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.
Of course there is a surplus and this trend will only become more critical as times passes. Humans must learn to control themselves to survive. This is difficult. View the current situation in Africa. Locals cannot control themselves even when not doing so may very well mean death.
We have been constantly told about labor saving devices since the 50s.
Our concepts of economics have been obsolete for decades.
People having to come up with money to pay rent and mortgages is ridiculous.
The economy has become an artificial construct because the technology has made so much labor obsolete. The economy is mostly just an economic power game now but obsolete 19th century ideas are used to justify it. Good robots will only make the problem worse. Kurt Vonnegut wrote about it in Piano Player. So why haven't we been getting ready?
If poverty was eliminated then what would be so great about being rich. It would ruin the ego trip.
No problem, mankind has found ways of dealing with the "Surplus" it is call War, coming to a theater near you any day now.
Another solution is that shown in the 1973 movie called "Soylent Green" loosely based on the novel by Harry Harrison entitled Make Room Make Room!. In this move it was noted that man himself or herself is actually the ideal food stock for humanity and such a food source is sustainable .
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,078,355 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
Yeah, technically there's a surplus. But that's doesn't have to be the case. The surplus is dependent on out strictly run corporate economy. Change that system, and a surplus of workers isn't an issue. The real issue with the world's rapidly increasing population is recourse usage (and waste). For example, there's more than enough food to feed the world, but plenty of it is thrown away. I believe the average American throws away nearly 25% of all the food they purchase. There are a lot of Americans, and we're likely not the only country with this problem.
We do have enough food to feed the world and much more...millions upon millions of acres of tillable ground that farmers are paid to leave fallow...double waste.
Now if there WAS a surplus of people(as I stated earlier nobody other than a politician is a surplus human) and some had to go who would be the easiest to do without? Speculators that inflate the price of oil contribute zilch to the world...could we as a planet do without them? Who else could be considered surplus(if such a person or people actually existed)
We could easily reduce the population 10%. That would be about 30 million for the USA. Heard them like cattle into open pits and cover them with dirt. After enough time has passed come back and drill for oil. We can always use oil and what better use could be found for useless unproductive people. Just be sure to mark the location so we know where to drill and nothing goes to waste.
How to select the right ones is solved by putting a sign on a car that says "free" and dragging a block of government cheese. Now run to the polls and vote for me. I'm a problem solver and that's what we need.
We could easily reduce the population 10%. That would be about 30 million for the USA. Heard them like cattle into open pits and cover them with dirt. After enough time has passed come back and drill for oil.
How much time? Will the United States going to last that long?
People aren't the major problem we have. Private ownership of land forces humans to interact/live in unhealthy/illogical settlements.
I agree, that is a problem. That was one of the theory's for the demise of a large civilization in the Yucatan of Mexico.
Go to China and you see the same thing in the hair and finger nails of a polluted population.
Something I've started to realize now that I'm in the adult world is that there's a great proportion of the population that is useless. Heck -- only about 2/3 of working-age people even have jobs. The economy doesn't need as many workers as it used to. Among the people who do have jobs, many of them are employed as charity, really. Most government jobs are useless from a productivity standpoint; are disguised ways of transferring wealth and keeping the population busy so that it doesn't resort to crime or feel useless and depressed.
Thoughts?
I think you've unknowingly skipped a step in your logic. That's evidence for a surplus of labor, not population. There's all kinds of ways to resolve a labor surplus. Creating more jobs, reducing work hours, creating a larger leisure class, etc.
Also, "most govt jobs are useless": citation needed.
How much time? Will the United States going to last that long?
psik
Good question !!! Depends on how the Zombie Apocalypse plays out. The land will be there but the inhabitants might be changed. Can I interest you in the purchase of a good crossbow ?
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.
