AccessBlaster
Registered User.
- Local time
- Today, 06:33
- Joined
- May 22, 2010
- Messages
- 6,780
In 1900 the world population was estimated at 1.6 billion. Today, the world population is estimated at 8.0 billion. We had culture in 1900, so if 6 billion people were to simply "disappear", I doubt that culture would somehow collapse.For millions of years, people were in a constant battle for survival. So people had to vigorously breed, not to also mention endless migrations to find new virgin territories to settle. That essentially came to a crashing halt by 1900. Nerveless, old habits die hard, even if obsolete.
Didn't the Chinese try that? I think it resulted in people still having babies and giving them away to avoid prosecution.. With that in mind, we need to move towards an economic system based on population management and zero growth.
As I said, old habits die hard. Recall the lifeboat conundrum. Your lifeboat does not have the capacity to save all. So far we have endlesdly kicked the can down the road. Eventualy the reckoning will come.Didn't the Chinese try that? I think it resulted in people still having babies and giving them away to avoid prosecution.
Col
I tend to agree I don't really see the persuasiveness of Elon musk's theory on that subject.@AccessBlaster and @The_Doc_Man: Thanks for providing an excellent segue to my current diatribe. Musk is 50% correct (wrong) based on dividing his remarks into two themes, culture and economy.
On the cultural theme, I already pre-addressed Musk's concerns in a previous post. On Nov. 30, 2022, I wrote:
In 1900 the world population was estimated at 1.6 billion. Today, the world population is estimated at 8.0 billion. We had culture in 1900, so if 6 billion people were to simply "disappear", I doubt that culture would somehow collapse.
On the economic theme, Musk is correct that our economy is based on ceaselessly providing ever more products and services to meet the demands of a growing population. That is a implistic viewpoint, held by many. For a variety of reasons, endless expansion eventually results in collapse. The results won't be pretty. With that in mind, we need to move towards an economic system based on population management and zero growth.
You are correct that having stable homes leads to success prosperity and happiness. The irony, is that unfettered population growth in the long run will eventually exhaust resources and land. Population growth, conceptually, can be infinite, but the land is finite. Eventually something must "give". Moreover, large populations will mean big big big big government to manage people and to facilitate the management/distribution/consumption of resources. We are seeing these concepts (to control people and resources through government fiat) being introduced today courtesy of the "global warming" crowd.On the other hand, I do feel that having large families, as large as reasonable, is a pretty good tool in our arsenal of tools to essentially combat evil and people with harmful ideas and worldviews. If you kind of wonder at this theory, look no further than the mormons. Ponder their overall success peace prosperity and happiness and note they play the long game. Large families, stable homes, lots of growth, long-term domination of a sort in very many places.
The quote above is absurd on several levels.Policymakers at the state and local levels are also pushing to get rid of gas appliances and exchange them for electric to reduce the use of fossil fuels.
Didn't the Chinese try that? I think it resulted in people still having babies and giving them away to avoid prosecution.
Col
Some people maintain that the climate scientists are ethical and are not swayed by money into making false claims.
Have a look at the following video at time index 23 minutes:-
I'm still watching the video and I will report any other findings as I go.
You are correct that having stable homes leads to success prosperity and happiness. The irony, is that unfettered population growth in the long run will eventually exhaust resources and land. Population growth, conceptually, can be infinite, but the land is finite. Eventually something must "give". Moreover, large populations will mean big big big big government to manage people and to facilitate the management/distribution/consumption of resources. We are seeing these concepts (to control people and resources through government fiat) being introduced today courtesy of the "global warming" crowd.
As a brief example, consider the rural/urban divide. In most cases people in rural areas tend to be conservative tending to want minimal government involvement in their affairs. Contrast that with people who live in urban areas who tend to want extensive government services and to also demand that the government define how people live/work together.
The example I like to cite, is the lowly traffic light. In a small town, a traffic light may not be necessary to manage traffic. As the town grows, the traffic light becomes necessary as a mechanism to keep traffic moving and as a safety feature. With continued growth, evermore traffic lights become necessary. But given sufficient traffic volumes they may even prove to be inadequate resulting in gridlock. Traffic lights, though beneficial, can be considered an evil government action to mange the populace and extort revenue.
The ability to live free depends on low population.
I think alot of Chinese girls became sex workers. Many brothels in the UK are Chinese.
Col
Please post your observations, and let me know what I missed!