This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Jeremy Grantham On The Fall Of Civilizations (And Our Last Best Hope)
In a slight digression from the usual pure market-based discussions of Jeremy Grantham's perspectives, the fund manager addresses what is potentially and even more critical factor for the markets. As he writes, we are in a race for our lives, as our global economy, reckless in its use of all resources and natural systems, shows many of the indicators of potential failure that brought down so many civilizations before ours. By sheer luck, though, ours has two features that might just save our bacon: declining fertility rates and progress in alternative energy. Our survival might well depend on doing everything we can to encourage their progress. Vested interests, though, defend the status quo effectively and the majority much prefers optimistic propaganda to uncomfortable truth and wishful thinking rather than tough action. It is likely to be a close race.
Via GMO,
The Fall of Civilizations
The collapse of civilizations is a gripping and resonant topic for many of us and one that has attracted many scholars over the years. They see many possible contributing factors to the collapse of previous civilizations, the evidence pieced together shard by shard from civilizations that often left few records. But some themes reoccur in the scholars’ work: geographic locations that had misfortune in the availability of useful animal and vegetable life, soil, water, and a source of energy; mismanagement in the overuse and depletion of resources, especially forests, soil, and water; the lack of a safety margin or storage against inevitable droughts and famines; overexpansion and costly unnecessary wars; sometimes a failure of moral spirit as the pioneering toughness and willingness to sacrifice gave way to softer and more cynical ways; increasing complexity of a growing empire that became by degree too expensive in human costs and in the use of limited resources to justify the effort, until the taxes and other demands on ordinary citizens became unbearable, so that an empire, pushed beyond sustainable limits, became vulnerable to even modest shocks that could in earlier days have been easily withstood. Probably the greatest agreement among scholars, though, is that the failing civilizations suffered from growing hubris and overconfidence: the belief that their capabilities after many earlier tests would always rise to the occasion and that growing signs of weakness could be ignored as pessimistic. After all, after 200 or even 500 years, many other dangers had been warned of yet always they had persevered. Until finally they did not.
The bad news is that as I read about these varied scenarios – and I have missed listing several – they all appear plausible and each seems to be relevant to several earlier collapses of empires and civilizations both large and small. Very recently, one of these scholars, William Ophuls, wrote a new book, Immoderate Greatness (a quote from Gibbons’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire), with the subtitle Why Civilizations Fail. It is a straightforward summary and synthesis of all of the ways to fail in 70 small pages, yet with extensive notes and references. It is written in remarkably accessible, simple language and divides the causes of failure into six categories. Unfortunately, all six seem to apply to us today in varying degrees, and where one factor might be manageable – although often has not been – he makes the chances of our managing all six seem slight. It is persuasive and needs to be read. It takes about two hours.
William Ophuls’s conclusion is that we will not resist the impressive list of erosive factors and that, in fact, we are in the fairly late stages of our current civilization’s race for the cliff edge with nothing much to head us off. His study of history leads him to believe that civilizations are actually hard wired to self-destruct: programmed to be overconfident, to keep on pushing for growth until limits are overstepped and risks accumulated to the breaking point. His offer of good news is that after the New Dark Ages, when civilization again rears its head, presumably with a much smaller population, we will have acquired the good sense to be less overreaching, less hubristic, a lot humbler about growth and our use of resources, and more determined to live in balance with the natural energy we receive from the sun and the heat, food, and water with which we can sustainably be provided.
I have just two comments about our current problems. First, that there is one particular pressure this time that seems particularly serious: aversion to bad news. The investment business has taught me – increasingly as the years have passed – that people, especially investors (and, I believe, Americans), prefer good news and wishful thinking to bad news; and that there are always vested interests to offer facile, optimistic alternatives to the bad news. The good news is obviously an easier sell. Good news in investing in particular is better for business; good news on resource limitation is better for the suppliers of resources; and good news on climate change – that it basically does not exist and is even a hoax – is better for energy companies, among the biggest and most profitable of all companies. Historians have pointed out the bias against the need for change: there are always clear beneficiaries of the current state of affairs but the benefits of a changed world in contrast will look vague and uncertain to the likely beneficiaries. That is always the case. What is less common, although not unique in history, is what we have today: the near complete control of government by the powerful beneficiaries of the current system.
The second point is that although I find Ophuls’s argument well-reasoned and although I must acknowledge the strong possibility of a very negative outcome, I feel it is too pessimistic (which, sadly, is a rare occurrence for me on this topic). Yes, we are taking extreme risks with resource depletion and with the environment, especially concerning climate damage and ocean acidification. Yet I believe the case for the near certainty of our running off the cliff misses the existence of two extraordinarily lucky (and, one could argue, undeserved) gifts that were not available to any prior stressed civilization. They may arrive like the U.S. Cavalry, just in time to turn us away from the cliff edge. But at best, as Wellington is famously paraphrased as saying about the Battle of Waterloo, it will be a “damn closely run thing.” It will be the race of our lives.
Our Last Best Hopes: Declining Fertility and Improving Technology for Renewable Energy
Declining Fertility
The first of the two incredibly fortunate factors that might enable our current world to avoid at least partial collapse is declining fertility. Malthus correctly analyzed the main problem of our then history (in 1800): population had always kept up with food supply, leaving even successful societies only a few bad growing seasons away from starvation. He predicted that this would always be the case and he was wrong on two counts. The first is a short-term factor – only existing for 200 or 300 years and therefore irrelevant for the longer term of our species – and that is the increased ability to extract previously stored energy in the form of coal and oil. This hydrocarbon interlude will end either when that share of hydrocarbons that can be extracted economically is used up, or more likely when the tyranny of the second law of thermodynamics imposes its will: enough of the higher forms of convenient compact energy like coal and oil will have been converted into heat, waste, and especially carbon dioxide to ruin our climate in particular and our environment in general.
Malthus, however, completely missed declining fertility, a potentially very long-term and hence much more critical factor to the survival of our species. Neither he nor anyone else before 1960 even dreamed that we would voluntarily decide to have fewer children even as we became richer. In his day and until the early twentieth century, rich families routinely had eight or more children. Ironically, it has turned out that the same instincts that bring us the problems of excessive consumption and unnecessarily rapid resource depletion have also brought us the attitude that children are inconvenient and desperately expensive. Improved medical services that further allowed populations to explode now allow the confidence to have smaller families. Increased farm technology lowers the significance of the labor from many children. The most obvious drivers of lower birth rates, though, are the improved education of women and advances in birth control methods. The net effect of these factors is a change so profound that just a hundred years ago it was not even guessed at, and indeed population growth and fertility continued to rise until about 1960 – just the other day.
The following exhibits show the remarkable and promising data. The dashed horizontal line at 2.1 in Exhibits 1 through 4 is the fertility level required to have a stable population in the modern world under normal conditions. Exhibit 1 shows the remarkable drop in fertility in the richer East Asian countries, including China, with almost a fifth of the world’s population.
Exhibit 2 shows the drop in the larger and wealthier countries to an average level just below replacement, with the very latest update for U.S. fertility in 2012 dropping below replacement.
Exhibit 3 shows selected important and sometimes spectacularly unexpected examples. At the top of the unexpected list is Iran, which has dropped from a fertility rate of 7 – children per woman! – in 1960 to an almost unbelievable 1.6 today. Another remarkable example of a large Islamic country is Bangladesh, which has also fallen from 7 in 1960 to 2.2. This is extraordinary given their extreme poverty. The particularly important India, with its 1.2 billion people, has fallen from 6 to 2.6. This is quite remarkable in absolute terms, but given the previous two examples and given India’s pressure from overpopulation, it’s almost a disappointment.
Exhibit 4 shows the more serious disappointments. Yes, the rates have dropped in these countries, but their populations are still growing rapidly and most of them have intermittent food problems already. They are almost all in Africa.
Unless they and the world are lucky and they improve (perhaps with appropriate help from rich countries), we are likely to end up looking to the students of long-term civilizations as if we have had two separate systems: one in Africa, with failed states, poverty and malnutrition, and rapid population growth, probably having been left increasingly to cope on their own; the second in the rest of the world, with substantial and still growing affluence and with fertility below the replacement rate, forming a single market for resources and global trade in general, and trading as if they comprised one gigantic old fashioned imperial economy.
This remarkable decline in fertility is our last best hope, both from our civilization’s point of view as well as for the well-being of all of the life on our planet. Exhibit 5 summarizes the past data and projects the more optimistic end of the U.N. data for future global population. The world’s population is shown peaking around 2050 at just over 8 billion and then declining to near 6 billion by 2100. Ex-Africa, it reaches just under 6.5 billion in 2040 and declines to below 4 billion in 2100, back to where it was in about 1978. Africa is shown growing from about 250 million in 1950 to well over a billion today and, even under this relatively favorable outlook, continuing to expand to over 2.3 billion by 2100. The U.N.’s more pessimistic end of the range (not shown) has a continuing rise in population, but at a slowing rate, to 11 billion and beyond. At that level the stresses on global food and on global law and order, especially in Africa, will almost certainly be too great and Ophuls’s prediction will likely be correct. The lower population track, in contrast, holds out a strong hope of survival – that is, of maintaining a reasonably stable global civilization and continuing to improve the quality of the average life.
The return, therefore, to helping encourage a lower population everywhere is incredibly high. Yet little is done at an international level and indeed the issue is treated like a hot potato even by usually well-meaning NGOs. But we can do it, and my guess is that we will indeed succeed on this front. In the meantime it would be encouraging if economists, The Economist (not to pick on them but I tend to hold them to higher standards than others), and economic discussions in general would look out a few more years and stop discussing lower population growth as if it were a dire economic threat rather than our last best hope. Of course, as growth rates drop rapidly and populations quickly age, there is an added burden to workers of carrying more non-workers for one generation as the changes flow through the system. Then things stabilize again. This cycle can be ameliorated enormously by having older people extend their contributions and by facilitating the full participation of women in all countries. The ruinous alternative is to have an ever-growing population run off the cliff collectively. The economics industry has indeed done a particularly inadequate job on long-term sustainability in a world of finite resources. It is a good time for them to wake up to the problems we face on this front. Fortunately, individual decisions on fertility might well get the job done anyway, without any help from a potentially less blinkered and longer-term economic theory.
Renewable Energy
This brings us to the second remarkable gift, which involves a branch of the “cornucopian” optimism that I usually deplore: that the infinite human brain combined with technology will solve all problems. Yes, this is the same brain that brought us World War II, several thousand years of soil erosion, and the collapse of endless empires. An obvious generic weakness in this cornucopian argument is that it ignores our massive dependence on cheap energy. Trains and coal, cars and gas, and electricity and air conditioners and refrigerators in turn drove forward economic activity and the feeling of well-being (try being in Sydney on January 18, at 114.4°F, the hottest day in that seaside city’s history, without air conditioning!), but each came with a cost – an increased wave of energy use, almost all of it from our irreplaceable stores of oil and coal. Yet now, finally, there is an example of a great technological leap that for the first time is accompanied by less energy use – the technologies of solar, wind power, and other alternatives as well as electric grid efficiencies and improved energy storage.
For once, all of the innovations, corporate start-ups, and risk taking – the best part of the capitalist system – work to decrease our use of depleting hydrocarbons and therefore to increase our chance of stabilizing our civilization before the cliff edge is reached. Exhibit 6 shows in orange the truly remarkable decline in the cost of electricity from photo- voltaic cells. The only thing to compare it to is the Moore’s Law decline in the price of semiconductors.
That would indeed be a happy comparison, for perceived physical limits to semiconductor progress have been overcome time and time again. If the physical limits on photovoltaic efficiency, and hence its price, are similarly maneuvered in future decades, then the price of photovoltaic energy would guarantee us cheap and plentiful energy forever. Wind power may also be vital in less sunny zones, but there the cost reductions are, probably, mainly behind us. Exhibit 6 shows in green the early rapid declines in the costs of wind power mainly as improved technology allowed for increases in size and therefore efficiency. However, during the great leap in resource costs between 2002 and 2008, which I have been obsessing about for the last two years, the price of steel, cement, and aluminum from which wind towers are built (and all of which are incredibly energy-intensive), all rose from two to three times! Only the flat cost of human labor and improved turbines allowed for wind costs to rise by only 40% during this period. Our exhibit allows for only modest reductions in future wind costs, so that even by 2025 wind costs are estimated to be still higher than 2000, before the great surge in material prices. The remaining component of Exhibit 6 is the cost of coal-fired electricity.
For future estimates we have made a range. The lower end represents a modest 1% a year increase in coal prices and the upper end 4% a year, which is still a little less than the 5% annual average price rise for coal of the last 10 years. As can be seen, by 2025 to 2030 both solar and wind power are likely to be cheaper than coal. All of these comparisons, of course, are made without charging coal for “externalities” – those ills that the coal industry inflicts that we the people have to pay for: mountain tops ripped off and mountain streams polluted, acid rain, and particulate matter damaging health. Even more serious in the long run, the CO2 that is released by burning coal imposes the increasing costs of rising global temperatures: unstable weather for crops and rising costs of more extreme weather-related events. Coal is likely to be a hopeless choice for electricity generation in 20 years, as its price rises and those for alternatives fall, but fully costed for externalities it is an uneconomic choice today. Any potential investors today in a new coal-fired utility should ask some tough questions about “stranded assets” – cost-ineffective assets that will not have had the time to make a positive return on their investment before they will have become uncompetitive or illegal, caught between the falling costs of alternative energy and the rising costs of controlling for “externalities” – pollution and climate damage – that were once passed on as public costs but that will become steadily the responsibility of the emitter.
We have the time, technology, and money to completely replace nonrenewable energy in 30 to 50 years and, on average, in that time period such replacement will be economic (less so in the earlier years but by a wide margin later). As we do it, we will increasingly have much lower marginal costs, for what is often forgotten in these comparisons is that the high cost component in our two main alternatives, solar and wind, are up-front capital costs. Once constructed, the marginal costs of merely operating the wind and solar farms is far, far lower than the marginal costs of digging and shipping coal, even without those other health and environmental costs borne by the general public. You should be aware that when we calculate the costs of alternative energy projects, a high corporate discount rate is used to reflect the idea that to a corporation a dollar spent today to build a wind power project needs to be offset by a dollar and 10 or even 14 cents next year, or $8 or so in 18 years, to pay for the current loss of the use of money and to jump over the corporation’s hurdle rate for attractive investments. The required investment return (hurdle rates) for alternative energy investments is often higher than for traditional corporate investments partly because of unnecessary uncertainties still surrounding these projects: erratic government policies, rapidly changing technologies resulting in most projects having new features, and general unfamiliarity to providers of capital.
But what of the social benefits of these alternative energy projects? Personal average wealth and income has been rising by only 1% to 3% a year for the last 30 years, not 10% or 14%! Solving our long-term energy problems may not only be the most critical economic problem, it may also, as I argue here, be one of two most critical inputs into our future viability as a civilization. A discount rate that would reflect this significance should obviously, in a reasonable world, be far less than the 10% or 14% return needed by a corporation for such projects. I could make a case for a zero social return hurdle in this extreme case, but let us merely settle for a lower-than-average corporate hurdle rate – say, 5%. At a 5% real return (which, by the way, compares to an average delivered 7% real return on all corporate capital in the past), these wind and solar projects would have a much lower levelized cost of energy (the cost that reflects both operating and capital costs) than they would have at higher corporate rates – up to 40% lower. At those lower capital costs typical wind power projects would have a lower “levelized cost” than a typical coal-fired plant and be far ahead in 10 years. Solar farms would still need 10 years at the current rate of progress in cost reductions to catch up with wind power (although roof-top solar is getting to retail rates as we speak). The point to remember is that once the capital is found and the project is built, a wind or solar farm delivers far cheaper energy than a coal-fired utility plant, at around one-third of the marginal cost of coal (about 1¢ per kilowatt hour at a minimum of 3¢ for coal).
The impressions the average businessman carries in his head tend to be a moving average of the last five years’ information. Life is too busy to keep up with everything and usually five years is recent enough. But when there is a sudden shift in a year or two, average opinion is left sometimes far behind and that is exactly what has happened to solar energy and to a lesser extent to wind power. The current issue of Prospect magazine in England carries a story of an energy expert who invested three years ago in heavily subsidized home solar panels in the U.K. because doing so more or less guaranteed a 7.5% return (tax-free because the benefit comes in the form of lower bills), which for a low-risk investment was and is far better than anything else these days. You might suspect, the author argued, that the recent two-thirds drop in subsidies would end that game, but he points out that the installation costs of panels (adjusted for increased efficiency) have also dropped from £6,000 to £2,000 for a typical home in just over two years so that homeowners still receive a handsome return. You can just imagine how much easier it is to get a handsome return, without subsidy, at these new lower prices in areas where the sun actually shines – say, California, which receives almost twice the sun of London. (I’m stinging from a totally grey month in London.) At the other end of the spectrum, Duke Power was reported in Bloomberg as stating that the cost of solar panels to them had dropped by 75% in two years. These are truly remarkable shifts and now even modest steady progress from here will get the job done. Meanwhile in wind, the very latest large-scale wind farm in Australia was announced as having levelized costs lower than recent coal plants. All in a world where the cost of coal has doubled and oil quadrupled since 2000. This is not the same game that it was just three years ago.
Energy Storage
Energy storage is now the Holy Grail of environmental progress. The bad news is that progress in the past has been slow. The good news is that there are now scores, if not hundreds, of research teams working on this. Before wind and solar reach a large percentage of total electricity production, it is extremely likely in my opinion that some real cost progress will be made in storage (halving or so), especially at the retail level where a storage device, unlike a car battery, can be heavy, bulky, and relatively inefficient as long as it is cheap. Cheapness would deliver to the household electric market the potential for grid independence. However, let it be admitted that lack of expected progress in energy storage could materially slow down the rate at which alternative energy is adopted. It is therefore an area that particularly needs encouragement and good fortune.
Smart Grid
Over several decades, modernizing the grid to allow much wider and more efficient transfer would dramatically reduce storage needs. Reaching into homes and using temporary electric car battery and refrigerator adjustments, etc., (all by agreement and for a discount) would also reduce the problem. As back-up, natural gas electric generation is the ideal technology with perhaps some use of bio mass and urban waste. Coal for electricity generation is just not necessary today in the U.S., and the last coal plants anywhere may be built in the next 20 years.
Chinese Cavalry to the Rescue
On this topic, I have high hopes of China setting a brilliant example. They are embarrassingly long capital, accused of wasting much of their 50% of GDP capital investments on subway stops in the middle of farm fields, empty cities, and redundant regional airports. We, in contrast, are embarrassingly short capital, with capital spending having fallen to 16% of GDP and federal debt owed to the public having accumulated to over 70% of GDP and currently increasing at 6% of GDP per year. China could smooth out their potentially dangerous transition from 50% capital spending to a more reasonable 35% over the next 20 years or so by managing a giant program of alternative energy, including the smartest-yet national grid and broad-based research into storage, and all sources of renewable energy, including fusion. (As with the U.S., natural gas from fracking would help in the transition.) Such a massive broad- based program would potentially give them global dominance in the most important industries of the future and would relieve them of their greatest single worry: energy security. It would also relieve them of what will surely become their greatest societal irritant: the incredible air pollution of their major cities, which must already be reducing life expectancy in those cities by several years, as well as substantially increasing health costs. Best of all for them, it would leave them as the low-cost energy player in global trade, and if that, added to their lower labor costs, rising educational standards, rapidly improving infrastructure, and capital deepening, does not put the fear of God into U.S. capitalists, then it should.
It would be a blessing in disguise for the developed world and the U.S. in particular if China announced a 25-year program of alternative energy (enough of these paltry five-year plans!) that embodied a Manhattan project level of commitment. Within just a handful of years of watching them execute this program, we would calculate the competitive consequences and would be forced defensively to emulate them. We would surely discover that we are in fact still wealthy and can afford worthy projects with long-term payoffs and that our perceived poverty is more about leadership and perceptions than it is about reality. The U.S. is, after all, richer than it has ever been and is still the richest large country in the world. I have made a part of this point before. I am repeating it because: a) it’s very important; and b) the Chinese government has inexplicably failed to snatch up my idea. It would be a lay-up for them if they did. (Dear Chinese translator, a “lay-up” means “an easily achievable goal.”) In a world lacking U.S. leadership in energy sustainability, a truly major Chinese effort might be the difference between collective global success and failure. In this case it would be the Chinese cavalry heading us off at the cliff edge, but I’ll take any cavalry we can get.
(Postscript: recent, several leading Chinese cities recorded disastrous levels of pollution. On a scale where 30 is the barely safe limit, they hit over 300 several times. The Chinese government responded almost immediately, which was not a bad idea, because yearly reoccurrences of dangerous pollution will pretty soon guarantee that some smart but critical people will move out of these worst cities. Wouldn’t you? They upped their current target [already very aggressive by U.S. standards] for installed solar generation capability in just three years by 65%! Astonishing by any standard and currently politically impossible outside China. This new target means that they will have the equivalent in solar power of seven or so giant coal-fired plants, a very large absolute number anywhere except in China, where it is still dwarfed by coal plants. But, it is a down payment.)
Epilogue
The two favorable factors described, with luck and some improved effort and leadership, may buy us enough time to completely retune our agricultural system, for it will take many decades to change attitudes and build the infrastructure, training, and research to move to complete agricultural sustainability. That in turn would allow us time in a stable environment to address the problem that will no doubt take the longest time of all: addressing our failing supplies of metals. Yes, we are blessed with large supplies of aluminum and iron ore, although, like agriculture and civilization itself, their usefulness to us is completely dependent on the availability of cheap energy. More to the present point, affordable supplies of most other metals, some very useful, will run low this century and must be replaced by organic alternatives, which process will need all the time and research that success with the other factors might be able to deliver.
Suspended over this close horserace between destructive and regenerative forces are the wild cards of rising temperatures, slowly rising sea levels, ocean acidifi cation, and, above all, destabilized weather for farming. Even if the cavalry arrives in time to prevent the main disaster – a rolling collapse of much of civilization – much damage is being done and will definitely continue to be done to the environment and biodiversity as global temperatures continue to rise. But with improved behavior, we may well buy enough time to save our own species and most of what we really value. In my opinion, all of the other factors in this mix are reasonably susceptible to data and analysis. The scary part of the climate issue is that by its nature there can be no precision on extent or timing and, consequently (as I have mentioned before), scientists, in their desire to avoid being seen to exaggerate, end up systematically underestimating the case.
The January 23 New York Times science section, for example, had an article on rising sea levels that said that the authors – scientists all – “share an emerging consensus that the increase in ocean level in this century will probably be on the order of three feet, perhaps as much as six feet,” requiring many millions to evacuate. “But many scientists,” they add “are plagued by a nagging fear… that their calculations will turn out to have been too conservative, and social stability will eventually be threatened.” “At every point as our knowledge increases,” Dr. Raymo, the leader of the project, is quoted as saying, “we’ve always discovered that the climate system is more sensitive than we thought it could be, not less.” [Emphasis added.] To be perhaps a little cruel, a statistician might suggest that after serial underestimations, expectations might be adjusted.
The bottom line is that if we put our minds to it we can overcome normal inertia and abnormally powerful vested interests that oppose necessary change. Our population is likely to start declining in a few decades, slowly but surely, and the fertility rate of 1.8% or less would allow global population to fall back more or less gracefully by 2200 to a probably sustainable level of 4 billion, particularly if we sensibly encourage its decline. Important progress in alternatives is certain. Other scientific progress, especially in computing power will also help. Whether we can move fast enough on these fronts and at the same time reduce the output of greenhouse gases to avoid going off the cliff is simply not knowable for certain, but every minute saved and improvement made, betters our odds. Let the race begin.
Correction: Natural Gas Forecast
I am bullish about the longer-term price of natural gas and in my personal account I am long the futures several years out. At five years out, the implied price is $4.50 mcf. However, in the Q&A section of a talk I gave recently I was quoted as saying that in five years the price “would have tripled.” This implies a price, then, of $12. This is either a misquote or a misspeak. What I intended to say and have said before was that from the low last year the price would be likely to triple in 5 years: that is to about $6 or $7 mcf, far above the assumed $4.50 then, but far below the number in the quote.
»
- 47746 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I have actually heard a few challenges to the growth mantra recently. Most where fluffed over right quick as "growth is good." But, the takeaway I think is a change in dialogue. The damned word "growth" is getting used in every other economic sentence now and some folks on the edge of waking the fuck up might be starting to ask a few questions. Something to watch.
Buzzsaw,
I'm afraid your sentiment is being used by the upper 10%, the exact people who SHOULD be having large families of awesome children, as an excuse to continue livin' their vida loca. Now, at the polling places, the Gov. benefits rolls, and our culture, the price is being paid. The whole society is dumbing down and devolving with disasterous consequences for the future. We have reached the Alexis DeTocqueville event horizon from which there is no return (until after the collapse, maybe).
I'll say it: If polygammy was legal, I'd fill up a huge house with more than ten children, the bulk of whom would contribute far more to the future than they would take.
The last couple years I have be trying to grok the "Red Team's" (aka know as the "right" to those who are still suckered by TPTB's phony partisan divides) renewed obsession with birth control. To what end are they seeking? More cannon fodder (as you mentioned)? The proles burdened with too many responsibilities and financial obligations (and too young) to pay attention to what's going on and raise hell? I would guess a combination of the two. But also points to the short-sightedness (no surprise) as the teaming masses, particularly hungry teaming masses are not something easy to control.
Glad your grasping at the good news straws there, dude.
This clap trap just proves that singers should sing, actors should act and investors should focus on investing.
Jeremy, save us from you loose connecting of dots and Club of Rome propaganda. Stick to investing and save your logic riddled musings for your cocktail party guests.
lol. A step in the right direction. But, hey... everyone has to start somewhere.
Agree 100%
So, there isn't any threat that humans will encounter a big die-off due to exceeding carrying capacity?
Logic and nature prove that this isn't some speculation.
Sometimes someone from outside of the "box" has a better insight than those IN the "box."
"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." - Albert Einstein
The pope tells the Africans it's better to risk aids then to wear a condom. The Catholic church has made Africa their recruitment grounds spreading all their delusions including procreation
Enter PUD and the mud children. This isn't even about gold. I bet you hate tomato farming too.
There is a common theme with my writings if you pay attention. I am a champion of rational thinking and the abolition of superstition. That includes all religions and the gold tards.
I did not realize that "rational thinking" had been added to the Special Olympics roster of events.
Do they make you wear a helmet when competing in that event, or is the bucket that you normally keep over your head considered sufficient protective gear?
Go easy on PUD. He's a little confused about his performance in the Special Olympics. Like everyone else, he received a participation trophy. He is operating under the misconception that this qualifies him as a champion of rational thinking.
Maybe the juvenile delinquents here could appoint their best man and challenge me to a debate on anything. Then we could see who rightfully deserves a big bronze medal bouncing on their tum tum
"Everyone is a winner!"
PUD
i'd like to debate with you on the merits of a dribble cup over the drool bowl, you take the cup and GO!
There is no way you aren't a) 15 b) high, or c) both.
Please site your source? I would love to read that article.
The pope and the catholic church are very clear on their policy towards condoms and birth control. A simple google search will find you plenty of proof. You will also find copious stories about the churches mission to indoctrinate the peoples of the third world seeing that the educated world is rejecting their doctrine of superstition rather quickly.
You should go over there and do something about it.
He can drag all those African child slaves from the mercury-riddled mud in the evil gold mines while's he at it.
And, it would get him away from ZH.
I call that a hat trick.
"The pope tells the Africans it's better to risk aids then to wear a condom."
Again, please site your source? The response, "A simple google search", is nothing more than an attempt to avoid providing the source in which that statement could be found. You seem pretty sure of yourself regarding the teaching of the Catholic Church-By all means please site the source?
Who cares? They barely consume. No matter their numbers, they are no match for 'americans' when it comes to consumption.
But for 'americans', an overconsumption problem can not come from overconsumers. Because they would point fingers at themselves and self indiction is a big thing in 'americanism'.
For chinese citizenism citizens, no amount of hypocritizenism is too much. Denialism is inherent in their inability to self-indict over the consumptionalization issue.
Building dozens of empty ghost cities to substandard construction standards? Sending armadas of river pigs to blob-up the Senkaku Islands? Crapping on sidewalks and roadsides and elevators hither-and-yon? Blobbing-up world resources at an astronomical rate? No, none of this reaches the Chinese Citizenism impaired mental reception.
Make me laugh.
It's a Chinese Citizenism world.
Watch where you step in it.
So Chinese citizenish... Mere statement of power. Chinese citizenism citizens can demand for any kind of evidences for obvious statements for one cause: in their mind, they are the ones who determine reality. If a fact does not please them, their propaganda covers for it.
Really? The Afgans and Iraqis didn't consume much either but we have had a special interest in them for a decade now...any clues why? They are just a gaggle of non consumers right?
I haven't even read either comment yet but you replying to anan has got to be hilarious.
The Afgans and Iraqis didn't consume much either but we have had a special interest in them for a decade now...any clues why?
_______________
The answer is obvious: low consumers are an interest for 'americans' as low consumers mean resources to be consumed.
Low consumers do not consume at the same rate as 'americans', therefore it increases the chances their territory holds resources for 'americans' to consume.
Both Iraqis and Afghans were unable to consume the whole of their resources before 'americans' came.
'Americans' will do the consumption job.
Billions of American $$$$ in rare earth already plotted out in Afghanistan...just have to figure out how to rid the place of those pesky Muslims. Then it's free picking to satisfy the insatiable american diet of trinkets and toys.
Keep on keeping on buddy, you almost just made sense, just get over your racist fake nationalism and maybe people wouldn't harass you for being a dumbshit/troll. You just scratched the surface on the nature of global exploitation of the weak, once you realize that it is a human trait across all cultures, and quit blaming "American citizenism" then maybe there's hope for you. Seriously, how do you feel about Tibet? Or are you not allowed to think about that?
#clusterfuck now in play..
You just scratched the surface on the nature of global exploitation of the weak, once you realize that it is a human trait across all cultures, and quit blaming "American citizenism" then maybe there's hope for you.
_______________________
Ah, the 'american' argumentation. It is human nature.
For 'americans': everything they deem good, they take it for them.
Everything they deem bad, they shed it on humanity.
The 'american' trick.
Yeah, the King was an 'american' too. Hey, it was such an 'american' that he came up with that argument: it is human nature. Never read his rebuttal to the 'american' declaration of independence?
You should. It proved without a doubt that the King was an 'american' too.
Make me laugh most vigorously!
As in how everything that YOU deem bad, you shed on your self-defined 'Americans".
The perfect symmetry of your bigoted projectionism is the mattering thing.
Nah, what it is shed on 'americans' is what they do.
For example, their consumption. Actual.
Ah, the 'AnAnonymist' argumentation. Blame all on 'american' eternal nature.
For Chinese citizenism citizens: everything they deem good, they take it for them.
Everything they deem bad, they shed it on 'americans'.
The Chinese Citizenism Communautist trick.
Yeah, Mao was a Chinese citizenism citizen too. Hey, it was such a Chinese citizenism citizen that he came up with that ambitious plan Great Leap Forward. Never read his rebuttal to the Chineses being forced to cannibalize or starves to death in his Book of Small Redness?
You should. It proved without a doubt that 'AnAnonymist' Chinese citizenism citizens can be brainwashed on anything.
Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy...
Fantasy, the last shelter for 'americans'.
Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy ...
Fantasy, the last roadside crapping zone for Chinese Citizenism citizens.
Project much?
(You don't need to answer that question --- we all know the answer.)
Dear Lord Almighty, Anonmyass, you have to be the most ignorant wretch I have ever seen.
The US never had a king, and though you might say that our econimic trade zones we dominated were a kind of empire, we never came close to the empires established by the Brits, Russians, French or Turks.
So why dont you go suck some cock and take it up your ass like a good ole commie tool and piss off?
Since you are simple I'll do it for you..http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2209/the_catholic_church_in_afri...
There is much more...have a youngster help you do the google
Well, Catholic doctrine is that it is a sin to use condoms.
Benedict made a remark in passing about three years ago that made people hopeful:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/world/europe/24pope.html?pagewanted=al...
but it doesn't look like anything is going to come of it:
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/an-african-pope-wont-ch...
Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law." The natural law purpose of sex is procreation. The pleasure that sexual intercourse provides is an additional blessing from God, intended to offer the possibility of new life while strengthening the bond of intimacy, respect, and love between husband and wife. The loving environment this bond creates is the perfect setting for nurturing children.
But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
This is the official Catholic position.
The Catholic 'faith' is growing faster in Africa than any other place on earth.
Therefore it is quite safe to make the connection between the policies of this bronze age delusional mythology and the rapid rise of the African population and their consumate suffering and poverty
I fully support your mother's use of contraception, particularly if she can borrow AnAnonymous' magical time-traveling flying rickshaw and hand some to herself say 20 years ago.
No, it isn't.
This PUD person must have been annoying in some independent way that I don't know about (hence the down arrows), because s/he is correct re Catholic doctrine. And, Catholic doctrine re contraception (and condoms in particular) is not doing Africa one bit of good.
Wasn't Africa mentioned as the "site?"
The most exalted class, the one that should have priority to resources, and the one which we should most admire are the FARMERS...Unfortunately, TPTB have glorified our soldiers as heroes. What can an 18 year-old soldier with a M16 provide for you? I know the answer since I was one: not much. Thank a farmer and tell a soldier that in most cases, he's being used as a tool...
"What can an 18 year-old soldier with a M16 provide for you?"
Depends on whom you're asking. If it's the "exalted" class then it's rather clear.
War Is A Racket -Smedley Butler
Almost everyone that I have met in life is living in a state of denial. And, yes, denial is most definitely a river...it's the stream of consciousness that is currently flowing through your mind.
Denial is necessary to 'americans'.
Without their legendary denial capacity, how 'americans' could write articles like this one?
This 'american' guy once again peddles the idea of infinite growth.
The thing is that 'americans' have the potential to absorb any increase in resources input.
Yet that 'american' guy denies it to focus on a vague population decline, pointing fingers at low consuming regions on the pretext they are still growing in populations.
Of course, when aggregated, the consumption of those regions are way under the consumption of the US.
Decreasing by two the population of the 'american' world by two wont solve the issue.
The question is actually to know if returning the population of 'americans' to the number they were on 1776, July, 4th, will be enough.
Go wok your dog.
Denial is necessary to Chinese citizenism citizens.
Without their legendary denial capacity, how Chinese citizenism citizens could write comments like this one?
This 'AnAnonymist' guy once again peddles the idea of infinite blobbing up.
That is the magick. The greed for fantasy. The greed for delusion. The greed for duplicity...Similar magick as selling infinitive Chinese citizenism blobbing up, cheap labor at Foxconn, and innovation drivels... Works well too.
But hey, 'AnAnonymists' enjoy their lies and they do not like being disturbed when they savour lying.
The quest for symetry is something to behold when done by 'americans'
Facts are matter of ideology? Oh let me guess, you are part of that crowd who think that a guy who says there is a pen on a table when there is a pen on a table must forcefully belong to a ideological group to observe a pen on a table.
AnAnonymist propaganda is so drivel.
For 'americans'? Facts are definitively a matter of ideology.
It takes an 'american' to line up the word fact and some fantasy about chinese citizenism.
For Chinese Citizenism trolls, facts are definitely a matter to be avoided at all costs.
For Chinese Citizenism trolls, facts are definitely a matter to be avoided at all costs.
_______________________________
If you say so. After all, it is all your fantasy...
AnAnonymous, stumbling and drooling, said:
It can be your problem. It is not every one's problem.
No mention either of the debt money systems ability to produce the infinite credit needed to carry on with the infinite consumption model. Gee, I guess interest got in the way.
Ah that is a good 'american' article.
Your typical take on over consumption: an overconsumption problem does not come from overconsumers but from lower to no consumers.
As usual, 'americans' would like to peddle the idea that the consumption by capita in an 'american' world does not suffer from so huge disparity that it is not possible to consider a population reduction without considering where it should be done. Or when it is considered, it must be done in regions where consumption by capita is low.
The reality is that 'americans' can increase their consumption by capita much more than the resources their dream of depopulating low consuming resources could release.
The brilliancy of 'american' minds.
As usual, 'americans' hijacked humanity speaking of their global civilization etc as if the 'american' civilization could not be parted from humanity.
Funnily enough, this 'american' has no qualms parting humanity in two.
The 'american' way.
Oh please, PLEASE get into a debate with PUD, I beg you!
I would pay almost any amount to witness that!
A debate with an 'american'? 'Americans' killed the possibility of debate a long time ago.
Debate is an endeavour that demands the debaters to accept facts.
'Americans' live in a world of fantasy. It is not possible to debate them.
As shown by this 'american' article that dissociates humanity when it is convenient.
There is one global civilization, that is marked by declining fertility rate and the rest.
And of course, the increase of population is expected to put stress on resources as if every one was equal when it comes to consumption.
Unfortunately for 'americans', when it comes to consumption, there are 'americans' and the others.
It is no surprise that depletion of resources on a world scale is something that came to be considered in an 'american' age, and never before.
Djeee, where have I run across that phenomenon before?
I'd say we have a case here of the wok calling the dogstew pot black.
You probably run across that phenomenum anytime you share company with an 'american'.
As 'americans' are 'american', it means they are also in company with one 'american'...
Dont think if you want to avoid the phenomenum.
Actually, I have only run across that phenonenon with just one single 'american', that 'american' being the founder of "US 'american' Citizenism". Can you guess to whom I am referring?
That would some denial, even by 'american' standards...
But 'americans' harbour champions.
It is exactly the kind of failed reasoning that can be expected from Chinese citizenism.
Failed reasoning... It is enough to tell for 'americans'.
A world of fantasy... Fantasy over fantasy...
I expect nothing from you. I simply debunked your cheap Chinese citizenism propaganda. An activity that does not require your participation or consent.
You debunked something?
Fantasy has its own merits.
.
Not a challenge since effortless. 'AnAnonymist' Chinese citizenism citizens' tendency is toward self-debunkmanship.
I did or you did it? 'Americans', even in their fantasy, they are unable of consistency...
Nice narrative. But it is not what happened at least for the last two paradigm changes.
Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy...
AnAnonymous, reduced to babbling, babbled:
Repeation, repeation, repeation, as if repeation on end gives ground to make it true somehow.
Endless droning repeation gives evidence that the praecoxology of AnAnonymysticism is dementia.
It is all he has to offer. Just a one trick pony.
Yeah, a pony with hoof-in-mouth disease.
"Americans" are the most extremely diverse group of people on the Earth!
The population of America includes many of BOTH the best and the worst people on the planet.
Paradoxically, the government of the USA was taken over by the Americans that were the best at being the worst.
Again with that trick of guilt by association? People never grow weary of their own propaganda. So same answer as usual, no matter how hard you wish for it not to be, reality exist outside you.
It is doubted that people have ideas on the depth of the hatred toward humanity 'AnAnonymists' have...
Agreed, it is a stale trick, but every propaganda bit of Chinese Citizenism is stale, like ten-year-old moldy fruitcake that the cat pee'd on. Unsavory, rank, grotesque even.
Chinese Citizenism propaganda is like that. It needs to be flushed.
Or at least dumped on the roadside.
Hypocritical Chinese Citizenism projectionism will only ensue when challenged, though, so might as well prepare for it.
Just have to bear with it.
Nothing worse than guilt. Direct or that of a wannabe who knows better. Inside looking out or outside looking in. The self-indictment is evident. Pain. Pathetic.
Guilt by association?
What guilt? 'Americans' are guilty of something?
Indeed, 'americans' are not weary of their propaganda and fantasy...
Many Americans (and most of those here) can acknowledge their own guilt, both individual and societal.
Can you make the same claim?
'Americans' are guilty of something?
But, but, but, with the 'american' rule of law they keep hammering about, they would be in jail right? Because in a society under rule of law, people known as guilty go to jail or are sentenced to penance...
Nah, 'americans' are guilty of nothing. Their drivel about guilt and the rest partakes to their self criticism 'american' stuff...
Inability to answer Akak's question? Why dodging it? Hmmm...
'AnAnonymists' always run away when their cheap propaganda fails them. Which is often.
His question is based on a fantasy.
There is no dodging by pointing out that a question is fantasy. And there is fantasy in seeing as dodging pointing out a fantasy.
'Americans' are obsessed with being perceived for what they are not.
Your evasion of a clear and logical challenge is most telling of your duplicity and inability to self-indict.
I admit that the society in which I live is deeply flawed. I admit that I have shared guilt by being part of that society.
Let us hear you admit the same about your own society, or shut the fuck up.
I admit that the society in which I live is deeply flawed. I admit that I have shared guilt by being part of that society.
________________________________
But what an admission of guilt.
Djeee, this is an 'american' world. Every human being lives on this world.
Ummm, it is like mutualization of debt.
You still refuse to admit that your society shares blame for the consumption of world resources.
Evasion, avoidance, offuscation, self-denial --- these are a few of your favorite things.
My society?
How can an imagined society cause consumption of the real world?
You know, that thing, chinese citizenism and stuff, that is just fantasy.
You want me to admit guilt for consumption performed by one 'american' fantasy?
Ah, ah, 'americans', nothing shames them... They know no bounds...
You do live in a society somewhere on earth (I presume).
Does your society magically exist without the consumption of ANY resources?
Unless you can answer "Yes" to that question, then you are part of the problem.
Oh, yes?
So every consumption act is an overconsumption act itself?
'Americans', admitting their guilt...
Just a trick to try and dilute that in terms of consumption, they are way beyond anyone else.
The great brotherhood of crime.
They want to charge others of their actions.
No. The Jungle amazonian dwellers even though they consume, are not part of the problem.
But, hey, this is the 'american' way...
Dodge and weave. Yet no answer. Only attempts to deflect. I guess this is the Anon way. One trick pony show. Capable of nothing else.
Wooooo. That is either a marvellous misunderstanding or a poor attempt at rewriting.
On the contrary. His comment proved that the question was understood.
Typical 'american' self criticism, based on fantasy.
Pseudo admittance of guilt when perfectly knowing it cant be followed by punishment.
What next? Admit to be guilty of killing Jesus?
In the Bible, there is nothing to affirm such a thing.
That is why you play football. Kicking the can in row z...
'Americans' capacity to make up things should fill the gap.
'AnAnonymist' Chinese citizenism citizens capacity for roadside squatting should fill it with crap.
Fantasy, fantasy, fantasy, fantasy...
That is true, that does encompass the totality of all your innumerable, bigoted, nonsensical posts in this forum.
Now, if only all of your posts were as succinct.
By extrapolation here, you have then identified yourself as an American! Nicely done.
Extrapolation, when performed by 'americans', has its known outcome.
Infinite growth here, we go.
So yeah, sure, by 'american' extrapolation, I am probably an 'american'. Just as valid as the other 'american' extrapolations.
I am effing safe, thank you.
Circular logic. Funny stuff. My kids play the same game.
They probably make more sense while doing so, as well --- and I bet their diapers don't stink half as much as AnAn's roadside droppings.
'Americans' are trapped in circular logics.
No wonder your kids display aptitudes for it.
So you are admitting that you are an 'american' by your own definition of the term then.
'Americans' define themselves.
'Americanism' is as 'american' does.
I will take that as an admission of guilt.
Welcome to the Club!
You can find the restroom through the second door on the right.
Please use the shitstool provided, and do not leave a brown baby Mao on the floor.
I will take that as an admission of guilt.
____________________________
Djeee, so underlining that there 'americanism' is defined by 'americans' not by me is an admission of guilt?
'Americans' and their urge to dilute their responsibility...
Everything goes.
That's why when we win wars we leave conquered countries in charge of heir own affairs, sovereign. To dilute our responsibility. Bwah ha ha ha ha
.
Apparently, your family did a lot for you but did not teach you good manners. Expected from a Chinese citizenism citizen who has everything he got because he was born on a certain land. No individual achievement.
Inevitabilities of Chinaman official "One Child Policy".
Nation of spoiled brats.
Wanting everything for themselves, selfish, blobbing-up, inability to socially self-indict ensuing.
Eternal nature of communaughty only children manifesting in self-denialistic trolling actions.
When parangongs of selfishness are the one child, no hope for civility or manners. Roadside crapping is result.
Just hope they wipe, or the dung hand will be held out to you.
Welcome to the Chinese Citizenism world.
Be careful what you touch.
The facts are jumping into face but yet, 'AnAnonymists' prefer to build fantasies.
So you are American and childlike. Damn, you keep digging the hole deeper.
AnAnonymous driveled:
Reflective stupidity. Won't solve the issue. Because that is not the situation.
You posted a story of comfort, not one of rising productivity. Wishing for one cause solely is a sure pitfall.
Next time piece of advice, do not stay behind the gun before pulling the trigger but move right in front.
A debate with an AnAnonymous Chinese citizenism citizen? Unpossible, as 'AnAnonymists' killed the possibility of debate a long time ago.
Debate is an endeavour that demands the debaters to accept facts.
'AnAnonymists' live in a world of fantasy. So the debate is pretty short as debates should be grounded in reality, not fantasies.
Actual facts are sort of helpful too. lol. Anon purposely stays in a twisted state of opinion. A little bit of reasonable truth used as an anchor for the attachment of ignorant blame, reversed cause/effect, etc. What a freakin mess. I would think an intelligent troll if not for the one-trick-pony act.
I am 99% sure that AnAnonymous is not a human poster at all, but merely some form of AI trollbot program.
And not so very "I" at that.
A one trick pony act?
Report: patient killed by cancer.
Report: patient killed by cancer.
Report: patient killed by cancer.
Report: patient killed by cancer.
Report: patient killed by cancer.
'American': stop your one trick pony act.
This is an 'american' world. And looking into Zimbabwe to find out the root cause of a the global state of the world is one pony trick.
Not pointing at 'americanism' at the root cause.
AnAnalogousAnus: do you have a fever?
Well, I got a fever, man, and the only cure is MOAR Chinese Citizenism cowbell!
only if his hairy gut is hanging out the bottom of his shirt, then bring on the cowbell !
AnAnonymous has suffering from Dungue Fever.
He also suffers from yellow(skin) fever.
Chief symtoms are offuscation, blobbing-up, periods of insanitation, and insatiable hunger for Kitten McNuggets. Roadside crapmongery is final stage, very nasty.
Watch out. The racism could show...
Open your eyes and stop squinting.
The eyes opened or not, this is an 'american' world, with 'americans' on it.
.
Since it is an Chinese citizenism blobbing up world and considering the urge felt by 'AnAnonymists' to narrate a fabled past, it is beyond agreement point.
It is trademark of 'AnAnonymists' to think that disagreement on a point is enough to turn that point into a fact.
ZH is filled with people from around the world. There has not been one documented intelligent conversation with you from day 1 that I am aware of.
So, if the shoe fits...
One-trick-pony.
ZH is filled with people from around the world? Oh, the 'american' claim...
Actually, one of my first posts on here was about the European commission aiming to capture taxation powers in a country named Greece.
Indeed, no documented intelligent conversation.
Hopefully, as conversation with 'americans' can barely be intelligent.
I don't know where the idea comes from but it does not pass the test of daily reality.
The idea came from the knowledge of 'american' nature...
'Americans' obey their nature and act the same.
Chinese Citizenism citizens obey the call of nature on the roadside, and lack shame.
There must be a taboo or something that leads 'AnAnonymists' to think incorrectly this issue.
you are slipping out of character. just fyi.
I caught that one too.
Truth and reason really hurts that empty space between your ears doesn't it?
Er.. if those two factors are going to save us, then it looks like the bacon is well fried.
1. Declining birth rates. The only decline I've seen is fewer smarter babies from smart adults in the West. "Parents", adults who actually teach their children values as well as nurture and protect, are almost nonexistent. Instead we have "Breeders", entitlement experts hardly better than the brats they bear in behaviour and IQ.
2. Alternative energy. Natural gas by fracking is most likely going to be the next big thing. I too am bullish, but the cost to clean water and lives living in high fracking areas might be very high. Micro generation of energy which is on the list of every survivalist type is my personal preference. The problem is, solar and battery technology always seem to be on the verge of a technical breakthrough but the costs without subsidy are absurdly high for most. It's a great educational tool as well as being useful and critical in an emergency to be able to generate your own power supply. For the next few years it could earn a small income too.
As long as 'americans' teach their children the 'american' values, consumption is safe and the numbers of 'americans' matters little. The route down to depletion of resources is ensured.
The talks on renewable energy, stockable energy is once again the 'american' mantra they 'americans'can overcome the environment.
It has to be since this brilliant 'american' mind takes the path of denying consumption by capita.
It is all about numbers: one billion starving people will always consume more than 300 millions 'americans'. It must be that way.
Don't you have a Tibetan to immolate somewhere, or a herd of diseased pigs to send floating down a river?
Fantasy, the last shelter to an 'american'...
Facing 'americanism' is too tough.
Stale and bigoted propaganda bits, the last shelter of the roadside crapper.
Facing his own hypocrisy and inability to self-indict is the mattering thing ....
'Americans' speaking about bigotry...
Another thing it is useless to try and compete with 'americans'.
While on the topic of your bigotry, why don't you tell us about our "mudskin" president again, and how negroes are subhuman? Or was it just "half-man, half-thing", according to precepts of fabled Chinese past? How about all those non-Chinese "foreign devils" and "ghosts" (gweilo) that you people like to belittle?
Yes, the bigotry crop is abundant in the Yellow (Skin) River basin.
'Americans' definitively have a history of considering negroes as subhumans or non humans.
This is one of the tricks they used to make up for the denial of freedom 'americans' pushed on their negro slaves.
But facing 'americanism' is something 'americans' cant do.
So when you tell them that they consider negroes as subhumans or non humans, they are in the urge of sidetracking. It can go to expressions like this 'american' who claim that reporting the 'american' opinion is sharing that opinion.
'Americans' are in no position to give lecture on humanity to anyone save for parting humanity in human, sub human and non human.
The bigot named 'americans' and their holier than you attitude...
AnAnonymous hypocritigandated:
Ah, ah, the wok calling the cooking marmit black.
Funny hypocricy poured by this AnAnonymous guy. Here is the bigot named AnAnonymous and his holier than thou attitude:
Wonders how he'll try to blame that on 'americans'.
Ah, by 'american' standards, negroes display the lowest intelligence.
So when an 'american' who is not a negro shows he is not able to understand what a negro would, this speaks of the intelligence of that 'american', by the very same 'american' standards...
Can you please unwrap that pretzel of logic for me?
I think you gave it one too many twists.
Quite easily.
-'Americans' hold the negroes as the least intelligent among men.
-by 'american' standards, anytime an 'american' who is not a negro fails at understanding what is understood by a negro, that 'american' displays his/her level of intelligence. By 'american' standards.
I see.
And by YOUR standards, as elucidated in previous posts, negroes are merely "subhuman", "the lowest of intelligence" and "half-man, half-thing" (not even graduating to the status of gweilo "foreign devils", apparently).
I think this is called bigotry. Also hypocrisy.
It's an old song, but you sing it very well.
Oh, again? So reporting 'american' opinions is sharing that opinion?
It is funny how 'americans' are acted by their nature. Even when warned about one of their 'american' trait, they cant prevent from expressing it.
By 'american' standards, negroes are sub human, non human and the lowest of intelligence.
That is the 'american' way of thinking. Since 1776, July, 4th.
But, hey, facing the reality of 'americanism' is a luxury 'americans' cant afford. They prefer much more wallowing in their fantasy.