Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pure Pollyanna crap. Overpopulation will destroy our economy, and it will destroy our representative democracy form of government.
The model assumes that we, somehow, will have adequate natural resources to support that kind of growth--which do not have even now, much less with another 100 million added at the trough. One can only hope, if there is any justice in the world, that the people who believe this "population growth is the salvation of everything" crap get to be the first ones to starve when their theory is proven wrong by reality.
They won't (as you know).
Rule #1: ALWAYS consider the source.
WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch.
As is shown, it don't take much for people to believe in it.
That has more to do with general societial shifts away from religon/family/community that overpopulation itself. As an extreme example, you're probably safer in Tokyo or Seoul @3am than in even your average US suburb at the same hour.
As to the main topic of population growth, it's all in who's coming than how much. 100 million entrepenurial, spiritual and ethical citizens would be a net asset. 100 million belligerant, indifferent, and generally un-educated citizens would not. It's hard to really point the finger at immigrants 100% when from my front window, I see the general standards and mindsets of "Born n' Bred Americans" sliding rapidly. Let us not scapegoat.
As to the main topic of population growth, it's all in who's coming than how much. 100 million entrepenurial, spiritual and ethical citizens would be a net asset. 100 million belligerant, indifferent, and generally un-educated citizens would not. It's hard to really point the finger at immigrants 100% when from my front window, I see the general standards and mindsets of "Born n' Bred Americans" sliding rapidly. Let us not scapegoat.[/quote]
Even the most intelligent, motivated, and competent population will struggle when there are inadequate resources to support them. In that environment, the best will survive, but everyone will see a decline in their living standards. One of the most pernicious effects of overpopulation colliding with insufficient resources, regardless of the stature of the population, is that the institutions that facilitate commerce, guarantee the public safety, and protect freedoms all tend to greatly deteriorate--which exacerbates the very problems that overpopulation cause. That is exactly what is happening in this country right now, and--unless we change course--those problems will become grossly more unmanageable as time moves forward.
Even the most intelligent, motivated, and competent population will struggle when there are inadequate resources to support them. In that environment, the best will survive, but everyone will see a decline in their living standards. One of the most pernicious effects of overpopulation colliding with insufficient resources, regardless of the stature of the population, is that the institutions that facilitate commerce, guarantee the public safety, and protect freedoms all tend to greatly deteriorate--which exacerbates the very problems that overpopulation cause. That is exactly what is happening in this country right now, and--unless we change course--those problems will become grossly more unmanageable as time moves forward.
What all these predictions of resource scarcity fail to account for is the human element of innovation and effciency. Things like farming that become mechanized and result in much lower food costs, or steel that allowed for apartment buildings and so on. Maybe in the future it'll mean mining planets and astroids for resources. Humanity is not omnipotent, but we have far more exertion over our course than we necessarily think we do.
Granted, I'm not going to say problems won't result, but most of that will stem from our natural ignorance/unwillingness to change as well as the general decline in moral structure once held firm by Christianity. But these destructive forces would progress just as fast in a declining population (See: Russia)
Ironically I believe he has made so many posts about resource scarcity CityData had to add another server, which used natural resources to build and is requiring more electricity.
When I was young, people were ashamed to accept charity, they put value on their reputation, and they passed their values on to their children. Today we have become the free sh*t society and everyone wants something given to them, instead of earning it themselves. What really confuses me about this attitude is that they seem to not understand that the cost of charity… is self respect.
I think I understand your point, but there is also another way to look at it. IMO, shame is not a healthy emotion, and accepting charity does not have to result in a loss of self respect. It is a commonly accepted spiritual principle that giving is superior to receiving. So, if no one is willing to receive, then no one has an opportunity to give. A truly spiritual person appreciates having the opportunity to give....even when they know they are being taken advantage of by the people you describe.
I do not think there is any such thing as an unhealthy emotion. I believe every emotion has a purpose. The painful ones are the most important, as they are the ones that teach us the most. Character comes from learning to stand up in the storm, not from being led down the path of ease and comfort. When one gives charity it is important to do it for the right reasons. You can damage someone by being an enabler and giving them the means to continue self destructive behavior. Sometimes that dollar you give to the homeless guy goes to buy drugs or alcohol to dull the pain of their own shame and perpetuates the cycle. You know what they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Which is why that, in addition to having too much population growth and depleting natural resources, the US may have such a bleak future, in my opinion. Honesty, ethics, competency, critical thinking, and just plain decency are becoming a thing of the past in this country--to the point that many young people refer to such things as "relics," "obsolete," "outdated," or "irrelevant." As a friend of mine says, "When anything goes, everything is lost." By the way, any ecologist will tell you that, when animal communities become overpopulated, abnormal and destructive behavior by members of the species against one another in the community become commonplace. I don't think humans are exempt.
Add to that, a society is only as ethical as its leaders.
Interesting point about cultural ethics and prosperity. I ship around the world and there are countries that make me cringe due to past experience. Africa, Phillipines and others.
Out of desperation, (tough times in 2009) I tried mail order sales of adult oriented products. My experience is that the ethics of those consumers were significantly lower than those of more mainstream products that I sell. So....I quit selling them. Now I am trying to get rid of the left over inventory but have a hard time concentrating on vibrators etc for sale.
But thats another story.
Don't confuse ethics with morals. Just because someone buys a certain kind of product does not label him or her as unethical....and, unless the product harms others, probably not immoral, either.
In the Mafia (of all ethnicities), ethics are very high, while morals are questionable.
What all these predictions of resource scarcity fail to account for is the human element of innovation and effciency. Things like farming that become mechanized and result in much lower food costs, or steel that allowed for apartment buildings and so on. Maybe in the future it'll mean mining planets and astroids for resources. Humanity is not omnipotent, but we have far more exertion over our course than we necessarily think we do.
Granted, I'm not going to say problems won't result, but most of that will stem from our natural ignorance/unwillingness to change as well as the general decline in moral structure once held firm by Christianity. But these destructive forces would progress just as fast in a declining population (See: Russia)
I used to be involved in agriculture. Farming, first and foremost, became more "efficient" through the massive use of petroleum to cultivate, plant, harvest, preserve, and transport food stuffs. Take petroleum away, and "modern" agriculture could produce no more food than a bunch of serfs with hand tools could produce. Moreover, most agricultural production today relies on synthetic fertilizers produced with Haber-Bosch process which fixes nitrogen from the atmosphere using copious quantities of natural gas. So, modern agricultural technology, like so many touted "high technologies," is still really "petroleum technology." No petroleum = no technology. A fellow I know who studies sustainable agriculture extensively told me that if petroleum and natural gas become either unavailable or unaffordable for agricultural activities, at least half the world's population would starve within 2 to 3 years. I don't think most people, especially Americans, are cognizant of how precarious our food supply really is, and how easily and quickly a very serious world famine could develop if a few key things--especially energy supplies--were to even be somewhat disrupted for a relatively modest period of time. We are living on right on the edge of catastrophe and nobody seems to care. Sadly, most probably won't until it is they who facing imminent starvation.
I used to be involved in agriculture. Farming, first and foremost, became more "efficient" through the massive use of petroleum to cultivate, plant, harvest, preserve, and transport food stuffs. Take petroleum away, and "modern" agriculture could produce no more food than a bunch of serfs with hand tools could produce. Moreover, most agricultural production today relies on synthetic fertilizers produced with Haber-Bosch process which fixes nitrogen from the atmosphere using copious quantities of natural gas. So, modern agricultural technology, like so many touted "high technologies," is still really "petroleum technology." No petroleum = no technology. A fellow I know who studies sustainable agriculture extensively told me that if petroleum and natural gas become either unavailable or unaffordable for agricultural activities, at least half the world's population would starve within 2 to 3 years. I don't think most people, especially Americans, are cognizant of how precarious our food supply really is, and how easily and quickly a very serious world famine could develop if a few key things--especially energy supplies--were to even be somewhat disrupted for a relatively modest period of time. We are living on right on the edge of catastrophe and nobody seems to care. Sadly, most probably won't until it is they who facing imminent starvation.
I don't think it's that they don't care; I think it's more that they don't know. Even the small scale farmers need petroleum to an extent (bale hay for their livestock for winter, manure removal/spreading, maintaining their livestock pastures).
Add to that, a society is only as ethical as its leaders.
In a democracy, it is the other way around.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
