View Full Version : World Population Growth...
I have mumbled about population control being the key to most of the current World crises, to include global warming, militant islamization, and rampid alien population redistribution movement.
The Chinese in the not to distant past, had a rigorous birth control program. They seem to be slipping off the pillow, so to speak.
It looks like others are now willing to stand up and suggest that maybe,, maybe the cause can be addressed,, rather than the symptom.
The problem with this approach is that the populations that need birth control the most, tend to be the least educated. Additionally they tend to be the most rigorously opposed to birth control, on religious principles.
Without massive change, The parts of the World population that control their birth rates will be numerically over run by the parts that do nothing.
We have had just this discussion about the US English speaking population becoming the minority to the Spanish speaking population,within the next 30 years. Based on the current documented birth rate surge.
I don't have an answer,, but I am caustically(sic) optimistic that the discussion can begin without to much blood shed..
PS: I do not concur, nor support, the World disaster scenarios put forth in these articles,, entirely...
PPS: What would the World look like if we had an extra 100,000,000 little Hugo Chavez's or Kim Jon's running around??? :eek::eek::eek::eek:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm
Population control called key to deal
By Li Xing (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-12-10 07:37
Comments(0) PrintMail
COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .
"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.
Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.
"Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth," so stated by the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by the UN Population Fund. ,,,,,,,
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438
The real inconvenient truth
The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy
Diane Francis, Financial Post Published: Tuesday, December 08, 2009
The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.
A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate.
Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.........
Streck-Fu
12-11-2009, 07:27
The discussion of population control reminds me of the earlier doom and gloom proclamations from the environmental types of the 1970s and 80s in which they forecasted famine due to an unsustainable population. Here we are 40 years later and while many parts of the world suffer from from famine, it is the same groups that suffered food shortage hundreds of years ago.
In the developed world, food is plentiful. Even here in the US where we could grow enough to feed those whom starve, we pay farmers to NOT grow crops....
It seems that for every prediction of our demise, someone develops a way to produce food or product that will allow a more populous society to thrive. Our farming practices are the most efficient in history and getting better (organic excluded).
Combine this with the fact that the rate of population growth is slowing with an expected decline in a few decades, the problem may be self correcting.
The problem with this approach is that the populations that need birth control the most, tend to be the least educated. Additionally they tent to be the most religiously opposed to birth control, on religious principles.
It is the mostly educated and industrial societies that are slowing their birth rates without influence. It is the less educated that will be more populous and may be more reliant on those whom are productive. I want to think that educating the poor would eventually help, but we see many educated middle class jihadists so education alone is not the answer.
Without massive change, The parts of the World population that control their birth rates will be numerically over run by the parts that do nothing.
This ties into issues of immigration as well. Not just for the US but France, Britain, and Germany that have large Islamic populations of immigrants that do not want to adopt to the culture of their new hosts. With global movement so easy, not even isolation is possible. Long before the situation is perceived to be of concern enough for action, we will probably have a large population of these peoples within our borders.
There is no easy answer. The idealist in me wants to think that the answer lies in educating them. The pragmatic recognizes that though you can lead a horse to water, you can't force it to drink.
GratefulCitizen
12-11-2009, 18:23
Don't buy Malthusianism. Never have.
You can see on the Earth, on the seas, in the air, orbiting in space, sitting on the moon, and catapulting out of the solar system things made by humans.
The demand for more stuff results in people finding ways to produce more stuff.
Every baby is born not only with a mouth, but with a mind and body.
I will concede that Malthusian catastrophes are possible on varying scales, but it takes a critical ingredient:
Slothfulness.
If every new person born, on average, produces more than they consume, there is abundance, growth, and life.
If every new person born, on average, consumes more than they produce, there is scarcity, decay, and death.
When productivity is rewarded you get more of it.
When slothfulness is rewarded you get more of it.
This is why capitalism produces life and socialism produces death.
MOO. YMMV.
The world population has nearly tripled in my lifetime...time to seriously start looking for another planet to send all those late comers. ;)
Richard
The Reaper
12-11-2009, 18:57
Don't buy Malthusianism. Never have.
You can see on the Earth, on the seas, in the air, orbiting in space, sitting on the moon, and catapulting out of the solar system things made by humans.
The demand for more stuff results in people finding ways to produce more stuff.
Every baby is born not only with a mouth, but with a mind and body.
I will concede that Malthusian catastrophes are possible on varying scales, but it takes a critical ingredient:
Slothfulness.
If every new person born, on average, produces more than they consume, there is abundance, growth, and life.
If every new person born, on average, consumes more than they produce, there is scarcity, decay, and death.
When productivity is rewarded you get more of it.
When slothfulness is rewarded you get more of it.
This is why capitalism produces life and socialism produces death.
MOO. YMMV.
Interesting perspective.
Thanks for sharing.
TR
May I chime in?
It is my opinion only, but I feel that we, as a species, created by a GOD, having his DNA in us, that this world, created by Him, (perhaps by us as well, with our assistance before we we're born in mortal flesh). That we as a "family of man, or mankind", had a plan to accommodate the number of children born of such royal deity? That the Earth was large enough to accommodate all living species.
Our challenge today is living in harmony with one another, and the "test of compatibility" to see if we can cohabitate in this realm without killing each other like misguided children fighting over non-relevant issues.
If one takes the total population of Earth's residents, divide by total number of available archers of land to support a family, (someone once said, 360 archers for a family of eight), with water. How many could live on Earth?
The reality of such an endeavor would be impossible given our hatred for one another, beit, ethnicity, politics, regional isolation, etc.
But never mind me, I've been drinking Jameson since 4 pm because I got good news about two people thinking of starting a family.
I miss being young.
WD
If every new person born, on average, produces more than they consume, there is abundance, growth, and life.
If every new person born, on average, consumes more than they produce, there is scarcity, decay, and death.
A very big set of "ifs".
Minds are good. Hands are good. Put a brilliant mind and nimble hands in a locale with no resources and they will perish.
Richard points out that population has tripled in his lifetime. The increase was facilitated by the mind, which directed resources to increase crop production. Should those resources fail, then we will be in a state of population overshoot.
We have seen examples. Among animals, the reindeer of St. Matthew's island. Among humans, Easter island. The outcomes were brutal.
Please, read Diamond's "Collapse". The people of Easter island were not lazy. They did not lack in creativity. They did put themselves on a track which depleted a critical resource, and adverse consequences resulted.
By the way - population overshoot always results in a dieoff. Is this time different? We shall see, I suppose.
But never mind me, I've been drinking Jameson since 4 pm...
OK - and so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Dozer523
12-11-2009, 21:09
If one takes the total population of Earth's residents, divide by total number of available archers of land to support a family, (someone once said, 360 archers for a family of eight), with water. How many could live on Earth?
But never mind me, I've been drinking Jameson since 4 pm because I got good news about two people thinking of starting a family.
I miss being young.WD
I read somewhere that if you marched every single living person currently on this Earth into the Grand Canyon you could tuck 'em all in nicely and still have room for six feet of dirt on top. Now, sometimes that is a very pretty mental picture. (I'm driving the Catapillar).
But, then sometimes you get good news (assuming someone is about to become a Grandpa (?) and it's like, "Ahhhhh, well, we can put it off for another day." And WetDog, "Why yes I would, thank you. . . just a tiny, tiny bit of water. Thank you." BTW. No you don't. Youth is wasted on the young. Or age and trechery will something. . .something. My my. . . Congrats on whatever the good news is.
frostfire
12-11-2009, 21:37
The problem with this approach is that the populations that need birth control the most, tend to be the least educated. Additionally they tend to be the most rigorously opposed to birth control, on religious principles.
Without massive change, The parts of the World population that control their birth rates will be numerically over run by the parts that do nothing.
We have had just this discussion about the US English speaking population becoming the minority to the Spanish speaking population,within the next 30 years. Based on the current documented birth rate surge.
I don't have an answer,, but I am caustically(sic) optimistic that the discussion can begin without to much blood shed..
That makes two of us. The movie Idiocracy also comes to mind.
I will concede that Malthusian catastrophes are possible on varying scales, but it takes a critical ingredient:
Slothfulness.
I need to have your and wet dog's faith level to not buy Malthusianism. You provide compelling argument. At the same time, the more I look around, the more I see slothfulness. Maybe I have a selective perspective/observation, so this is IMHO as well. The critical ingredient is there and growing. With freedom, comes abuse. The longest (and most long-lasting) government systems have been autocratic/dictatorship. Yet, I strongly believe in the very idea behind the US and that's why I hold it near and dear even more than life itself. OTOH, I'm all for population control. When right/privileges are abused, they should be taken away or withheld. I believe procreation is a privilege, not a right, but this seems to be against the right to live in the Declaration of Independence. I have yet to resolve this inner contradiction.
Some of my mentors and older colleagues told me if I'm so concerned about the youth and the future of the country, maybe I should start my own family and raise responsible children. Of course, I already see the world as over populated and would like practice what I preach. I'd rather do my part in the service. However, their suggestion does merit consideration. Thus, another contradiction.
GratefulCitizen
12-11-2009, 22:48
A very big set of "ifs".
Should those resources fail, then we will be in a state of population overshoot.
In other words: IF those resources fail, then we will be in a state of population overshoot.
William Stanley Jevons' The Coal Question raised questions similar to Malthus.
The USA has depleted its endowment of hydrocarbons.
Repeatedly.
<shrug>
Population control is all about whose ox is (al)gored.
The rich to the poor: conservation is good for thee, but not for me.
GratefulCitizen
12-11-2009, 22:52
Minds are good. Hands are good. Put a brilliant mind and nimble hands in a locale with no resources and they will perish.
Makes it kind of hard to explain Hong Kong.
Dense population, few resources.
More economic freedom than anywhere else on Earth.
Makes it kind of hard to explain Hong Kong.
Dense population, few resources.
More economic freedom than anywhere else on Earth.
No, it isn't hard to explain - the key is cheap transportation. Likewise much of the abundance we enjoy.
Interrupt the cheap, reliable transportation of goods and services and see what happens - whether in Hong Kong or Dallas.
Speaking for the US, this could change. We could stop supporting social programs that let the double digit IQ population produce children like rabbits on our dime, while the triple digit IQ population practices responsibility (income to number of children to bear) would have more of "their" money which they could produce more children. How long can a society subsidize those who take more than give, survive? We'll probably have an answer this question within our lifetime.
GratefulCitizen
12-12-2009, 12:05
No, it isn't hard to explain - the key is cheap transportation. Likewise much of the abundance we enjoy.
Interrupt the cheap, reliable transportation of goods and services and see what happens - whether in Hong Kong or Dallas.
Profit motive is what creates cheap, reliable transportation.
From A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World (William Bernstein):
On September 5, 1833, the American clipper Tuscany appeared at the mouth of India's Hooghly River, took on a river pilot, and headed upstream to Calcutta. The news of its arrival was swiftly related upriver, throwing that city, whose name is synonymous with sweltering heat, into a state of excitement. The Tuscany carried a new and priceless cargo: more than a hundred tons of crystal-clear New England ice. (P. 332)
Frederic Tudor shipped ice from New England to India, profitably, in the early 19th century.
In 1833, fellow Boston-based merchant Samuel Austin proposed a partnership for selling ice to India, then some 16,000 miles (26,000 km) and four months away from Massachusetts. On May 12, 1833 the brig Tuscany sailed from Boston for Calcutta, its hold filled with 180 tons of ice cut during the winter. When it approached the Ganges in September 1833, many believed the delivery was an elaborate joke, but the ship still had 100 tons of ice upon arrival. Over the next 20 years, Calcutta would become Tudor's most lucrative destination, yielding an estimated $220,000 in profits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederic_Tudor
(admittedly, this one is a wiki reference)
People figure out how to do stuff, when the efforts are rewarded.
Reward productivity, you get more of it.
Hat tip: http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/
We could stop supporting social programs that let the double digit IQ population produce children like rabbits on our dime
The crux of the problem....They don't just let them....In all seriousness they are rewarded (Paid) for every child they have and I do not believe there is a cap on the number.
Add into that mix that housing, utilities, medical, transportation and food are paid for some.....they can in essence pull in a tidy 5 figure income while sitting home on your dime.
Some need it, many abuse it.
greenberetTFS
12-12-2009, 13:25
May I chime in?
It is my opinion only, but I feel that we, as a species, created by a GOD, having his DNA in us, that this world, created by Him, (perhaps by us as well, with our assistance before we we're born in mortal flesh). That we as a "family of man, or mankind", had a plan to accommodate the number of children born of such royal deity? That the Earth was large enough to accommodate all living species.
Our challenge today is living in harmony with one another, and the "test of compatibility" to see if we can co-habituate in this realm without killing each other like misguided children fighting over non-relevant issues.
If one takes the total population of Earth's residents, divide by total number of available archers of land to support a family, (someone once said, 360 archers for a family of eight), with water. How many could live on Earth?
The reality of such an endeavor would be impossible given our hatred for one another, beit, ethnicity, politics, regional isolation, etc.
But never mind me, I've been drinking Jameson since 4 pm because I got good news about two people thinking of starting a family.
I miss being young.
WD
Jameson,hmmm..... :cool: Wish I was with you....... ;) Best wishes to those young people starting a family...... :)
Big Teddy :munchin
Frederic Tudor shipped ice from New England to India, profitably, in the early 19th century.
Comparing the infrequent (4 months) transport of a "new and priceless cargo" to the continual transport of things necessary for the ongoing viability of Hong Kong and other high-density locales? Oh, come now.
People figure out how to do stuff, when the efforts are rewarded.
Reward productivity, you get more of it.
Really? Is that right?
There is a global war on terror. The U.S. Army is an organization, but not designed for profit. On the other hand, Xe (formerly Blackwater) is an organization designed for profit. So, please tell me which organization you feel is better at fighting the war on terror, using the logic promulgated above.
(Please ignore the thin wire across the path. It's nothing. Truly.)
Jameson,hmmm..... :cool: Wish I was with you....... ;) Best wishes to those young people starting a family...... :)
Big Teddy
I don't drink, but I'm beginning to think I really ought to start. Would 12 ounces be too much? :eek:
And, in all seriousness, please let me echo Big Teddy's good wishes.
GratefulCitizen
12-12-2009, 18:34
Comparing the infrequent (4 months) transport of a "new and priceless cargo" to the continual transport of things necessary for the ongoing viability of Hong Kong and other high-density locales? Oh, come now.
[/COLOR]
The reference was to illustrate what obstacles can be overcome with proper economic motivation.
Very well.
Compare the abundance of Hong Kong (few resources, much economic freedom) with the scarcity of the former Soviet Union (immense resources, little economic freedom).
The point being: Resources are not the limiting factor. Effectiveness in utilizing those resources is the limiting factor.
Really? Is that right?
There is a global war on terror. The U.S. Army is an organization, but not designed for profit. On the other hand, Xe (formerly Blackwater) is an organization designed for profit. So, please tell me which organization you feel is better at fighting the war on terror, using the logic promulgated above.
(Please ignore the thin wire across the path. It's nothing. Truly.)
Challenge accepted.
Your example compares apples with oranges.
Better to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.
Compare the conscript forces of other nations to the all-volunteer force of this nation.
Compare Xe to Triple Canopy.
Willing to bet that the latter in each comparison are, on average, better paid and of higher quality.
The point being: Resources are not the limiting factor. Effectiveness in utilizing those resources is the limiting factor.
By this logic, a group of highly effective people could do anything with nothing. I seem to recall a poster to that effect.
Please consider that the problem is not unidimensional. Although resource availability is not the sole constraint, it remains a constraint.
Challenge accepted.
Your example compares apples with oranges.
Better to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.
Compare the conscript forces of other nations to the all-volunteer force of this nation.
Compare Xe to Triple Canopy.
Willing to bet that the latter in each comparison are, on average, better paid and of higher quality.
You use two terms. Those are: "better paid" and "higher quality".
So - does the quality of a nation's defense forces vary with pay?
Does this suggest that the warriors who put their lives on the line are doing all of that for money? Top pay for an E6 is under $40,000 per year.
Grateful, I believe you are on rather thin philosophical egg shells here.
GratefulCitizen
12-12-2009, 19:16
By this logic, a group of highly effective people could do anything with nothing. I seem to recall a poster to that effect.
This is a secundum quid et simpliciter fallacy.
I never said effective people could do anything with nothing. You said that.
I said effectiveness in utilization of resources was the limiting factor.
Please consider that the problem is not unidimensional. Although resource availability is not the sole constraint, it remains a constraint.
Agreed.
I am asserting that resource availability is not the limiting constraint.
Other factors trump resource availability.
You use two terms. Those are: "better paid" and "higher quality".
So - does the quality of a nation's defense forces vary with pay?
Willing to bet that there is a correlation, on average.
Does this suggest that the warriors who put their lives on the line are doing all of that for money? Top pay for an E6 is under $40,000 per year.
Grateful, I believe you are on rather thin philosophical egg shells here.
In the context of this board, this is an attempt at "social conformance" persuasion rather than argument.
(social conformance: If you do not agree, then you will be rejected and ostracized.)
It is also a false dilemma.
I made no such suggestion.
Obviously, people do things for reasons other than money.
That being said, compensation still matters, and reflects the priorities of a nation.
I am asserting that resource availability is not the limiting constraint.
Other factors trump resource availability.
Then we disagree.
That being said, compensation still matters, and reflects the priorities of a nation.
Matters is one thing. Above all matters is quite another.
Not to worry, Grateful. In the fullness of time, peak oil will assert itself. :munchin
GratefulCitizen
12-12-2009, 22:33
Then we disagree.
Not to worry, Grateful. In the fullness of time, peak oil will assert itself. :munchin
Can't fully express how grateful I am to the QP's for having this forum, and allowing/administering debate upon it.
Perhaps rational discourse will lead to the solving and/or preventing of problems associated with world population growth.
It's always a pleasure, Nmap. :)
As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
-Proverbs 27:17 (NIV)
6.8SPC_DUMP
12-13-2009, 00:18
It's best to have access to a boat, and be able to navigate and live off it, is what crossed my mind when reading TR and others incredible insight in Wvap (I mean Mnap's) awesome thread on a survival scenario. That and I hope people don't treat a financial crisis like a EMP attack.
Looking at JJ_BMK's avatar it crossed my mind that being a fisher, in an accommodating area, might be a solid way to provide for your family if the worst comes.
I thought the Malthusian growth model was interesting when I read about it in HS and his numbers were already shown to be way off.
Graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dtm_pyramids.png
In stage one, pre-industrial society, death rates and birth rates are high and roughly in balance.
In stage two, that of a developing country, the death rates drop rapidly due to improvements in food supply and sanitation, which increase life spans and reduce disease. These changes usually come about due to improvements in farming techniques, access to technology, basic healthcare, and education. Without a corresponding fall in birth rates this produces an imbalance, and the countries in this stage experience a large increase in population.
In stage three, birth rates fall due to access to contraception, increases in wages, urbanization, a reduction in subsistence agriculture, an increase in the status and education of women, a reduction in the value of children's work, an increase in parental investment in the education of children and other social changes. Population growth begins to level off.
During stage four there are both low birth rates and low death rates. Birth rates may drop to well below replacement level as has happened in countries like Germany, Italy, and Japan, leading to a shrinking population, a threat to many industries that rely on population growth. As the large group born during stage two ages, it creates an economic burden on the shrinking working population. Death rates may remain consistently low or increase slightly due to increases in lifestyle diseases due to low exercise levels and high obesity and an aging population in developed countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_growth_model
GratefulCitizen
12-14-2009, 14:06
Here's a question:
What happens when you combine democracy and the authority to "control population growth" within that democracy?
:munchin
Here's a question:
What happens when you combine democracy and the authority to "control population growth" within that democracy?
:munchin
Soylent Green was set in 2022.
GratefulCitizen
12-14-2009, 14:15
Soylent Green was set in 2022.
Was thinking something more along the lines of "voter control".
Dozer523
12-14-2009, 14:22
Here's a question:
What happens when you combine democracy and the authority to "control population growth" within that democracy?
:munchin If population growth is mandated and enforced then "CPG" and "democracy" will be mutually exclusive. It's almost the flip side of the abortion situation.
GratefulCitizen
12-14-2009, 14:31
If population growth is mandated and enforced then "CPG" and "democracy" will be mutually exclusive. It's almost the flip side of the abortion situation.
Perhaps it need not be directly enforced, but merely encouraged through economic pressure.
The term "jizya" comes to mind...
Never worked for China - don't see how could it work here - just makes no sense.
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
Here's a question:
What happens when you combine democracy and the authority to "control population growth" within that democracy?
:munchin
Eugenics.
Similarly, in a democratic republic, those exhibiting qualities supported by the representatives of the voters will be permitted (or encouraged) to increase in numbers while others will be denied permission (or discouraged) to increase their numbers.
Thus, favored populations might receive subsidies of various sorts. This would facilitate their relative increase in numbers. Others who were not subsidized, or were penalized, would exhibit a slow decline in numbers.
As Grateful points out, the term jizya applies.
Ahhh...I get it...the Dopeler Effect...there must be a red level Bozone alert today. :rolleyes:
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
........Thus, favored populations might receive subsidies of various sorts. This would facilitate their relative increase in numbers. Others who were not subsidized, or were penalized, would exhibit a slow decline in numbers........
Seems to be a bit backwards around here. Welfare broodmares get the perks while taxpayers get the shaft.
Oh, wait - they are favored for their votes.
Seems to be a bit backwards around here. Welfare broodmares get the perks while taxpayers get the shaft.
Oh, wait - they are favored for their votes.
Exactly - that's why I used the word "supported".
The old cliche' of "You get what you pay for" applies. A fancier way to say it is that we get more of whatever behavior we reward.
The Reaper
12-14-2009, 17:35
Seems to be a bit backwards around here. Welfare broodmares get the perks while taxpayers get the shaft.
Oh, wait - they are favored for their votes.
Exactly.
Voting themselves money and benefits (like "tax credits") from the public till.
TR
GratefulCitizen
12-14-2009, 22:27
Exactly - that's why I used the word "supported".
The old cliche' of "You get what you pay for" applies. A fancier way to say it is that we get more of whatever behavior we reward.
Something like...
When productivity is rewarded you get more of it.
When slothfulness is rewarded you get more of it.
:D
Are you implying that some in our government actually want a higher number of ignorant/uninterested voters and a lower number of aware/interested voters? ;)
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H. L. Mencken
Something like...
:D
Are you implying that some in our government actually want a higher number of ignorant/uninterested voters and a lower number of aware/interested voters? ;)
At times like this, I ask - WWMD? (What Would Machiavelli Do?)
Actually, I would not want the voters you suggest. Rather, I would want ignorant/opinionated voters, who were both angry at and fearful of other voting groups. Then each group could be controlled, and each group would come to the rulers seeking preference over other groups. With several mutually-hostile groups, it would be possible to prevent them from ever coalescing and presenting a threat. Instead, they would exhaust themselves fighting each other while I used them.
Of course, no one else would ever think of that... :rolleyes:
GratefulCitizen
12-14-2009, 22:50
At times like this, I ask - WWMD? (What Would Machiavelli Do?)
Actually, I would not want the voters you suggest. Rather, I would want ignorant/opinionated voters, who were both angry at and fearful of other voting groups. Then each group could be controlled, and each group would come to the rulers seeking preference over other groups. With several mutually-hostile groups, it would be possible to prevent them from ever coalescing and presenting a threat. Instead, they would exhaust themselves fighting each other while I used them.
Of course, no one else would ever think of that... :rolleyes:
Good points.
Maybe they would want ignorant/self-interested voters.
Perhaps they would enourage self-interested indulgence to where a critical mass of the voters were ignorant narcissists.
Perhaps such a group would elect a leader which reflected them.
Good points.
Maybe they would want ignorant/self-interested voters.
Perhaps they would enourage self-interested indulgence to where a critical mass of the voters were ignorant narcissists.
Perhaps such a group would elect a leader which reflected them.
No, that would never, ever happen. Nope, nope, nope, just couldn't happen. Of course, I don't have a single reason why it couldn't - I just know it couldn't. ;)
Dozer523
12-14-2009, 23:44
At times like this, I ask - WWMD? (What Would Machiavelli Do?)
Actually, I would not want the voters you suggest. Rather, I would want ignorant/opinionated voters, who were both angry at and fearful of other voting groups. Then each group could be controlled, and each group would come to the rulers seeking preference over other groups. With several mutually-hostile groups, it would be possible to prevent them from ever coalescing and presenting a threat. Instead, they would exhaust themselves fighting each other while I used them.
Of course, no one else would ever think of that... :rolleyes: Well, to begin, you came to the right place.:p
HEY! Who you calling ignorant?
Profit motive is what creates cheap, reliable transportation.
From A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World (William Bernstein): Frederic Tudor shipped ice from New England to India, profitably, in the early 19th century.
People figure out how to do stuff, when the efforts are rewarded. Reward productivity, you get more of it.
I have been reading the posts,, I'm excited that the flow was not contentious,, actually very constructive..
GC's story of the delivery of ice to India, discussions of "jizya", and reference to Malthusian growth model,, which I think has some holes,, it doesn't cover the current problems of population..
From a Miami Herold back-side story:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/1382131.html
As population grows in Africa, so does a world of trouble: Africa's spiraling population rate is sending children into a life of poverty and uncertainty as they are cast off by their overwhelmed families.
It brought to mind an old story from the early 1980t's as told by the Reverend Sam Kinison in his 1st appearance on David Letterman's show...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKNoJ2BzSRU
I think it has some coverage is this discussion,,
Are we really doing good with all the aid we send to different parts of the World??
Disaster recovery is needed,, it's not in question,, but what about the "other" aid..
Are there another ways???
Again, I mean no offense to anyone's political or religious inclinations.
I only mean to stir the mud,, between your ears...
Has anyone wondered why "some things" just happen or perhaps, why some thing seems ready for some other thing to happen?
Take in point, Europe, dark ages. Cats were viewed as evil, at least by some in power. Cats were killed, rats populations exploded, (but due in part to thrash food supply), to support the new rat population. This was followed shortly by disease, plague and death on biblical scale.
Funny thing, cats were welcomed by RURAL farmer Christians, more then the CITY, progessive, intellectual Chriatians, Hell bent on narcissism, self indulgence, and the ME-ME-ME syndrome. Look at the art of the time.
WWI - the out break of Influenza by our war veterans, poor conditions while in transit by steamer ships returning from the war, infection to major ports and population centers, followed shortly by disease, plague and death on a biblical scale.
Now to our time, sort of. Columbus arrives followed by demestic farm animals, sheep, goat, hog. The local indian populations suffered heavily from white man disease. It is estimated that 60,000,000 peoples lived in the western hemisphere, from Canada to Argentina. I would argue, that the survivors are a healthy people today, then they were then. Some would argue not, but age, quality of life, and other measures prove to the contrary. Never said more was better, or that 600 years is a long time.
I take some comfort in the knowledge that with the increase of radical Islam, it is coinciding in the growth population of wild farrel hogs in North America. That hogs, being a wonderful source of protein, can reproduce at a rate equal only to rodents. A female hog is sexually active at six months of age. She can have as many as 3 litters per year, and birth as many as 12 per pregnacy.
Hogs are clean animals, devouring much waste, trash, spoil. Processing this food source creates clean meat. Consider the frailty of the human body, "I can not eat trash, but a hog can, whereby I eat the hog".
Back home, we raise (2) hogs a year. Every six months I have the chore of killing, butchering and freezing hog meat. My mothers stands beside me, with pan for select cuts of heart, liver, stomach. My boys dive in with sharp knives to assist. Dad, arranges freezer meat to accomondate the new kill. I personally use gut to make leather saddle repairs, hide for machine gasgets, barn door hinges and boot repairs.
I wonder if someone hasn't already done the math, but divide the total number of ferrel hogs in North America, by the population and availble amount of meat per animal. Could we feed America by wild hog only? Could we out shoot, out live and "consume our enemies" by attrition?
I bet natural order prevails. I'm betting the guy with rifle and flannel shirt, kills, eats and provides for his family better than anyone.
Am I alone here?
WD
GratefulCitizen
12-16-2009, 22:15
I think it has some coverage is this discussion,,
Are we really doing good with all the aid we send to different parts of the World??
Disaster recovery is needed,, it's not in question,, but what about the "other" aid..
Are there another ways???
Got me thinkin'
Here goes:
This goes back to the heart of my post earlier about rewarding productivity/slothfulness and getting more of it.
The post contained qualifications using the term "on average".
The wrong people with guns in hand can do much to shift the "average".
If people do not have peace and the right to keep what they have produced, then it is impossible to reward productivity.
Under such chaos, the most productive activity is theft, which in turn encourages slothfulness (why be productive if you can't keep it??).
When these parts of the world are flooded with aid, it perpetuates the problem.
Even if you can produce and keep some food, any excess production cannot be sold profitably because it is undercut by foreign "aid".
Cash aid just further entrenches corrupt governments and keeps other forms of theft at the highest levels of "productive" activity.
There's the problem.
Solutions would have to be implemented over a protracted time.
The first step would be to establish security.
-People need to be able to defend themselves and their property.
-Parking a garrison over there would just be another form of consumable "aid".
-They have to be taught. One village/tribe at a time.
-(Willing to bet there are some subject matter experts on this board)
The second step would be to encourage larger political coalitions.
-The merits of defending your neighbors rights/property should be pushed.
-Some conditional limited aid may help here.
-Specifically -- we don't provide aid if you aren't playing nice.
The third part would be withdrawing from the area, and wishing them luck.
*Types of aid
Consumable aid is useful only in short-term emergencies.
This should be given sparingly. Otherwise it is not help, it is enabling.
The best type of aid is:
-Wells, water development, and infrastructure appropriate to their economy; but which is beyond their capacity to produce/procure.
-Tools and equipment appropriate to their economic needs, which they cannot reasonably produce/procure.
-Education/education infrastructure.
Give a man a fish, he has food for a day.
Teach a man to fish, he has food for a lifetime.
The best type of aid is:
-Wells, water development, and infrastructure appropriate to their economy; but which is beyond their capacity to produce/procure.
-Tools and equipment appropriate to their economic needs, which they cannot reasonably produce/procure.
-Education/education infrastructure.
Once they have the infrastructure, how do they maintain it? This both with regard to knowledge and to supplies. The same issue exists with tools and equipment.
I cannot refrain from also asking - what is the final goal of all this? Let us suppose your approach proves perfect. I do not see where those who provided the aid have gained. Gratitude is seldom dependable between individuals, and less so between nations.
So, in the spirit of the season....Bah! Humbug! :D
GratefulCitizen
12-16-2009, 23:00
Let us suppose your approach proves perfect. I do not see where those who provided the aid have gained. Gratitude is seldom dependable between individuals, and less so between nations.
So, in the spirit of the season....Bah! Humbug! :D
In step 3 we walk away and wish them luck.
There are no guarantees.
The benefit would be in a new trading partner.
Specialization/trade benefits both parties to an exchange.
Abundance mentality.;)
The benefit would be in a new trading partner.
Specialization/trade benefits both parties to an exchange.
Ah, yes, from David Ricardo - who came up with his idea about comparative advantage in 1817. It will be interesting to see how matters develop if the global economy continues its contraction. Free trade will, I think, pass from its present popularity - and with it, Mr. Ricardo will sink into well-deserved oblivion.
Abundance mentality? (Sigh).
FirstClass
12-17-2009, 00:32
...
I wonder if someone hasn't already done the math, but divide the total number of ferrel hogs in North America, by the population and availble amount of meat per animal. Could we feed America by wild hog only? Could we out shoot, out live and "consume our enemies" by attrition?
I bet natural order prevails. I'm betting the guy with rifle and flannel shirt, kills, eats and provides for his family better than anyone.
Am I alone here?
WD
Thank you WD, you are not alone. Our Mother will see that balance is maintained. Hard times come and go, in our lives, in our countries, in our planet, in the universe. Guess what? It comes and goes. I think it will get worse, there will be war, there will be disease, but the end will justify the means. Only a happy few are blessed to see even one golden year. I am not holding my breath.
...Only a happy few are blessed to see even one golden year. I am not holding my breath.
First Class, you'll be fine, you'll have your "moment of sunshine". Enjoy this time while you have it, do your best.
Your bio says, 21. First Class, I drink Scotch older you, I think I have a few socks pushing 20 years as well. Couldn't be more pleased then seeing the next gen taking on new roles.
Good job,
WD
GratefulCitizen
12-17-2009, 20:41
Ah, yes, from David Ricardo - who came up with his idea about comparative advantage in 1817. It will be interesting to see how matters develop if the global economy continues its contraction. Free trade will, I think, pass from its present popularity - and with it, Mr. Ricardo will sink into well-deserved oblivion.
Abundance mentality? (Sigh).
<shrug>
Specialization/trade and the abundance mentality have worked well enough in my life and others observed.
(-note- "abundance mentality" is not the same thing as "cornucopianism" or "prosperity doctrine")
YMMV.
Concerning the earlier post about how those providing the aid have gained:
Groups of people who are capable of defending themselves and providing for themselves are not easily swayed/controlled/herded by would-be tyrants.
Before tyrants can cause trouble with their neighbors (near and afar), they must first subdue their own people.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
<shrug>
Specialization/trade and the abundance mentality have worked well enough in my life and others observed.
(-note- "abundance mentality" is not the same thing as "cornucopianism" or "prosperity doctrine")
YMMV.
Of course. The abundance mentality has worked very well for the past couple hundred years - maybe longer.
I am curious, though - what is the difference between abundance mentality and cornucopianism?
Concerning the earlier post about how those providing the aid have gained:
Groups of people who are capable of defending themselves and providing for themselves are not easily swayed/controlled/herded by would-be tyrants.
Before tyrants can cause trouble with their neighbors (near and afar), they must first subdue their own people.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Hmm. I'm going to have to think about that one. Perhaps someone with a stronger background in history could share their thoughts.
GratefulCitizen
12-20-2009, 15:35
I am curious, though - what is the difference between abundance mentality and cornucopianism?
Cornucopianism is a belief in a kind of a supply-side/technology solution to all of man's material needs.
Abundance mentality is a term coined by Stephen Covey some 20 years ago.
It's kind of the antithesis of zero-sum thinking.
It's basically the idea that groups (capable of self-reliance and independence) who voluntarily cooperate will ultimately yield better results, individually and collectively, than independent groups which are in direct competition.
********************
********************
To expand further on how this may apply to nations:
Country "A" has a set of trades/exchanges (commercial, diplomatic, military, etc.) with country "B".
Country "A" is getting some benefit (relative to what they are accustomed), but country "B" is getting tremendous benefit (relative to what they are accustomed).
The exchange is not so overbalanced, however, to make "B" truly dependent on "A".
This would undermine trust, because "A" would have the power to threaten/bully "B".
It's a win/win relationship, but "B" is definitely getting more out of the deal than "A".
Enter country "C".
Country "C" makes sure that they don't get "taken" on any deal.
Their set of trades/exchanges are extremely "fair".
Between country "B" and "C" exist a "fair" deal, nobody is getting more out of the deal.
Events:
-Country "B" comes into some good fortune.
-When "B" considers their self-interest, with whom do they pursue a deal?
-Who benefits, "A" or "C"?
-Country "A" and "C" get in some sort of conflict.
-When "B" considers their self-interest, with whom do they side?
-Who benefits, "A" or "C"?
Zero-sum sometimes works when there are only two players.
There are over 6 billion players right now.
Zero-sum sometimes works when there are only two players.
There are over 6 billion players right now.
Interesting explanation. Thank you.
It occurs to me to wonder what happens in a shrinking global economy.
For quite a long time, we have enjoyed a growth paradigm. A zero-sum game supposes pure trading, such as occurs in futures trading. If A wins, B loses. In contrast, a growth environment such as the stock market permits many players to win - and a win by A need not imply a loss by B.
However - prolonged negative growth remains the theory of certain scruffy fringe elements. ;)
GratefulCitizen
12-20-2009, 16:05
Interesting explanation. Thank you.
It occurs to me to wonder what happens in a shrinking global economy.
I suspect it would be good to be country "A".
If country "B" possesses something very critical in a shrinking global economy, with whom would they want to deal?
<edit>
Hmmm...who are the major exporters of potash in the world?
What country has the greatest export of potash per capita?
What are the expectations for future potash production capacity by country?
Who are the major importers of potash in the world?
What are all of the political relationships among these countries?
As the world population (and demand for food) increases, I suspect these questions will increase in importance.
I suspect it would be good to be country "A".
If country "B" possesses something very critical in a shrinking global economy, with whom would they want to deal?
<edit>
Hmmm...who are the major exporters of potash in the world?
What country has the greatest export of potash per capita?
What are the expectations for future potash production capacity by country?
Who are the major importers of potash in the world?
What are all of the political relationships among these countries?
As the world population (and demand for food) increases, I suspect these questions will increase in importance.
Fascinating. Here's a link to a list of countries, along with reserves: LINK (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/potash/potasmcs06.pdf)
POT (Potash company) is wild and interesting. LINK to chart (http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=POT&p=W&b=5&g=0&id=p43973191447&a=186389039)
Thank you, Grateful!
GratefulCitizen
12-20-2009, 18:16
Are we headed for peak potash?
http://minerals.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/potash.pdf
Is there an OPEC equivalent for potash?
http://www.corporateknights.ca/magazine-issues/79-2009-responsible-investing-issue/335-potash-politics.html
A good stage magician will draw attention to one hand, while acting with the other.
:munchin
<edit>
From 30 years ago:
http://econgeol.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/2/353
Other commentary:
http://southeastfarmpress.com/grains/potash-fertilizer-0121/
Who controls the most potash in the middle east?
Some things may be more worth fighting over than oil.
Everyone's gotta eat.
Who controls the most potash in the middle east?
Some things may be more worth fighting over than oil.
Everyone's gotta eat.
True...but please consider a few questions.
How does one get that potash? Process and transport it? Distribute it over the fields? Big machines, right? Petroleum powered big machines - yes?
So an oil crunch could contribute to (or create) a potash crunch - which would, in turn, lead to shortfalls. And with the low level of grain stocks, that means trouble.
So although that's some good (and appreciated!) information about potash, I still contend that oil is the weak link in the chain. YMMV.
GratefulCitizen
12-21-2009, 13:39
I still contend that oil is the weak link in the chain. YMMV.
I contend that humans are the weak link in the chain.
Specifically, our propensity for pride, greed, gluttony, sloth, envy, lust, and wrath.
I know of only one cure.
Specifically, our propensity for pride, greed, gluttony, sloth, envy, lust, and wrath.
I know of only one cure.
Just put them in the documentation and label them as features. It works for Micro$oft. :D
I contend that humans are the weak link in the chain.
Specifically, our propensity for pride, greed, gluttony, sloth, envy, lust, and wrath.
I know of only one cure.
Yeah...well, if GOD wasn't such a 'dead beat' Dad...:rolleyes:
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
GratefulCitizen
12-21-2009, 21:25
Yeah...well, if GOD wasn't such a 'dead beat' Dad...:rolleyes:
Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin
(For the dispensation-minded)
1. Perhaps if He gave us a perfect environment.
2. Perhaps if He gave us a conscience to guide between good and evil.
3. Perhaps if He gave us a charge over governing the affairs of men.
4. Perhaps if He gave us a simple go/no-go test to receive blessing.
5. Perhaps if He gave us a simple set of rules by which to live.
6. Perhaps if He gave us a free pass and direct internal guidance.
7. Perhaps He will come down here and conduct perfect rule Himself.
Humanity failed on the first 6.
Willing to bet humanity will fail on the 7th.
Only one cure.
***************************
***************************
My original comment was a hat tip to Nmap's doomerism.
I believe that some people will promote artificial scarcity as a means to control others.
IMO, based on the numbers, peak oil and other similar concerns do not appear to be geologically imminent.
That being said, I do not feel Nmap's concerns are unwarranted because oil production problems (and other similar issues) can manifest in many ways and do carry dire consequences.
I have taken the counter position to Nmap's doomer arguments in a search for truth.
(Aww...who am I kidding...I like to argue :D)
By all means, Malthusian catastrophes can and will happen.
Just think that humans will attempt to exploit fear and economic advantage to the detriment of others long before the Earth fails to yield her riches.
Based on the view that people, rather than resources, are the weak link;
a treatment (not cure) for the various Malthusian challenges should be focused on people.
That is the root of my thinking.
Artificial scarcity in action:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/cheap_natural_gas_and_its_enem.html
GratefulCitizen
09-14-2010, 22:18
Fascinating. Here's a link to a list of countries, along with reserves: LINK (http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/potash/potasmcs06.pdf)
POT (Potash company) is wild and interesting. LINK to chart (http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=POT&p=W&b=5&g=0&id=p43973191447&a=186389039)
Thank you, Grateful!
Hey Nmap!
Why would China be so concerned about potash?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/09/14/china-concerned-bhps-bid-potash-corp/
Maybe they're concerned about feeding a large population in a shrinking global economy.
This looks like fertile ground for a doomer. :D
Some interesting stats on the global potash market.
http://www.potash1.ca/s/Fundamentals.asp
Richard :munchin