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.
I don't think a declining population is a bad thing. We live on a finite planet and we can not grow forever. Its just not possible, math is math. Oil is the only reason we have been able to grow from 1 billion in 1860s that took from the time we rose from the mud to now where we went from 1 billion to 7 billion in just a bit over a hundred years.
I don't think a declining population is a bad thing. We live on a finite planet and we can not grow forever. Its just not possible, math is math. Oil is the only reason we have been able to grow from 1 billion in 1860s that took from the time we rose from the mud to now where we went from 1 billion to 7 billion in just a bit over a hundred years.
its funny that people have decided that this world is finite and we cant grow forever, so the population should shrink. who is to say that we have reached the limits today??? we are nowhere near those limits. there is still plenty of room on this planet for many more people. i do find it offensive to see people who are alive trying to deny future generations the privelage of living when there is absolutely no need to do so.
I don't think a declining population is a bad thing. We live on a finite planet and we can not grow forever. Its just not possible, math is math. Oil is the only reason we have been able to grow from 1 billion in 1860s that took from the time we rose from the mud to now where we went from 1 billion to 7 billion in just a bit over a hundred years.
it was king coal that got us from the start of industrialization to 1945. That is about when the bulk of transport shifted from coal to oil. Not to say it didn't start sooner. Oil fired war ships started to be used in numbers after 1900. Oil is king now but coal was king before, and coal ruled a long time.
who is to say that we have reached the limits today??? we are nowhere near those limits.
there is still plenty of room on this planet for many more people.
Do we have to exceed the limit before addressing the issue?
And if not... how short of that limit before acting?
Quote:
i do find it offensive to see people who are alive trying to deny future generations
the privilege of living when there is absolutely no need to do so.
We should wait until they are born instead to make them live miserable lives?
It can be fairly argued that the earth as a whole and the US generally are already saturated.
its funny that people have decided that this world is finite and we cant grow forever, so the population should shrink. who is to say that we have reached the limits today??? we are nowhere near those limits. there is still plenty of room on this planet for many more people. i do find it offensive to see people who are alive trying to deny future generations the privelage of living when there is absolutely no need to do so.
I find it offensive that people who have never witnessed the misery caused by overpopulation feel compelled to voice their uneducated opinions prior to educating themselves.
An uneducated opinion is worse than worthless; it can be dangerous and damaging to others.
Every year 6 million children starve to death while fat assed idiots who are too comfortable in their cushy lives to get out of their easy chairs and see for themselves what is happening.
Given the choice of living in misery with no hope of a better life, and not being born at all, I would choose the latter.
I find it offensive that people who have never witnessed the misery caused by overpopulation feel compelled to voice their uneducated opinions prior to educating themselves.
An uneducated opinion is worse than worthless; it can be dangerous and damaging to others.
Every year 6 million children starve to death while fat assed idiots who are too comfortable in their cushy lives to get out of their easy chairs and see for themselves what is happening.
Given the choice of living in misery with no hope of a better life, and not being born at all, I would choose the latter.
why does something think he is giving an educated opinion when his opinion is foolish? children dont starve because of overpopulation. they starve because they live in a place where people have failed to properly use natural resources to grow more food. we have so much food in america that incredible amounts of it are thrown in the garbage and farmers are paid not to farm. does that mean that in america there is massive underpopulation?
we address the issues of meeting the needs of society every day.
We do? Because I thought in your previous post # 132 that you were implying that we do not have a problem and we should go about living our lives as we always have. It seems that a lot of people also would like to avoid talking about potential problems if they think it will infringe at all on their lifestyles.
And btw, what is the saturation point? Does anyone have any actual data or arguments for/against what that number might be?
We address the issues of meeting the needs of society every day.
We do? I see plenty of talk about the idea of it... but not much of the actually getting it done.
The US has an unemployment and under employment problem.
Far too few of us earn enough to be self sufficient let alone to pay some taxes as well.
Some believe this is because we don't have enough low/no skilled jobs...
let alone the sort of jobs that would pay those self sufficiency level wages.
They're largely correct... but they miss the larger picture as well:
We don't have those low/no skilled self sufficiency level wage jobs...
because we don't need them. We deliberately rid ourselves of them.
We don't have a shortage of jobs problem... we have an over supply of people problem.
In particular an over supply of low/no skilled will never be self sufficient people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekkie
And btw, what is the saturation point?
Does anyone have any actual data or arguments for/against what that number might be?
It's surely subjective... I'll be the first to grant that.
In this context I think about it as the excess beyond what is needed to maintain.
And btw, what is the saturation point? Does anyone have any actual data or arguments for/against what that number might be?
China has 3X the population we do in the same amount of space.
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.
