does anyone get the feeling...

[nostatic]

didn't Hitler write Kumbayah?

another poison pill

[fintstone]

Originally posted by nostatic
didn't Hitler write Kumbayah?

another poison pill

No, it was Al Gore..

[350HP930]

Here is a thought for the 'things will soon get better cause this is all cyclical' croud.

A large part of the US and global economy is driven by population growth.

More humans mean more housing, more food, expanded road projects, increased consumption, etc, etc.

This is a game we can't play forever and according to some of the best estimates the world is quicly approaching its maximum sustainable population. Some estimates put this number somewhere around 10 billion people, and at current growth rates many of us will see that number in our lifetimes.

http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/wp02-1.pdf

Unless the world wises up and starts instituting some sort of large scale population control policies (which is unlikely since this growth is worth billions and people don't like being told what to do) we are likely to surpass this limit causing some cyclical activity that would best be referred to as calamity and war.

Originally posted by 350HP930

Unless the world wises up and starts instituting some sort of large scale population control policies (which is unlikely since this growth is worth billions and people don't like being told what to do) we are likely to surpass this limit causing some cyclical activity that would best be referred to as calamity and war.

Doom and gloom, doom and gloom. Whatever is to become of us. Oh my, Oh my. Woe is me.........

Lets all pass some more unenforcable global laws that will create more agencies and more red tape. You'll have to register each and every sperm and assign it a potential citizen number. Women will have to report when they are ovulating and all of their sexual encounters. 350, out of a sea of dumb ideas you've posted, this is by far the dumberer[sic].

[jyl]

I'm not convinced that growing global population is a "critical" problem. Current projections are that global population will top out around 9 billion and then start dropping. This is based on fertility levels, which have dropped dramatically as populations become more urban and there is less economic benefit from having many children.

It is well known that fertility rates in Europe and Japan are already below the replacement level. China has reached that point too. Fertility rates have also been dropping rapidly in the Middle East and even in sub-Saharan Africa, contrary to the popular image.

What "may" emerge as a serious problem is that along with the peak-then-decline population trend, the population will also be aging. The percentage of young people will decline, the percentage of old people will increase. You already see this in Japan and Europe.

An aging population has many implications. Caring for retirees consumes a larger percentage of government and corporate budgets. Certain segments of the economy, like health care, add workers. Other segments, like the military, have a harder time finding workers. Older societies have historically tended to have slower economic growth and lower rates of technological innovation - that may prove true again. Immigration becomes an increasingly important source of economic growth, but also an increasing source of social friction.

[This is based on articles from various sources, including The Economist and Foreign Affairs. If anyone wants details, I can try to find and post them.]

P.S.: I edited the above to be clearer about my views. I think that a global population of 9 billion will be a "problem", in terms of environmental destruction, energy and resource consumption, and general quality of life. I am simply thinking that it is a survivable problem - the human race isn't likely to collapse into famine as Malthus warned. We'll manage to get by, although thousands of species of animals and millions of square miles of habitat won't be so lucky. At the same time I think the problem of aging populations is one that isn't as well appreciated.

[350HP930]

The earth is already straing to support what we got.

Are you all really supporting letting it just hopefully straighten itself out in a couple decade when we have about 50% more people on this planet than we do already?

[cegerer]

I was going to post something, but Mark's saying it all for me!

And now I've got some big decisions to make: Cayenne or 911 for a shopping trip this morning? Best Buy or Circuit City? HP or Olympus for one of those little 4x6 snapshot printers? And which of my 5 computers do i hook it to? ..... this country really does suck.

[jyl]

350, see my edit to the preceding post - I tried to explain my views a little more clearly.

Yes, if everything else was unchanged I think it would be desirable to have population peak out at less that 9 billion. But all other things won't be unchanged - there will be tradeoffs. Would it be better to have (1) a very rapidly aging population whose growth rate slows very rapidly, so that global poplation peaks out at, say, 7 billion, or (2) a gradually aging population whose growth rate slows gradually, so that global population peaks out at 9 billion?

I think that's actually not an easy question. The measures you would have to take to very rapidly slow population growth might not be feasible, or might be pretty extreme. The strain on societies of "suddenly" slowing population growth and "suddenly" aging the population might be pretty bad.

I need to do some more thinking and reading about this myself. But honestly, it's not the highest priority for me, because there's very little I can do about it - even if I could single-handedly choose the next President, he won't be able to do much about it.

[350HP930]

I guess it would depend on your idea of rapidness. We have about 25 to 50 years to figure it out depending on global trends.

I quess some people will decide that there are no problems in the world as long as they have a home full of toys to play with.

I would be one to argue that even if the world was going to hell in a handbasket there are always going to be the lucky few at the top that are rich and well provided for. Is that ever going to be a valid justification for letting things go to shizt?

[speeder]

I think that Curt and Mark have just (unwittingly) summed up the general view of many Americans, and Republican politicians regarding the environment, unlimited economic/population growth, and most everything else.

"What you see is not really happening, don't listen to those pesky scientists, global warming and a crumbling infrustructure are all part of some pinko plot to enfringe on my enjoyment of my Hummer/Suburban/speedboat. The earth and it's environment is not effected by man-made factors, in fact I'm about to drive my SUV to Best Buy right now to buy some gadgets made in China!"

By the time that the average rich American's lifestyle is effected by these huge, irreversible environmental changes, it will be WAY TO LATE! We need to be more intelligent than the hamster who continues to suck on some sweet-flavored liquid while his children starve 6" away, and look past the hood ornament of our SUVs and take an honest look at how our (collective) behavior is impacting the (very foreseeable) future. Please proove to me that we are not stupid enough to destroy our living space/planet because we are not willing to make some small sacrifices now.

I did not infer from 350HP's post that he is suggesting a new international law regarding population growth, but rather a much more realistic policy agreement between developed nations to change certain trends. Aren't we supposed to be the leaders in the world? Or is does that only apply to "bringing democracy" to countries w/ huge oil reserves at the tip of a gun?

The attitude that all is well since I can still put gasoline in my truck (this week) and drive to Circuit City, or that I still haven't lost all of the wealth and possesions that I aquired during the Clinton years, ( ), is not very hopeful for future policy.

I'm glad that you guys are still enjoying life, really I am. You're nice people and deserve it, along w/ a lot of nice people in the world who deserve it but aren' t so lucky. But if you think that this "prooves" that population and/or environmental policy is unnecessary at this time, I would have to disagree.

Originally posted by 350HP930
The earth is already straing to support what we got.

Are you all really supporting letting it just hopefully straighten itself out in a couple decade when we have about 50% more people on this planet than we do already?

That is exactly what I support. There is a natural yin and yang to life, to nature, to the earth. The population will rise as a result of prosperity and will fall when the earth cannot support it. More regulation in response to knee-jerk PROJECTIONS made by people or groups that have an agenda to further, are what will lead to the decline of civilization. What you propose is social engineering and it doesn't work. The grandest social engineering experiment was the former USSR.

[lendaddy]

"We have about 25 to 50 years to figure it out depending on global trends."

Hmm, I've heard this before, lol. Should I bury food or guns? Both? Thanks for the heads up!

[speeder]

EDIT: In this one case, it was unfair of me to say "Republican politicians", they are frequently the worse in this area but Democrats aren't much better when it comes to having the balls to stand up to the auto industry, immigration interests, businesses that benefit from never ending population growth and environmental rape, etc.....

[island911]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
That is exactly what I support. There is a natural yin and yang to life, to nature, to the earth. The population will rise as a result of prosperity and will fall when the earth cannot support it. More regulation in response to knee-jerk PROJECTIONS made by people or groups that have an agenda to further, are what will lead to the decline of civilization. What you propose is social engineering and it doesn't work. The grandest experiment was the former USSR.

[curtisaa]

The only commodity you "cannot" buy is youth. If it ( youth)were possible for purchase tomorrow, Todd, I would give a years salary for a dose. The next 100 years are going to be amazing. The future will never be for the "faint-hearted" souls...

[fintstone]

Reminds me of the bomb shelters the people were building in their backyards in the '60s. All we need to do is keep the illegals out and that would solve most of the problems stated above.

[speeder]

Mark, All systems of government/commerce/etc. engage in social engineering, are you suggesting that the Soviet (failed) government was the only one?

Absolute, unregulated market-driven capitalism is the ultimate in social engineering, by doing nothing to regulate anything you will have very predictible (and disasterous) results!

Let's see...., I can make $100 in the next 10 minutes by stealing all of the antiques in your house and selling them to the poor people down the block for firewood. Sounds good!

When everyone is allowed to behave with only their own self-interest in mind, "if it makes $$, it flies", well, let's just say that we have a different idea of utopia. And the relative value of Circuit City.

BTW, I like my gadgets and cars/bikes/etc. just as much as the next guy, even most conservatives.

Originally posted by speeder
EDIT: In this one case, it was unfair of me to say "Republican politicians", they are frequently the worse in this area but Democrats aren't much better when it comes to having the balls to stand up to the auto industry, immigration interests, businesses that benefit from never ending population growth and environmental rape, etc.....

We are in total agreement. There is very littledifference in politico's of either party after they've been in office for a while. They are all hat and no cattle.

I vote for Speeder, Island, Nostatic and me to run the the effin country as a council. Screw Congreff and screw lobbyists. Beers in my office at 3:30 every day.

Originally posted by speeder
Mark, All systems of government/commerce/etc. engage in social engineering, are you suggesting that the Soviet (failed) government was the only one?

Absolute, unregulated market-driven capitalism is the ultimate in social engineering, by doing nothing to regulate anything you will have very predictible (and disasterous) results!

[I]

Not at all. That's strict libratarianism which likely would lead to chaos. I absolutly see the need for laws and regulation. I think we just disagree on the level of regulation needed.

[350HP930]

Hmm, a jab against social engineering?

Engineering implies careful calculation and well designed solutions applied to solve known problems.

I guess you would prefer that we build airplanes, buildings and bridges by just guessing at what needs to be done and letting the buiders go at it? If not then why be so opposed to even a modicum of planning and thought going into deciding where society is headed?

Some of you are certainly prime examples that many people who concider themselves to be 'conservative' are actually utopian anarchists.