along on the cyberpunk train: gibson, sterling, rucker, stephenson, sure there's more.
schismatrix was great.
free: http://www.rudyrucker.com/wares/
>we "think" and "realise" with our whole body.
So you're saying that if my leg is amputated, my ability to think or realise will be diminished?
>a larger consciousness, as is the collective of humanity hooked up on the internet
What in the world makes you think a group of people form a "larger consciousness"?
Would you say your local Department of Licensing office is conscious?
Dp......a good trip is life transforming ( condensed version)
A good trip under controlled circumstances with benign experienced guides is life transforming.
My opinion as a shrink who has studied the literature and had a few psychedelic experiences.
But you must do it in the goal of personal exploration, not soley for recreation, but the laughter and recreation is necessary also.
>A good trip under controlled circumstances with benign experienced guides is life transforming.
How so? What changes?
I also wonder the same thing: what changes? So in order to find out I'm gonna try ayahuasca for the first time in my life next week. I'll report back if something changes.
what changes is the old filters, those which are ingrained since birth are challenged.. suddenly you can discuss iwht(with) yourself what the meaning of "orange" is, different cultures have different understandings and definitions of what constitutes "orange", or green, or blue..
hallucinogenic drugs are not necessarry, but a hallucinogenic experiance will make it necessarry to reinterperit your surroundings.
Not to worry people , some other species will take up the torch of technological progress long after we are gone.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwWfCRXFif4
Although they made a balls of things back in the 80s
www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1zp4OceBhE
They won't have the resources. We used them all.
demographics is destiny.
our ever expanding credit system will not work with declining numbers of consumers. looks like we have to keep importing humans or suffer japan's fate.
Yep, can't run a good ponzi without an ever-expanding supply of new suckers.
Without jobs you don't get new suckers. And I think it is pretty safe to say that McJobs don't create a stable economy.
It's not a McJob, it's a McAdventure!
Be...all that you can be...at McDonald's!
In all fairness I believe it is possible to become a master burger flipper. Lets give credit where credit is due. It is possible to be a damn good burger artist. Hugh Akston anyone?
Spongebob Squarepants finds his quest to become the ultimate burger flipper to be quite fulfilling.
Well actually I think he has technically already achieved that perfection, but my spongebob knowledge may be rusty at this point in my life...
Even haters must concede that episode was a Sponge Bob masterpiece.
In zen enlightenment is from the simple and ostensibly mundane.
When I visited NASA Kennedy Space center, one of the managers told me they had the best people in the world for every job. The world's best burger flipper had just retired. He could remember 50 orders yelled out once across the kitchen and get them all perfect the first time. Every time.
That's why rockets are so expensive :-)
lul
Now that IS the problem...
Best comment of the day
http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.shtml
aliens do not feel very compelled to emigrate here...maybe we should engineer a worker race to fill the gaps LOL ... oops! hold on now ...
CELLPHONES!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-412179/Men-use-mobile-phones-fac...
cellphones are reputed to be killing honey bees, also
CELLPHONES!!
Can I call you on that?
These same "elite bankers" may well be in deep shit, I'd say. We shall see.
Let's not completely discount that it is certainly possible that there really is a colluding elite (knowing no national allegiances to any respective sovereigns), that they really do meet in private for good reason (Bilderberg, open thy doors!), that people like Bill Gates & David Rockerfeller really mean it when they say that useless eaters need to be culled and that the earth's ability to sustain the human population has already been ' broadband exceeded,' and that War (big 'w') is always on the table as a culling exercise when tensions runneth over (either by pre-planned design or as a natural but spontaneous consequence over resource allocation).
I am not claiming any or all of the above as factually provable, but I am certainly open to the possibility of some or all of it based on empirical evidence.
You and every other person here who claims that there are colliding elites meeting in secret are not thinking straight.
The Elites don't need to meet in secret or organize groups. They are right in front of your face.....everday. And you miss is because you are looking for the secret.
They have democratic elections which are basically sponsored auctions. Then they spend hundreds of millions getting laws changed to benefit the sponsoring entities.
Newsflash:there is no secret. That is the secret.
I've missed the open meetings and discussions speaking of culling the population.
Please forward the transcripts and videos ASAP.
Thanks.
Yes you did.
As a commentator pointed out earlier, DEBT is the best form of birth control.
Culling the population and fomenting higher debt levels are morally equivalent, let alone remotely close in nature or goal?
I'm all against debt. In fact, I'm a huge non-fan of debt, as I also have a particular aversion to slavery.
But let's not go and engage in hyperbolic olympics.
Pity DSK didn't get that message for himself, whereas he spewed it out on all the PIGS.
But, in all fairness his personal body aim was very bad! White collar is not where it propagates babies; except in the NYPD 'incubation chamber' where it propagates an inculpation!
rap music video
Funnily the "culling" never includes those who concoct and impose it on the rest.
They all think in the old Biblical tradition of:
Oh, Father, let this cup pass from me, let others take the gulp.
This is just silly. Will never happen in the forseeable future. The "long-enough timeline" is on the order of millions to billions of years.
If the human race ever dies out, it won't be from forgetting how to breed.
National Geographic had a much better article on this last January:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/01/seven-billion/kunzig-text
..and there are plenty of other good raisons why that might happen...
It will be from not being ABLE to breed ,thanks Monsanto, who needs more sheeple they are just dumb fucks
That was a comment by TD and maybe you should read what is written on the upper right corner of the ZH blog...
Instead of junking your positive post, let me prove you wrong: Something of the sort is already happening. Or will happen in the near future.
This is a link to a canadian scientific publication about toxic parts of maize (corn) of GMO food crossing the barrier of the placenta, and entering the foetus. It's pretty damning if true. (I have no reason to think it's bogus, it seems easily repeatable experiments)
Young people can barely survive on their current wage. Having a family is nearly impossible. Older people are more concerned about posh retirements than ensuring the survival of their progeny.
debt is the most effective form of birth control.
Not in a Welfare State...
+IOU Great comment.
I disagree. I think feminism is the most effective form of birth control.
+IUD another excellent observation..
Nice one(s).
Yes, I suppose. Of course feminism has been totally been supplanted by crass materialism. Shopping has literally become part of the female identity in this country, it is disgusting. Join the workforce in order to buy more shoes. Complete corporate brainwashing.
Granted they try the same on men, but I don't think it has been as successful.
If we are going to stereotype, you are going to tell me it isn't the guys who NEEED the new stereo, car, electronic gadget, etc.? My male outspends me by a longshot. Luckily we each have our own money so there is no real problem. My last one outspent me so bad I needed a divorce to stop the bleeding.
i suspect your case is the exception rather than the rule.
In my experience, men tend to spend larger amounts on a single item, but it is also on items that do not depreciate as quickly (e.g. hunting land and firearms)... women spend money on a higher quantity of smaller ticket items (e.g. clothes, desert, knick knacks around the house) that depreciate very quickly and/or are not often used. In the end, the man expenditures have the possibility of hitting a home run when kept/consumed over time, whereas the woman expenditures do not... In general, I would call it a wash (mode), but with women spending more net of nets on average (mean).
Maybe if I had a 9 figure grant from the government I could conduct a study on the topic.
Mscreant, I agree that men have been brainwashed, just not to the same extent.
I see it all the time on any RE show its about getting the "Mancave" and beer commercial basically say you are not a real man if you don't drink Bud (which is total pisswater), etc. But i do not believe it has become a core part of the male identity.
I'm really not trying to stereotype too much; then again, growing up in the NYC area, I'm sure I see the worst of the worst.
I saved my wife from her massive overspending and debt. :-) She now makes more then me, is good with money and we might actually have a financlially stable future.
Tell your companion to cool it with the spending ;-)
Luckily we each have our own money so there is no real problem. My last one outspent me so bad I needed a divorce to stop the bleeding.
---
How many kids have you all had in the process???
I think feminism is the most effective form of birth control.
Disagree. Feminists, at least the 80's/90's western "Me" generation of feminists, while standing on the shoulders of their grandmothers and throwing a party, want children, they just want to shed the man once they have the children. Children will listen to them, but men won't, you see. They use the "family" court system to separate the man from his money and his children.
Generations of boys raised in fatherless homes without role models are the result. Adrift, aimless, self-absorbed, myopic, lacking self discipline, sometimes violent. Meanwhile, the latest generation of "liberated" young girls, the old rules (damned Patriarchy!) thrown away but no new ones substituted, reverting to their inner baseness, use sex to compete with each other for attention. They will work like men, drink like men, and fuck like men into their mid-30's until they lose their looks and no man wants anything to do with them anymore, then whine either about not being able to find a good man or about mens' double standards. Who suffers most? The children, of course, the ones that women supposedly care more about than men.
Congratulations, feminists. Enjoy!
Each generation is supposed to be willing to sacrifice to leave more for the next generation.
Except the baby boomers who plan to leave us with a mountain of debt because we owe them something, somehow.
"sacrifice" does not exist anymore. just ME ME ME.
...and when you look in the mirror you see ''sacrifice''? ...or is the image of one's own selfish claim of dominion a reflection of ''sacrifice''?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMw6ldKEjp4
We owe them for creating an unsustainable livestyle built upon credit cards, mortgages and 401Ks. As long as it didn't fall apart in their lifetime, all was swell
But now that their houses are not worth piss, they'll be getting off the 9th hole shortly.
Don't worry, something like .1% of them will win it back gambling their SS at the casinos.
I'll give you a 9.5 on trying to kick start generational argument w/ the boomers Top. Sometimes the damn fire just won't light no matter what you do, though.
Keep poking the bear brother, he'll wake up!
Dammit if I poke long enough surely something will happen!
new college graduates can't afford their college tuition bills, which will reduce the number of children they have when married.
I personally think student debt is the biggest form of limiting reproduction by potentially upwardly mobile middle class people.
the funniest part about it to me is that those that choose not to attend college because of projected debt/earnings are the ones who are actually considering what's going to happen in the future.. isn't that a bitch? the rational forward thinkers shuffled off into the corner while tens of thousands of idiots bid up tuition for their womens studies and ceramics degrees.. and the people that are actually studying for a usefull profession take the debt hit just the same, even with wages dropping/stagnant. extremely depressing.
Read Joe Bageant. He maintains that the "middle class" is an illusion Propagated by TPTB to give all us low class something to aspire to. (Yes, that is the dreaded preposition at the end of that sentence. So sue me.)
Soo true, if I wanted children I would suddenly find my self a debt slave even being in the 'middle class'
Not true.
I have two kids.
They can be raised well cheaply if necessary.
It is more an issue of choice and not wanting to lose one's freedom.
On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
touche'
douche'
Meanwhile, the march toward global enslavement is near completion.
So you junkers out there, did you junk because the enslavement has a long way to go still? Do you debate the enslavement itself?
Yeah, it is because they are too afraid to debate. Makes you wonder why they come to ZH in the first place
btw, how is everything? I remember reading what you wrote not too long ago about your house getting decimated during a storm... during the time you were having financial hardship I believe also?
Hope your situation has improved at least somewhat since then.
This is fight club. Making money, surviving in a changing marketplace (manipulated) equals survival in the larger meaning of the word. There's a number of people that, in their mind want to keep the idea of a market and the rest of the world seperate. They'll junk anything without a direct reference. There's something correct about that attitude. Focus is important. However; As the markets are not a direct representation of a free capitalistic system, that focus must be broadened to include all important factors. If that is not done, it simply means investors, speculators are working with a limited set of information to base their descisions on.
Market forces still apply IMO, but one has to look wider, and tie more things together.
Here's my garden/kitchen psycologic profile of "people that do not have a functioning "fear impulse": (shoot holes in it, if you see the need) "Psychopaths" DO have an edge, as that they're capable of what normal socially bound people cannot do. They can kill on a huge scale, to reach targets that are to others insignificant and thus incomprehensible. But there's a drawback. Psychopaths are anti-social. They cannot be trusted at all. They're loners. They function within a group without embracing the connectiveness. They pretend. In EVERYONE is a bit of a psychopath. In normally functioning humans (what's normal?) there's a balance, between the need of the individual, and that of the group. This is also evolutionairy. So.... Psychopaths are not the "winners" simply because they have nothing to win, really. They need the rest of us, they do realise that. (in a cold, calculated way)
Oh, and the "enslavement" will fail. Any attempt to enlarge scale is resulting on the other end of a clustering of smaller social - demographic groups into local organisations. An example is the rise in regional organisation inside europe, since the European Government (lawless as it might be) grabbed more power from the old nation states.
What I'm trying to say, is that it's all more complex than a stack of dominos.
Cheers
Different personalities have different survival advantages.
Sociopaths thrive in chaotic or anarchic conditions. They have a reproductive advantage. Thats why it is probably best to avoid collapse lest we be ruled completely by psychpaths rather than have at least a semblance of collective safety and rule of law.
The thin path between anarchy and plutocratic corporatism ? I agree.
A smaller scale of government and corporations IMO also helps keep the path between any kind of government and the community it represents, smaller. I think that could be the basis for a new positive effort.
Superstates or even planetary government is too big, too easy to corrupt at this moment.
Google: boniface viii papal bull 1302.
Would post links but on mobile at moment.
This is still in effect
Google: boniface viii papal bull 1302. Would post links but on mobile at moment. This is still in effect
I know of no examples of exponential population growth in living organisms that didnt end with a crash. Does anyone have an example?
Perhaps humans are.different but I doubt it.
Incendia Solenopsis
maybe, time will tell.
Wow. What idiot would junk this one? Have people not looked at a chart of historical population growth? It is completely parabolic. There is absolutely no way for it to be sustainable.
Stoopid. How can it be parabolic if the increase has been slowing now for at least 2 decades.
Have you looked at the chart? Or are you looking at data points for the last couple of decades only? If you are looking at only a few decades, zoooooooommmmm out a little. You need to look at centuries, not decades.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Nothing parabolic here. LOL.
Yeah, the last couple of decades have seen some slowing... that could be indicating a "top".
The human species is in a bubble. I love it.
You have not answered my question.
A parabolic rise is mathematically defined as something that rises ever faster, and also has an ever growing rate of increase.
Following your link, in any estimate on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population the curve is starting to flatten off. Which means the rate of increase is now slowing down. Which means the curve cannot be a parabolic one anymore.
Zooming out doesn't make it become true.
over the last 10.000 years, yes, nothing much happened. nice parabolic curve.
before that? It wouldn't be strange to expect a large population to go with the massive ruïns off malta, and at the bottom of the mediterreanean sea, underneath the sand of northern africa and in mesopotamia (Iraq).
there's not a whole lot written about it. it sort of negates the historical picture that has been erected in western literature over the last centuries: what I'm saying is that this image has been proven incomplete and even incorrect. the "holy church" doesn't approve, obviously.
Me and tmosely both have a fan club!
top, you and Hulk, RockyR, tmosley and anybody else who has been nice to me all email me (my name above at gmail) if you would like a link to my new blog! Which, fittingly has TEOTWAWKI as my first article. Please say enough about yourself in your mail so I can see that it is really you, as I am using my real name in my blog.
Sure
Any love for those of us that read you and are neither nice nor mean?
Convince me that it is really you and that you will not reveal my name at ZH, sure.
aerobic bacteria. But those little fuckers are a bunch of collectivists! LOL!!!
Yeah and when they reach their limits they crash.
Can we continue to increase our limiting constraints?
No Problem, i will compensate for all of you. Your welcome.
Shit, My fiance sent her resume to Deutsche bank the other day. Oh well, Rally on
The population speed limit always was the choice of entertainment, not food. There are so many more activities available than rolling the old girl over.
Only Islam (and to a lesser extent the Catholic Church) is trying to keep the ignorant masses ignorant, so their population grows faster than the infidels.
Don't even try telling me that the earth revolves around the sun.
Or that life doesn't revolve around American Idol or iPad2.
Don't...even...go...there, dude.
how about.... the entirety of the universe is inside that bowling ball looking thing on top of your neck.
Another reason we need a "like" function on ZH comments
Well said.
Your junk rate makes you nearly respectable in your logic. Ideology always used the ant effect to raise its armies of the blinded by faith. But herd thinning is now à la mode amongst the Corporatocracy rivals of the jihad/crusade brigade. So it's becoming as respectable to herd thin as it is to breed ants. We'll never know the promised land in this life...unless we change our vibes...and ditch our fears...as our power manipulators.
Your junk rate makes you nearly respectable in your logic
Dear Serpent Girl: Respect is earned. What part of my proposition is untrue, in your opinion ?
Religion is such an emotional subject, but everytime I hear someone claim they are killing their brother man in the name of Allah/God, the more I am convinced we are not far removed from swinging from the vines.
Its an honor to be junked. Thank you.
Now let's hear your point of view, PC people.
I could populate the world twice over with a drop of my sperm, i have seen it under a microscope, its literally teaming with life, all great swimmers too(if i put some of my sperm in a tissue and try to flush it down the toilet, it wont even flush!!), i will save the save the world if required.
You iz a baby daddy.
You bet. I have even had to get up in the middle of the night worrying, and close the bathroom door, just incase some of the little fuckers climb out of the toilet and run up someones skirt.
Did you ever hear the lab story of "the girl who swabbed her mouth to look at dead skin cells but found swimming "things" under the microscope?" I'm sure it's an urban legend, but never ceases to get a laugh out of the class... of course, there's always someone slow to catch the joke... "what did she have in her mouth that was alive?"... watching the teacher have to explain it while blushing was probably as funny as the joke itself...
OK, the elephant in this room is that there is no TFR data for Muslim majority, MENA countries.
Huge population factories like India and China are now declining somewhat. Big deal. They've got a pretty high water mark at this point.
The petrie dish may be smaller in 30 years but it will mostly be populated by people who couldn't care less about the Magna Carta, civil liberties, property rights and enforceable contracts.
no need for the full story from Douche Bank.
The Indiana Supreme Court will populate the world in 30 years!?
You just need to plot oil consumption vs population growth to get a clear indication
of where the human race is heading.
The similarities are truly striking. Peak oil clearly has the potential to be a bitch at some point.
+1 on that.
You might add the inverse contribution of above ground nuclear bomb testing , Chenyobl and Fukushima on human fertility and genetic integrity.
Wait what? I thought economics guaranteed infinite growth? < sarc off >
Seriously though, how will a relative few (who produce nothing of real value) continue to extract a tremendous amount of real wealth from the productive few. In what economic model does prosperity work with a declining population? Where are the academics when you need them?
No. Economics guarantees growth to the equilibrium point. The equilibrium point can be moved by technological advances. Things like cheap or "free" energy, cheap space travel, mining and manufacturing in space, etc can all move the equilibrium point very quickly. But then, so can things like socialism, fascism, regulation, mass theft, and mass murder--just in the opposite direction.
Tom, while I feel much better about my physical assets (some generating revenue) and my physical metals as of late. Precisely how do we advance the equilibrium point once we all switch (as Utah now recognizes) to physical metals or metal-backed fiat as a median of exchange? FYI, the following are already well established and active practices of all governments - socialism, fascism, regulation, mass theft, and mass murder.
TM lives in a world of theory where Ayn Rand is pristine fairy who waves her invisible wand on the auto regulated market, in a fairy land where no predators exist. Now that is a dream that requires we all become mutants... and then some...It's as much pipe dream as the perfect socialist state. Reality is alas in neither utopia; but we shouldn't spout our ire at our deception by black balling the other extreme. That would disgrace debate, dialectics and humanist fate of gray reality.
You know, you would be able to form a more cogent insult if you actually read Rand, rather than the "Marx Notes" version.
She was a dry, loveless, ugly old cunt that tried to reason away her inadequacies and lack of emotional depth, she was practically a psychopath. Her and Greenspan were big fans of each other I hear, both part of the “collective”. It was her gibberish that led you all into the mess you are in, and if it was intellectual masturbation, she just wanked all over the US.
I see a lot of ad hominem, but nothing of substance.
Try again.
tmosley, you and Hulk, RockyR, and anybody else who has been nice to me all feel free to email me (my name above at gmail) if you would like a link to my new blog! Which, fittingly has TEOTWAWKI as my first article. Please say enough about yourself in your mail so I can see that it is really you, as I am using my real name in my blog.
I sent an email.
Thanks for the invite.
She was nuts, thats all i have to say on the matter.
Then you had nothing to say at all.
So you keep telling me, even though it's indicative that you crave new information and are willing to leave yourself wide open for it. Well listen to me, all she ever wanted was a dick and a cuddle. She never got it and went to ends of the earth to justify it. The end. (its not an attack, its just the way things are, thats what happenes to ugly female intellectuals)
No, you don't get it. You are attacking the person, and not the idea.
Like implying that the Declaration of Independence was invalid because Thomas Jefferson had sex with slaves. The one has nothing to do with the other. It is sheer ad hominem, which is the lowest level of argument.
What i am saying is that sexuality, friendship, social cohesion, and intimacy are our main drivers. We are social animals, the mess we are in now is down to the fact that TPTB thought we were capable of objectivism, of making logical choices that would ultimately benefit the individual, thus benefit us all, they thought bankers wouldn’t do anything stupid as the group as they would act as logical, self serving entities(heros)
When really, any moral objectivism and logical positivism went out the window, and always does because morality is situational and contextually and socially specific. There is no moral objectivism, or else there would be moral progress, there is no logical positivism or else we wouldn’t exit in a random world!(that last part is a joke -Greenspan spent most of his youth wallowing in logical positivism, trying to convince anyone that would listen that he did not actually exist!)
The push, by individuals for this ideal in their personal lives, this push for a high reason applied to morality, the struggle to find the platform for a pivotal role for reason, in my opinion is a bitter psychosis, usually brought on by rejection from the social group or, parental or sexual rejection. Reason is repressed pain in Rands case. Hence all she needed was a dick and a cuddle.
thats all im sayin.
Well, that's NOT what you were saying. You were just calling Rand a whore.
Now your post has some meat.
To start, "TPTB" NEVER wanted Objectivism. They HATED Rand. Because they were always counted among the villains from her masterpiece. The bankers who have taken over our society were described by her in Atlas Shrugged. They were NOT heroes.
Morality is NOT situational, nor is it contextually or socially specific. If you think this, then you are counted among Rand's villains--people who would do or allow ANY horror, from theft to kidnapping to torture to MURDER, if they "needed" it to be done. The world is NOT random. There IS such a thing as natural law. If you violate it, suffering WILL ensue.
Funny how you cast out all reason. No wonder you hate Rand so much. She has reached out through the ages and called you out for what you are.
You should think a bit more before you actually type.
The fact that that you say TBTB never wanted Objectivism is irrelevant, the fact is that subconsciously they entertained the idea enough they eventually attempted it(probably giving them too much credit here), whether is was Rands doing(it wasn’t, the illusion that humans can act as logical, self interested entities was around long before Rand) is also irrelevant.
And morality is situational and contextually specific, it has been demonstrated in every credible study ever done. You put someone in war zone along with depraved soldiers, they will behave equally depraved, if you put them in a study and tell them to electrocute some poor fuck for the benefit of science they will, under enough pressure etc... We are all mighty in reason, but we crumble to social pressures in the end(just like rand did), and with it goes individualism, its our default evolved state(drives; you can know they exist and intellectualise them in the hope of countering them in the short term, but they get you in the end).
Thirdly, there are stable natural physical laws in our universe, but we aren’t talking about the universe are we? You are in much delusional pain if you think they can be applied to humans…or the market (lol the world is not random).
lol, they "attempted" to implement it by doing the opposite of what she said to do?
God, you are irretrievably stupid.
And morality is NOT FUCKING RELATIVE. Just because someone murders someone because other people are murdering people doesn't mean it is ok! That kind of thinking is exactly what leads to those circumstances in the first place. Someone choosing to ignore the rights of others is NEVER ok. It WILL lead to retribution, and more destruction. That is natural law, and it is ALWAYS in effect.
Christ, just because you can't predict exactly what a person or an economy can do doesn't mean that their behavior isn't government by rules.
You are a pitiful example of a human being. You need to re-examine your life. As it is, you sicken me.
You're out of your depth mate, off to bed before you blow a fuse.
TM does like to swim in the deep end... problem is that he usually forgets his water wings.... He should stick to dealing with PM trolls, the political economy and philosophy is not his strong suit....
Here!
If morality is relative, does that make us all Alistair Crowlians?
We shouldn't care about the difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se?
We shouldn't care that a prominent Randian told everyone we need a gold standard and turns around and sells his soul?
Is this what Sniff means by "they attempted it"?
Sort of wings, though what I really make of that paragraph is that Greenspan is either wildly two-faced or was just plainly lying/political posturing - was probably using the gold argument as a vehicle to attack social reform and deficit spending.
What I was alluding to when I said “they attempted it” (we're in the attempt now) was when Greenspan talked Clinton out of social reforms, on the promise that he could sort out the country with “market reforms” and economic sleight of hand, i.e. killing interest rates and letting laissez-faire capitalism and cheap money and clever market participants take care of it all.
Hence the running thread of Rand, i.e one of the main tenets of objectivism is sparsely regulated capitalism, markets driven by rational, self interested participants that deploy logic to reach goals. But it doesn’t work, not because the economics are wrong, but because of the misconception that our slither of consciousness can endure and even outrun or natural states, and the states of economic cycles…boom and bust, bubbles and crashes, binge and purge. All of it is based on the misconception that we are capable of an enduring objectivism…when it was really only the philosophy of a mad old lonely, sexually retarded woman. Greenspan swallowed it, nice dream, but he should have stuck to the economics of trying to bust bubbles insted of blowing them.
Too bad we'll never get to see what a free market really looks like, since we're all in the same petri dish as the Federal Reserve monster. Cheap money? No such thing if we let the free market actually set the interest rate, which is much higher (~7%) because everyone is spending their own money, and isn't likely to lend it out so easily. With a central bank the everyday man has to calculate the real interest rate in order to see how much he made above and beyond what was stolen via inflation.
Did you know Keynes was a eugenicist?
I had no idea he was into that, its not a big surprise really, anyone who was anyone in those days got swept away with the science of it. Science has got some howlers in the closet, nothing's really changed, that‘s why hindsight will never lose it‘s credibility.
So according to you scratch-n-sniff, Rand had "... a bitter psychosis, usually brought on by rejection from the social group or, parental or sexual rejection. Reason is repressed pain in Rands case. Hence all she needed was a dick and a cuddle. thats all im sayin."
And we're supposed to buy the idea you honestly *believe* all she needed to undo a lifetime of repressed pain (and expressed Objectivism) was one dick and one cuddle?
Um, how do I put this dude:
*I* *don't* *believe* *you*.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-TV3JNPpCE
Now, if you're thinking of a more continuous dick/cuddle arrangement, that's *totally* different - I can see where you might be coming from. No doubt the right man could've pottee-trained her to spout Das Kapital at the top of her lungs... all she'd have needed was a little coaxing from the right human love machine.
/
Well you know how it is, sometimes we like to cut corners in our terminology for rhetorical effect, but I think you know what I’m alluding to. Rand’s mental life was one spent on the run, running away from her pain, hiding behind the projected illusion that she could be completely rational and objective at all times, therefore rationalising her fear of being a human, with human feelings, weaknesses, limitations and emotions.
Her torturous attempts and misleading gibberish about the capacity for enduring reason and unwavering logical mental autonomy, were just a sad diversion so she did not have to ever look back at the pain in her life, the pain of her insights, the pain of her existence, her limitations as a female and everything they meant to the subconscious.
She had a few dicks in her time, don’t get me wrong. She had an affair with a married man and actually convinced him they were doing the logical thing!…he asked her in bed one morning, eye-to-eye pillow-talk style, if she really thought the affair was rational, and she replied in heavily sarcastic tones with a wry smile on her face , “do you really think I would do anything that wasn’t rational ?”. In that one moment she had revealed herself, a charlatan, involved in the silliest and costliest game of intellectual masturbation ever to have occurred.
Its up to you what you believe, im not trying to start a cult, im not looking for followers…just chewing the fat.
Ayn Rand was a sociopath....try listening to Wallace interview in 1958...
A person is fallible. Ideas are bulletproof. The ideas presented in Atlas Shrugged were quite nearly perfect. What came afterwards is not so much, because she shoehorned in a need for the existence of government, something that went against the logic that sprung from her premises.
So basically, instead of focusing on the woman, perhaps you ought to focus on the ideas, hmm? Don't pretend that she was some sort of god. She wasn't.