This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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
»
- 43963 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I'm with you on your comments regarding Ayn Rand except for the 2nd sentence.
The assumption that "ideas" can be bulletproof is self-contradictory. Perhaps you didn't mean to say what you said, but thats where it immediately leads. There are good and great ideas that are judged and interpreted poorly by people who haven't the time or intellectual honesty to dig deeper and perhaps are unwilling to accept they may not have it all figured out.
The basic and key tenants that Ayn Rand wrote about are absolutely rock solid and yet never discussed I feel. Man must use his brain to navigate through the world as best as he can. He uses the continuance of his life as the moral basis for actions. Force should be met with FORCE. (so this idea of didn't account for preying, is bullshit). Value should be traded for value, where you know best what is value. Trading does not equal theft, deception or coercion, which are force.
And so on.
Sorry, I was having a V for Vendetta moment, didn't want to ruin it with qualification.
Ideas which are logically consistent and built upon true premises are bulletproof.
Ideas in general are bulletproof in that they can not be snuffed out by violence. Only by other ideas.
Regarding your 2nd statement:
The problem with this is that (at least in my philosophical experience) logically consistent ideas are eventually anchored by a faith or a somewhat hazy belief. Ayn Rand anchors hers on the belief that: non-living exists regardless of action, where as living matter must continue by doing actions that keep it living. Therefore the moral purpose of anything is to continue living. I accept that idea as the best argument I have heard, however, I realize it might not necessarily be anchored fully with logic. Its a jump to go from "moral purpose of the organism" even though in my mind it is a very easy jump. I call it a "faith belief" that well, works for me. Everything else built from that is bullet proof but that lynchpin, may not be.
Your third statement: Dead on. They actually seem to have a nasty habit of becoming stronger as somebody attempts to physically snuff them out...
"Only by other ideas." While I might 99.9% of the time accept this as an obvious statement I am compelled to think about some elements of subjectivism. Basically which is more accurate? Newton or Einstein? I say neither, or that we have no idea, yet its commonly accept that Einstein's ideas were able to "shoot" Newton. I'm not so easy to push over with that idea. I'd rather save that discussion for another time.
Einstein WAS more accurate than Newton. Newton was ~99.9% correct. Einstein was 99.9999+% correct (ie we haven't found the limit where he was wrong yet).
And Newton was NOT wrong. You can derive Newton from Einstein under most conditions (ie when not dealing with very small things, or very fast things).
I am talking more like Marx vs Mises. Marx' ideas were logically sound and self-consistent, but his premise was wrong (read this FOFOA article to see why: http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/07/debtors-and-savers.html <--this is my favorite FOFOA article of all time, BTW).
Einstein sure was accurate when he impregnated his cousin, then dumped her with child.
How come our ADL-approved schooling never told us these facts? Some genius!
Perhaps because it doesn't change the import of scientific work....
You are not even fit to lick Einstein's ass...
While I don't know the full details, I know for a fact that the two theories of matter do not work together. My argument is pretty much your standard "what is science really" argument. There is a phenomenon. Scientists observe the phenomenon and attempt to explain them. Two seemingly different and "can't exist at the same time" explanations are actually "the same thing" from different perspectives. Gravity was actually recently "retheorized" and after reading it I said "sure this could be right, or partially right, just as much as any of the other past views." How can you tell which is better? I'd argue you "can't".
While I don't buy it in full hook line and sinker (as with anything) epistemological relativism has some considerably solid arguments. As I've studied epistemology more and more the more I realized what definitive statements really are. "This is...." means "I believe this is...."
But like I said, a conversation for another time.
In the linear approximation to the field equations, they converge to Newtons results....
A bit OT: From my POV, sounds like your approach on science is on the right path. Now you only need to stop buying the premise of modern science, that logical correctness of theory does not matter and is purely "subjective".... once you reject that, and apply epistemological relativism (which really just is an unnecessarily complicated way of saying, that it is not the words that matter, but the relationships/meaning), you're ready for realizing a massive defect in the scientific method (one that ensures valid mathematical results, and thus reproducability, while allowing total arbitraryness regarding the theory, even though there is no need at all for this).
Right.
Math (in general) shows there is a phenomenon, from which people must interpret and "conclude" something about it. That forms the basis of further experiments and "scientific" progress.
I think its fairly easy to argue that those practicing science 200 years ago are no closer to "the truth" about things than those that practice it today. Today in general I think there is an extremely over reliance upon statements of facts which are in my opinion speculative inferences. I think I've started embracing and being more ok with "not knowing" than ever before in my life. Accepting there are natural processes we just don't understand, and will never. (whether we understand anything is another question all together).
falek
If you want to understand the world of tmosley, you need to study Somalia. A few months ago, he cited Somalia as his choice for how society and civilization should be modeled.
I'm not joking.
Damn, not even trying to hide the fact that you are RNR any more, huh?
Also, nice job taking every single thing I have ever said out of context. What a douchebag. You just don't get that I am not going let your shitstained lies pass, do you?
For those who are interested in what I ACTUALLY think, it is this: Xeer, the form of customary law that is practiced in the countryside of Somalia (and has held sway there since 700 AD, forming the longest lasting legal system in human history) could be MODIFIED to fit modern society. This could be accomplished by the introduction of social insurance companies to create an alternative to the clan/family based social insurance that currently holds sway there.
And the only reason that a government has never formed in Somalia is because the people DON'T WANT ONE. They know that Xeer is good, just like we know that democracy is good.
For more information, read the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer
And for more on my thoughts on such a system (and to see the idiocy of Mark McGolderick, who was a reincarnation of RNR, and is now posting as Texas Gunslinger, because he is a fucking coward who has to hide behind a new name every five minutes), see this thread: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-governance-free-society
First, I was just some backward guy in Texas.
Then, I was a "ninja troll" - the "best this website ever saw."
Then again, I was also some guy named RNR.
But not really, because I am really Mark McGoldrick.
Now, I'm RNR, Mark McGoldrick, Texas Gunslinger and a ninja troll all rolled into one.
Next week, I'll be 8 different posters attacking you from 12 different angles in some sort of transcendental, matrix-like reality.
If, in your next post, you're going to claim that I'm yet a different person, when can I be the Mediterranean guy in bed with your mother?
You're totally delusional, and your assertion that Somalia would be a great model for US society is one of the most absurd comments ever recorded on the internet. The notion that a society could function as a collection of heavily armed, lawless "gangs" and any individual who wishes to break away from their particular clan/gang must buy "social insurance" is - without question - the height of internet lunacy.
Your use of the word "gangs" only further confirms my suspicions.
And you WERE an excellent troll. But then you started engaging, rather than playing your hilarious character. At that point, your positions and your intellect just aren't enough. So now you are a failtroll.
So sorry :(
I should note that you could have brought up the subject while still in character, and overembraced it, expressing the words you put in my mouth then and now with your own, like you did with the dog food inflation bit. It could have been quite hilarious.
But then, your object here isn't to troll, or to be funny. You, like so many others, are now pursuing a vendetta against me, personally, because of the humiliation I heaped upon you. You only created the character in the vain hope that you would gather a few friends who might then pay attention to you when you trashed me. But that clearly didn't work. Your change in tone, STRAIGHT back to that of a libtroll, with no in between whatsoever, gave you away. After that, you failed.
So sad :(
"without question" I guess this is your general problem, and pretty much describes your attitude in life. I had not heard of 'xeer' before and admittedly it is counterintuitive at first sight. Had you however taken the trouble to read the wiki tm linked to, and some of the links in the wiki article, you would have learned that, even if you still wouldn't agree to the notion of its applicability to western society, it is hardly the most absurd comment or idea ever posted on the internet. I could try to share my surprise when I read that life expectancy in Somalia had risen since they are out of a central government, child mortality and extreme poverty has dropped and several other key indicators have taken an unexpected turn since the demise of Somalia as a country. Not saying I am propagating my country to take the Somalia route but at least I learned something today. But I am sure you prefer to shoot from the hip rather than investigating a point of view that is weird or counter intuitive. Better watch out with this hip shooting, you could hit your foot. Any toes left?
You just made my day.
First, I was just some backward guy in Texas.
Then, I was a "ninja troll" - the "best this website ever saw."
Then again, I was also some guy named RNR.
But not really, because I am really Mark McGoldrick.
Who you are isn't important. What's important is that you are totally innefective at anything you do. You are without a doubt the stupidest, most useless, most dredged from the pits of complete lack of efficacy, getting 0 results failboat on a failtrain in a failocean under a failstar in a fail universe.
You are quite literally the concept of incomprehension within ignorance hitched to a insanity rocket.
You are the batman of Gary, Indiana.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbgLapRAloQ
It is tough. The only way to to tear down the governments, so far as I can see. Or sit back and let them crumble on their own. You keep ahold of your physical capital, and once they are gone, you can participate in the reconstruction. It won't be easy, but it is possible. Predestined, even.
What we really need, more than anything else, is a public awareness of natural rights, and further a willingness of the public to recognize those rights, especially when they are being violated in a systematic manner.
well said. +1
There is no such thing as an equilibrium point. That figment is a starting point for so much destructive fiction, such as certain forms of economics and models...
The population shift is a big deal for some things, for others no so much. Our essential rot is consumption, not population.
As a chemist, I'm going to have to go ahead and DISAGREE with you that there is no such thing as an equilibrium point.
What may appear as equilibrium at one scale of time, place, and pace, actually is a dynamic nonequilibrium, wherein change is perhaps the only constant.
EDIT - just realized we may be referencing different things. I disagree that there is such a thing as equilibrium in any living (complex, adaptive) system, i.e., Life. However, I'd agree that in chemistry, there is such a thing as an "equilibrium point." From my perspective in ecology, I'd see that more as a threshold, roughly delineating the movement of any focal scale between different states/regimes characterized by markedly different variables, feedbacks, and conditions.
You are pretty sharp.
There is such a thing as equilibrium in economics and ecology, indeed, for any variable in a continuous system. In this case, there is an equilibrium value, which we move toward, whether it is above or below the current value of the measured variable. Overshoot is likely, but exponential decay towards said value is possible as well. In other words, we might get something that looks like a decaying sine wave, or something that looks more like an "S".
In biology, there is an equilibrium for every process, but you are dead once you hit it (with a "velocity" of zero), because the difference between the current state and the equilibrium state is equal to motive energy. Things like gunshots, starvation, or disease change the equilibrium, making it easier to reach.
This is more of a philosophical abstraction, of course, but it should apply to most or all such systems.
Any equilibrium is illusion, as our world is one of constant change. We can draw system boundaries as thresholds, inside of which things may appear to be in equilbrium. Think in terms of a ball inside a basin, and the basin interconnected to adjacent, surrounding basins, sort of like rolling hills and valleys. That ball comprises the system's current state, always in motion, its key variables changing, its distance to those thresholds either increasing or decreasing depending on those key variables, feedbacks, forcings, etc...
Ehn, the source does a better job explaining this than I -
www.resalliance.org/index.php/key_concepts
Anyone that sees equilibrium, I'd humbly argue, is missing the forest for the trees.
Another good way to think of this is to contrast engineering resilience with ecological resilience.
Reminds me of sequence space. I'd say valleys are the equivalent of equilibriums. Just looking at the same thing from a different point of view.
To our relational eye, yeah...I'd agree that the valleys appear as stability states, creating an illusion of equilibrium. Under that veneer, though, is seething, teaming, biting, fighting, shifting world interconnected through time, space, and pace through never-ending adaptive cycles.
The ball is always moving. The key is to examine at least three focal systems - yours, and the those immediately above and below yours in time, space and pace.
Do you have a label for the focal systems that are at, below, and above "yours"?
Sure. The labels could be organizing levels in ecology -organisms, population, community. Or community, ecosystem, biome (I'd advocate for anthrome, actually, rather than biome but that's another matter). Or crown, patch/stand, forest. Or policy, contract, law. Law, constitution, culture.
Brand's six shearing layers of change and Dyson's 6 survival layers of civilization are helpful as well.
Conceptually, applied in practice, they could be building systems (HVAC, thermal envelope, etc.), House, Site.
Just a way of organizing place, pace, and time on common elements, at different scales, to begin analytically articulating interrelationships, key variables, forcings/feedbacks, thresholds, and concepts such as resilience, adaptability, or transformability.
Works great for me as a framework for consulting.
This paper outlines the basics: "Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems," C. S. Holling; Ecosystems (2001) 4: 390–405.
Other good resources are ecologyandsociety.org and the Resilience Alliance.
Right now, I can't remember the researcher or paper that focuses specifically on cross-scale analysis.
Fascinating. Thanks for the info.
The Holling paper is a good read. The only free link I can find right now is tsa.gov, which really makes me wonder what the TSA actually does.
But it's here, if interested: www.tsa.gov/assets/pdf/PanarchyorComplexity.pdf
While consumption and misallocation of capital (all forms, human, physical, financial, etc) is indeed the rot. Don't think population can not be a big problem. Equilibrium is very much a fact of life on this planet. Take a course in thermodynamics, so long as the sun has nuclear fuel, life on earth will very much exist in equilibrium.
As above, life exists as dynamic nonequilibrium, likely shaped and driven by a handful of key variables (typically at slower, deeper scales).
That's not to say constants or laws such as those in thermodynamics don't exist. Of course, they do, at least from our small vantagepoint in time, place, and pace.
That's an entirely different thing than claiming life is an equilibrium. Or even that equilibrium equals absolute laws or unvarying principles that underly and help organize reality.
Agreed that population can, is, and always may be a problem...at any scale, density becomes problematic for any species. Just saying, here, population need not be the problem. Or more accurately, it's become a problem because of our consumption.
Beware of linear extrapolations.
How about exponential extrapolations. With a base becoming smaller than 1.
Let's generalize, shall we? Beware of extrapolations.
Every financial investment "opportunity" I've seen includes words along the lines of "past performance is not a guarantee of future returns."
This says in a short sentence everything one needs to know: nobody knows what the future will bring.
I hate the term 'elite' for these idiots and think the name Leeches far more appropriate for these blood sucking parasites
Yes, it should always be "demon elite"!
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez
Does Sanjeev know nuclear physics. Cause he is so wrong with this projection it makes Intel look like they are able to project stuff.
Securitized b/d models bitchez!
I better hurry and put my condo on the market because I am losing buyers.....shit..it already is on the market....for three years....I am doomed..I am doomed...no more rubbers for me...I am going naked from here on out....more screaming mimmies
Don't worry. With family planning and condom budgets being reduced by austerity, population growth is a-comin'!
This is probably the dumbest thing I have ever read. "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..."
Because population dynamics never change. If this is the conclusion, why aren't we in the Malthusian trap right now?
Malthus just may be a few centuries early. Hard to know for sure.
Yeah. Some people will argue like that a 1000 years from now.
A thousand years is brief. Maybe it takes 50,000
A thousand years is brief. Maybe it takes 50,000
Population growth is probably the biggest contributor to nominal economic growth that we have ever had. But, we can still grow without it via innovation and quality of life improvements. Personally, I usually prefer quality over quantity, although I do admit "Idiocracy" is one of my favorite movies.
Mass production isn't limited to Ipods
Come on... not 0. This is a good thing. Means we have a natural population control with our environment mechanism. The alternative would be mass starvation.
Thanks for chiming in oligarch. Since you're here, I'm asking for forgiveness from Baal and Mammon for not sacrificing my child. You can grant that, right? I assume you're ordained.
Yes, if you call abortion, sterilants in the water, food and vaccines "natural".
Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez
I find this to be extremely non-productive speculation. The further you go out, the less meaningful current trends are. Remember Dow 36,000? The only constant is change.
Umm..... someone explain to me what i'm missing..... overpopulation is one of root problems of mankind... birth rates are sinking, so that in a while, that insane high number will begin to go down again..... how is that related to "is the human race doomed"? Or is this just another case of growth compulsion?
I dunno, with my naive simple thinking, it would seem to me, that this is like calling the reduction of a major problem the worst thing that could happen. Then again, seeing how many humans behave, that sentiment may actually be quite popular. So maybe, to humans "Oh noes! We're doing something reasonable!" is indeed the worst thing they can imagine.
"someone explain to me what i'm missing....."
"overpopulation is one of root problems of mankind" - well...first you made this false statement...
It is almost as if you don't realize that wanting fewer people puts you in the oligarch camp. You've got nothing to complain about. Plenty of human being number reduction and suffering coming our way.
Okay, two idiotic responses.... anyone have a reasonable explanation how reducing the overpopulation problem is bad?
If you think that your fellow man/woman has the right to play god/God, and decide on who lives and who dies, based on their own belief system, regardless of the ultimate intent (even assuming any theory about the appropriate population of planet earth is not some half-assed bullshit - a big assumption), elect yourself as the first for termination.
I didn't talk about the method (or rather, it is a seperate topic). The world population is about to sink in the future, and that was considered "doom". Assuming that current world population is problematic, and further rises not sustainable (i do NOT just mean in terms of food, but especially also in terms of rate of ressource depletion, rate of waste creation, and rate of destruction of other species)... then ideological concerns do not matter... IF something does not work, then it does not matter how much one would like it to work. One may want to discuss about the "how", but if there is a case of "fix it or die", then "if" is no longer up for discussion, only "how".
Generally yes.
But first question is who stated this is a case of "fix it or die"?
That was me, and i assumed it as so obvious that there isn't even a point in discussing it (then again, i'm sure the transhumanists will propose to infect other planets when "here" isn't enoug anymore.... i think there was something agent smith had to say about this).
In addition to this, i also simply consider it a matter of fairness. Multualism to me doesn't end at the border of the human species.... i consider it disgusting, respectless and parasitary how humans treat their surroundings.... as if everything non-human is just an object at the service of humans. It may be hard to understand this for a conditioned human, but if you manage to imagine the state of things from the POV of a nonhuman, it becomes totally obvious that humans don't give a shit about you.... there isn't even the slightest hint of respect and desire for balance.
You are at least (in comparison to many others) getting close to the point.
In effect you are redefining "the pursuit of happiness" to be meant not just for humans, but also for spotted owls or trees or anthrax bacteria or whatever.
If you'd really think that approach all the way through and draw the conclusions, it leaves you only with the option to terminate yourself.
I don't believe the founding fathers meant it that way.
I'm not sure if i even advocate a "pursuit of happiness".... that phrase to me implies forever chasing something with no actual goal that can be reached, and thus never reaching satisfaction on a given topic (which to a lesser extend is true, because the world is not static..... so, even if one is at some time satisfied with how stuff is on a given topic, it requires some effort to stay satisfied).
I'm not sure if i can explain what i mean with the precision which i otherwise prefer. But i guess better less precise than not at all, so i'll try:
Overally, i prefer fairness and mutuality among everything. In cases where this is not possible, i prefer noninteraction. In cases where this too is not possible, i depending on the situation prefer war or submission, BUT always with the goal of solving the conflict towards mutual interaction or mutual noninteraction. With that established, here come the exceptions:
1. I understand that there always must be some parasitism, alone already because it is parasites who train mutualists in defending themselves against parasites (similiar to an immune system being trained by diseases to defend itself against said diseases. Without diseases, defense abilities go down, thus making parasitism a working strategy again). HOWEVER, this to me does not imply that it does not matter how much mutualism and parasitism there is. If parasitism is overly abundant, massive extinction is the consequence, similiar to a disease first killing its hosts and then without "food" dying itself. And overabundance of mutuality on the other hand, encourages just such an "outbreak" to happen. So, even though i like to call myself a mutualist, i am aware than in the big picture, a balance of both is desirable.
2. I understand that to some degree, destruction of others for the own survival is necessary (example: food, natural ressources). However, here too this to me does not imply, that it does not matter how much one destroys others. And it especially to me does not mean, that there is no need to "respect" the value of others - more like the opposite. It to me implies that one should be thankful for it, and attempt to use it efficiently and only as much as is necessary. Not just for "altruistic" reasons, but also because one's own survival, others survival and future life's survival, depends on the availability of such ressources.
Now, take all of the above, and add balance in population sizes, and you've got my "approach". Balance, sustainability, fairness, mutual respect, responsibility - and on all relevant scales in time and space.
I'd say "just common sense", but that would be untrue, because it isn't common.
And my response is idiotic. When someone says you have a false premise, just start piling on with a bunch of other false premises on things you have no clue about. Yeah, hey, if we need population control so bad, why not put your bullets where your mouth is? Oh yeah, me first, right dear leader?
At least, my arguments consist of more than putting words in other peoples mouth. It seems, to some people libertarianism means total lack of collective responsibility and control. Do you also propose that there should be no limits to wealth of individual corporations, therefore shooting the whole point of libertarianism in the foot? Or is that something totally different to birth? What's it with people treating birth as something so special.... to the point, that it becomes an action that is EXEMPT from the rule "do what you want as long as it does not hurt others"? I'm sorry, but your ideology has a big fat hole at least there, because it breaks your core principles on that topic. Or wait, maybe i'm making a mistake here and put words in your mouth..... maybe responsibility for own actions and considering consequences, is not part of your core principles? What the fuck is libertarianism to you, egoism or multualism???
You hypocrite are denouncing me a dictator, when it is actually you who is argueing egoistically, while i am argueing from a mutualistic POV... and not just mutualistic among humans, but also mutualistic regarding the planet i live on. That my dear is the reason for our dispute... i am applying the principle of mutualism consequently and universally, instead of in a halfassed way that more resembles egoism.
LOL, you're arguing "mutualistic"ally by arguing it is good when the number of people is reduced. Can't argue with that. It is just a coincidence that your "logic" reaches the same conclusion as the collectivism pushing oligarchs. Whereas when I argue that more people is better, I'm arguing "egoistically". What on a species level? This is just too dumb to argue with. The funniest part of all this is that you think you're smart. That is your biggest false assumption.
"Number of people reduced" != "Number of people killed"
As for you argueing egoistically: You don't give a fuck about the effects of your race. To you, effects of the collective are exempt from responsibility.
I argue that i am responsible for the consequences of my actions on the big scale. I argue that others are responsible for their actions on a big scale.
I know, it's hard for you to understand, because you are so fucking stuck in "you versus me"-thinking, stuck in only fucking considering one invididual's freedom at a time, while ignoring consequences on others (and thus, via inverse reasoning, effect of others on you), stuck in only thinking inside the box that is your species..... yes, with that thoughtstyle, you will indeed never be able to understand, how responsibility and consequences could go further than the end of your nose.
But nevermind...... everything is fine.... the large scale behaviour of the human race, has NOTHING to do at all with the actions of individuals..... totally seperate worlds...... and don't bother stressing your head with trying to understand something you don't understand..... if you don't understand it, that guy is probably stupid and wrong.
Really, nothing to see here..... it's just humans acting and thinking like a disease. Totally normal. Will "go away" one way or another.
HEY, i finally figured the reasoning of some people here out.... i at first didn't get it, because i didn't expect such a low level. It goes like this:
Either you only consider individual aspects, or you only consider only collective aspects. Nothing in-between, no "other" and especially not "both".
Either you are against all collective enforcement, or for all collective enforcement. Nothing in between, no other, and especially not "depends how".
Either you follow current trends, or you are against all current trends. Nothing in-between, no "other", and especially no "depends".
Horray! It seems that for all the supposed dislike of dichotomies, they are alive and kicking among *some* "libertarians" (which perhaps better may be described as "anarchists"). I feel dirty for ever a while ago having called myself an "individualist".... need brain bleach, but first should write note to never again fall for the trap that is "camps".
I don't care about the effects of my race? You mean, I don't feel guilt like you. We must feel guilt for the fishes and rabbits and poor Mother Gaia. What a joke. I love the effects of my race. Human culture can evolve faster and fix positive traits in a large population faster than any genetic evolution. Several orders of magnitude faster. Oh, but the rabbits! Mother Gaia is weeping. That is a viral meme testing the system. Drawing out the stupid to hate themselves. You're a total idiot. You don't even understand life. Your concept of life is based on a taxonomy that is myopic towards... wait for it... human beings. And you have humanized animals to the point where they matter more than humans. I can't think of any way to explain this simply. You are an idiot. Believe me when I say you simply have no clue. Rest assured in that fact.
Do you have anything else to say, besides of mud-slinging rethorics, and putting people into stereotypical camps?
No? Oh well, then you are a waste of time and space. You have no argument at all - only sophisms, parasite.
P.S.: Oh, for completeness sake, let me append to my list of braindead dichotomies: Either you're a tree hugging hippie, or you're a egomaniac human who recklessly burns everything in his path. No "in-between", no "other" and especially no "respect".
Being happy about fewer people is kinda fundamental to weezle out of by saying, "Well, until we reach balance, whatever the fuck that is. Believe me, we need balance. Just a couple billion gone and we're there barring further data analysis by the oligarchs."
As for mud slinging do you consider and I quote, "You sir are a fucking idiot." to be mudslinging? What a fucking whiny hypocrit bitch you are.
When you quoted "you sir are a fucking idiot", you forgot to quote the arguments on which that statement was built :) Adding some rethorics to sound arguments is one thing.... relying exclusively on rethorics, is just void of sense. From the POV of any individual who values reason and truth, the intensity of your rethorics and insults, should be equivalent to your actual arguments - else you're just a blowhard.
Now, as for your first paragraph.... you're not really stating it explicitely, but it seems that paragraph rests on the argument, that "where" that balance is, is unclear. This actually is the first reasonable and matching argument i've read from you, so i'll bother to reply to this.
Simple question: What matters regarding sustainable and fair population size? Well....
1. What human population size is necessary for humans to easily sustain themselves?
2. What human population size is necessary for other species to easily sustain themselves?
3. What human population size is - after it has been achieved - sustainable without serious cultural conflicts?
(notice that via the 3rd argument, i here biased the question actually towards humans)
Well, to me from the looks of it, #1 is actually significantly lower (EDIT: correction) than #2, and well achievable via "soft" cultural means, if current styles of government and culture change (hint: it ironically has something to do with getting rid of the enslavement by your oh so hated oligarchy. Yes, right - the oh so "progressive" enlightment of a significant portion of the masses, would actually result in a "regressive" population decline. Reason: People who have something better to do with their life, than work, eat, watch tv, fuck, sleep - create less children). And if that isn't enough,add some minor cash incentives on top of this, and you can steer population sizes whereever you want - without "forcing" people to do anything, but simply "encouraging" them. Strangely absent is the act of killing people.
"Simple question: What matters regarding sustainable and fair population size? Well...."
Sustainable and fair? You mean arbitrary whim of your masters. What an idiot.
"1. What human population size is necessary for humans to easily sustain themselves?"
The idea that there is some ideal number just shows how stupid you are. Human culture is a very dynamic force. This is why all the population bomb people were shown to be morons, like you, as they couldn't conceive of population growth changing and farming production changing. You think everything is a linear equation because you're stupid.
"2. What human population size is necessary for other species to easily sustain themselves?"
Which species? The Irish Elk? Escherichia coli? I mean seriously? Are you really that stupid? You just don't have a clue. Species are a human construct to attempt to order life in a hierarchy. There are so many things wrong with your question I don't know where to start other than to reassure you that you have no clue.
"3. What human population size is - after it has been achieved - sustainable without serious cultural conflicts?"
My honest guess for this is about 100. What an idiot. Cultures will always be competing and in conflict just like species will be. It is a requirement of evolution that things vary and those varying things will compete. Your conflictless world is some empty headed childish fairly tale that is completely divorced from logic and reality. But don't let that stop you from thinking you know everything.
"(notice that via the 3rd argument, i here biased the question actually towards humans)"Um, hey moron, look at your first question again. Humans and themselves aren't biases towards humans? What a moron.
"...it ironically has something to do with getting rid of the enslavement by your oh so hated oligarchy. Yes, right - the oh so "progressive" enlightment of a significant portion of the masses, would actually result in a "regressive" population decline."You act as if this is absolute fact yet there is no evidence that this is true. People have rarely been free from oligarchs. The first 100 years of America is a rare example and the population grew rapidly. But again, it completely depends on culture. Naturally a culture that is more fertile will tend to replace those that aren't. You just have no clue.
Can I make a point? " I lovethe effects of my race. Human culture can evolve faster and fix positive traits in a large population faster than any genetic evolution. Several orders of magnitude faster." This statement is more informative than everything you've ever written combined. As is my point about your myopic view of life that is skewed towards human beings with a crappy high school obsolete taxonomy. Too bad you have no fucking clue so you don't understand any of it.
For someone denouncing me as a dictator who considers himself overly smart, you're pretty arrogant, aren't you?
P.S.: Oh, and you really don't need to tell ME, that culture evolves much faster than biology - i'm trying to tell this people all the time. Yet unfortunatelly (or i'd say fortunatelly - it would be quite horrible otherwise) it is completely irrelevant to the topic in this case, precisely because cultural influence is more important than biological reproduction: It doesn't so much matter WHO creates a child, but instead how it is raised (what some call "education")
The problem is that most people are smart when compared to you.
It also is funny that for once in your life you're succinct with a statement and then you turn around a write a PS, on a discussion thread, that is a paragraph long. You're just a total buffoon.
You've got a pretty bad case of regressivism. I'm afraid it is terminal.
No, i just have a pretty bad case of sense of balance, as opposed to an endless desire for imbalance.
Translation: I'm not greedy.
Imbalance is what allows life to exist. Balance means death.
If you are alive, then you are greedy. To deny that is to deny yourself--a form of suicide, but worse, because it is contagious.
Last time i checked, "life" didn't require unlimited ressources, nor unlimited space, nor unlimited destruction of other life, unless one strives for unlimited lives.
So anything short of unlimited desire isn't greed?
Then no-one is greedy.
lol
Actually, by that definition, most people are greedy. Satisfaction is alien to most humans.
So most people will eat until their stomachs explode? Extrapolate that to any other desire that is harmful when satiated in extremis.
Okay, let me add more detail to that generic statement: Most humans tend to take everything they can get without significantly bad *short-term* consequences. So, max short-term saturation.
Analogy: You can take debt and print stuff day after day, and everything seems to be fine..... until the longterm and big picture consequences kick in - at which time it will be too late.
You're half way there. While printing money devalues the medium of exchange and this is bad for economic stability, people are the most important resource in the world. Human potential for producing wealth in the form of creature comforts, art, and technology is good. Having more of them is good. The only way that too many people becomes an issue is if the majority are self-hating holier-than-thou regressives.
Translation: The only thing in the way of infinite growth, is people who do not believe in infinite growth. And please let us not question purpose and usefulness growth for the sake of growth. Also, please let us not consider those ressources and people rendered nonexistant by said infinte growth.
Short version: The belief in infinity and all its variants, is a mental (and thus cultural) disorder. But how can you blame those fucking stupid humans, when even the cultural personification truth - mathematicians - believe that infinity is a value, rather than plain old repetition forever (a process)?
In other words, infinity is unreachable and the oligarchs and small minded morons like Rynak have deemed it unbalanced so we must go the other direction towards zero. Zero is achievable and sustainable.
tm, I believe that you and many other confuse seeming 'greediness' with a lack of security.
Many people are prone to believing they will never know how much is enough to ensure a comfortable and long term survival, especially when times are uncertain.
The desire to accumulate wealth by these types, out of a deep seeded psychological insecurity about the future, even when the amounts they strive for seem excessive to many objective observers, may not, in fact, be any form of greed.
However, I will grant you that the truly greedy do exist, also.
You have no sense except the regressive pap you were spoon fed in oligarch run schools. It just happens that everyone that talks like you is a notoriously selfish person in real life.
Regressive as opposed to progressive..... so, by your definition "progressive" is good and "regressive" is bad.... thus, it does not even matter in which direction one is running, only how fast one is running. MAKES TOTAL SENSE! It does not matter which path we did take.... anything is "good" in retrospect, because "going back" is bad! HORRAY, HUMANS NEVER MAKE MISTAKES BY DEFINITION!
You sir, are a fucking idiot.
And for the record, i never got anything of what i wrote in the other posts in this thread, told by a school, or parents or media. Contrary to you, i can make up my own mind, and have differentiated views, rather than mentally lazy subscribing to a camp, and stagnating there, Mr. Progressive.
"...thus, it does not even matter in which direction one is running, only how fast one is running."
That almost sounds like a proof but of course there is no link in your logic as you jump to another one of your dumb statements. Running away from 0 is progressive but this is the exact opposite of what today's progressives want. That's why I call you guys regressive. You want to go towards 0. When something is being reduced in number where is it headed? This is really a fundamental issue. If you think less people is good, that is a really fundamental belief. There is no, "Oh, just 'til we reach a level acceptable to the arbitrary whims of the oligarchs, oh, I mean, my reasoned and original ideas." That's just BS.
"...thus, it does not even matter in which direction one is running, only how fast one is running."
That almost sounds like a proof but of course there is no link in your logic as you jump to another one of your dumb statements. Running away from 0 is progressive but this is the exact opposite of what today's progressives want. That's why I call you guys regressive. You want to go towards 0. When something is being reduced in number where is it headed? This is really a fundamental issue. If you think less people is good, that is a really fundamental belief. There is no, "Oh, just 'til we reach a level acceptable to the arbitrary whims of the oligarchs, oh, I mean, my reasoned and original ideas." That's just BS.
And your "0" is what? Zero is just a referencepoint. Please learn basics about relativity, and then try another argument for "continueing to run away from the past, is always good". Really, you can at this point challenge me to ANY argument, that does not turn the term "progressive" ad absurdum.... i'll be able to debunk it. And that is because the logical fallacy is fundamental... there is no way at all out of it, because the premise is ignoring relativity itself, and thus one of the premises of logic: You're rejecting that a rating is a relation - that thoughtstyle is otherwise known as absolutism.
No matter how much you twist it..... no matter if you appeal to novelty..... no matter if you appeal to "EVERY change is good".... no matter if you appeal against tradition..... your argument will be logically false and untrue. No direction is "right" regardless of context (referencepoints)... it just makes no fucking sense at all - neither for progressivism, nor for regression.
You may as well try to tell me, that the direction "left" is always good, regardless of referencepoint. thus turning the statement ad absurdum.
Seriously, do your mental health a favour, and start thinking based on relations, rather than imaginary absolute values based on "stealth" relations.
"And your "0" is what?"
0 is a number. It is referring to the lack of something. As in, there are three apples on the table and Johnny, Scratchy and Patches each eat one. There are now zero apples on the table.
What is 0? What a complete buffoon you are. You are so full of it. Here let me pontificate on the question what is zero for a couple paragraphs. Look at me. I'm so smart. Blah blah blah.
Well, if you're all for "not going towards zero", then i'm sure you're all for hyperinflation. Number of dollars increase, so it must be good right? I mean, the dollar going down and towards an earlier state, is quite "regressive" right?
Argh, why do i even reply anymore, to this moron.
Haha, I see you responded to the derriere tearage above by junking me. Oh, poor wittle guy. Hope you aren't too embarrassed. Hey, I know, why not compare fiat currency money printing to human beings increasing in number? Wow, you are a genius. I explained previously why this is dumb but I think even that was over your head.
Once we realize that a woman's best position [executive et al] in the world is heels up, the aformentioned charts will be as worthless as a cum towel.
Proceed on children, nothing to see here.
Whatever is necessary, you do it. When somebody needs to be killed, there's no wrong. You do it, and then you move on.
And you pick up a child and you move him into the desert.
You pick up as many children as you can and you kill whoever gets in your way.
That us.
unjunk
Welcome to the "human" race. Your mileage may vary.
I thought the end of civilization was for May 21st? Maybe he just got the year wrong.
No... Not the year... Just the "day"... His math was off I guess... ROR
Preacher says world will actually end in October
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110524/ap_on_re_us/us_apocalypse_saturday
All biological systems are dynamic. There are other times where the population contracted like during the black death plagues. We've just got a case of the collectivist/regressive meme virus. It'll pass.
Would you be now discussing the veritable "Achilles Heel" of capitalism?
A "Ponzi Scheme" will continue to "work" and make more profits for everybody involved in it,
for just so long as it is possible to continually expand the influx of new participants.
It is at the very moment that the quantity of matriculants begins to decline that the whole scheme collapses, top to bottom, dissipating like the mist on a summer morning.
Rise of the Machines, bitchez!
http://www.celebritywonder.com/mp/2003_Terminator_3:_Rise_of_the_Machine...
Peak Jizz
^^^thread winner. awesome. :-)
dupe, sorry
+++
well if its down to me and three other women on the planet earth....I just hope they are not UGLY....lol
You've never been drunk, really drunk, in your life, have you?
I appreciate your humor.
To the last human, from Dave Matthews Live:
@2:40 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfPA_L5z0Lc
Who will be the last one on earth, and who will dig his grave?
Heavy stuff.
From "The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly"...
---
"There are two types of people in this world, those who have guns, & those who dig... You dig..."
So I suppose the answer to your question depends on whether or not you have a gun...
Und morgen die ganze Welt
Hmmm. Infertility, aborting females to try for males, males becoming more sterile. Anyone see the big picture yet? 95% of the worlds fresh water isn't. Anyone that drinks recycled water (processed) is getting vast quantities of chemicals that alter function permanently, radiation is increasing so much they said, "hey, why tell everyone they are toast?" and no more reports will ever be released. Woody Allen's "Sleeper" is starting to look strangely realistic. All the women will be frigid and all men impotent (except Italians and their decendents that ate pasta)
Everything is working out as planned by Dow and the other good and great humanitarian chemical companies had it worked out to kill every last thing on the planet.
When are "you" going to have had enough?
Biological systems ebbing and flowing without intention? Blasphemy!
Gaia trumps Malthus...
Is Harry Dent consulting for Deutsche Bank?
The presumption that humankind is in control over itself is a fantasy -- there are orders of magnitude of principles and dynamics our minds cannot even comphehend in terms of aspects which actually DO control humanity. As Ms Coleman steppped off Space Station this morning in Khasakstan after six months in orbit, her main dilema was that she was wobbly and happy there were people on both sides of her as she could not walk unaided in a straight line. The affects of energy grids in the planet are totally sidestepped in relation to the human organism -- which certainly does NOT create electricity on its own via food -- not withstadning Big Macs and Shakes!
Yet, this organism until its final day DOES give off an electric charge. The nerves are electrified and no doctor can tell me that comes from just food! So whatever it is that DOES charge and animate the human body may just as well ALSO have within it a regulatory regime of far greater magnitude than what boyish science has yet attributed to it.
As all human experience seems to be boxed and catagorized as a form of asset it would make sense that such "charts" would show themselves as on a long enough timeline all life forms will be counted as a tradable commodity... Until they aren't...
Entropy, bitchez.
Yes indeed. You can use energy to reverse it, to a point. Cold dark future bitches. (at least in this universe) Where is that wormhole at?
Or cold fusion, at the least.
Speaking of electricity and the body:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F3ovb2kZ9Q&feature=player_embedded
There are things that science cannot explain yet. Maybe someday it will.
You need not even go that far afield to marvel at the relationship between electricity and the human body.
Lithium: clinical study by brain electrical activity mapping.The world´s population need to go down to 3 billion. Then we may start worrying about "extinction". Overpopulation is the problem, not extinction. There´s just not enough resources for 7-10 bn people, Im afraid. As recently as in 19 century there were only 1 bn people, now we´re at 7bn and still pushung higher. That´s the real problem.
Yep, eating oil and coal via the Haber Bosch process (perfected in the early 1900's).
Who do we kill first?
Good look at selling stocks?
deadcatbouncing.blogspot.com
Totally doomed when the TOTUS doesn't even know what year it is.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Obama-Mistake-Westminster-Guest...
What the hell is in the water?
If that dog hadn't beat me over the fence...
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.
When conception is optional, far too many couples consider it to be an unintended consequence of moving the levers and turning the dials on equipment they never intend to start fully running. As a result, we now have far more childless couples, and at the same time far more conceptions than live births. In New York City, the abortion rate of non-Hispanic blacks is 59.8%, meaning 1.49 conceptions for every live birth [1].
We have spent the last 50 years learning to understand the implications of making conception optional. We must now learn that sufficient levels of conception are a personal responsibility before there are too few fertile females. Or in other words, when a sufficient number of females stop being fertile, humanity is no longer sustainable.
It was the left who loves to lecture the rest of us on the topic of "sustainability", and it is the left who most loudly agitated for sexual "liberation", that is more bluntly, conception-free sexual activity. It was the left that agitated for "reproductive rights", a code phrase for unrestricted abortion. And right at this moment, western liberals suffers far more from a low birth rate than western conservatives do.
Even worse, Islamists know that they can out-reproduce western liberals. And when there are no more western liberals in Europe, there most certainly will be Islamists who will be more than happy to occupy the lands of the dead infidels. And all the Gaia-worship in the world will not save the planet from people who certaily will never worship Gaia, and who will be happy to treat the environment far worse than any westerner ever thought to.
[1] http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_york&id=7883827)
+1 Truthful comments.
The great reckoning some call financial collapse, or 'austerity', and others call 'reversion to the mean', will see the western world return to family and self-reliance. I welcome this return to simple things, to real things..
well said!
I'd like to quibble with your implication that a married couple, with personal freedoms, somehow has a "responsibility" or "obligation" to reproduce. Why, and to whom? FYI, I am a conservative Constitutionalist, not a moonbat.... but I must confess that much natalist rhetoric has an authoritarian tone that I don't like. Whenever someone tells me, "You must", I reply with the answer, "Why, and who says?"
The problem of low birth rates among responsible, hard-working people, and high birthrates among the welfare 'n grape soda crowd is a serious one in the United States in particular, but IMHO, the solution is lower taxes, safer streets, and less socialism generally, NOT groupthink shaming of childless couples and single people. Given how f-ed up this society is right now, do you blame some for not wanting to sweat and slave, with an entitled, bone-in-the-nose, tattooed, wastrel American teenager as the booby prize? And no one can be sure that that isn't what they'll get, instead of a clean-cut, successful, loving kid. Even good parents have even-money odds right now on a good outcome.
It's like you're my f'ing clone! But I would be amiss in not blaming the convergent evolution of similar meme-omes.
Idiocracy, bitches!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
How freakin stupid can you get? Humanity is of course NOT doomed just because population growth stops increasing ad infinitum. What is in serious trouble is our financial model, which like a tumor, NEEDS growth or the system collapses. I just hope the shit hits the fan before all earthly resources are used up.
Did you read the text? You know "population growth stops increasing" and to be actually decreasing are two different things.
There was an episode of "The Venture Bros" where the protagonists went to a space station made by the Boy's grandfather. There was a "Problem" light that had come on, and the owners of the space station wanted Dr. Venture to fix it. While he was trying to diagnose the problem, he had the boys watch the light to see if it turned off. When he flipped on switch, and asked if it was still on, the boys alternately said "It's on" "It's off" "it's on" "It's off".
To this, the good doctor facepalmed and said "Boys, that's called "blinking".
Similarly, this is called "fluctuation". The population was never going to grow to infinite, nor was it going to crash to zero.
Funny show, that Venture Bros.
This is the very reason we all have to write Obama and beg him to pardon DSK. He may the only thing holding up the birth rate. I'm serious, we have to play our trump card
Keynesians not worried about this at all - just print more birth certificates.
Speaking of which: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDPg_w1VsWU
Gee, I have a family member who is a geneticist. Was taught that humans are parasites on the planet and they have to reduce population bull$hit all the way through college. This is the second or third source that I've seen that shows that the number of people in the world is about to begin shrinking, perhaps quite drastically, in the near future. I'm wondering if the Malthusian elitists like David Rockefeller and Prince Phillip are the ones funding the garbage that passes for basic science these days. Every time I here the "educated" go on about overpopulation, I just think to myself, "Okay, when are you going to put that gun in your mouth or tie the noose to hang yourself with to help begin the de-population process." Of course, the cowards will never do it because they are "too valuable" and have to show us little people how to live "sustainably."
+1
Well, that solves the growing unemployment problem.
At some point the unemployment taxes employers pay into states will be so great--- and unused---because of 110%v employment, it will solve our national debt crisis as well.
All great things come to he who waits.
This time next year, U-6 unemployment will be testing 30%... maybe even more!
Family Radio meets the mogambo on zeroHedge:
Is The Human Race Doomed?Best thing that could happen to the Earth is the population drops to around 1 billion or less.