Would greatly appreciate that if you want to cite me, do not pick a single sentence only! I find it very hard to see the relevance of this (Great!) statement of George Orwell.
I wasn't citing you, I was citing Tallest Skil. Look more carefully.
The main problem the human specie faces today is overpopulation. A perfect storm for war, poverty, famine and ecological disaster. Just mix in three parts religion and stir. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Excess CO2 is probably not what is going to kill us first. It will probably be a rogue nation with a nuke.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Regarding climate change, you might find this movie rather surprising. It critical of the global warming science. I'm as far from being a right winger as one can get but the movie does raise some interesting points. It is a an hour long video.</span>
While it varies from country to country one of the most pressing problems in the Western world is in fact a low birth rate. The situation is actually quite critical with most countries headed towards extinction at an exponential rate. Of course you could try to counter that by massive increases in immigration but there aren't enough immigrants to go around and in any case the immigrants then typically adopt the ways of the country after a generation or two.
Even China has a serious problem. Apart from a low birth rate they have a shortage of females.
The U.S. has only recently fallen prey to this misguided " small is beautiful" approach. Even at a birth rate of 2 you head towards certain extinction.
Instead of paying middle managers hefty bonuses the countries should be paying women a lot ( and I don't mean $100k) for each child. The situation is critical and as the age distribution shifts to the right social and medical institutions will simply collapse.
Funnily enough, that’s exactly what has been happening to the temperature data. “The Earth is warming. The Earth has always been warming.” Except in the ‘70s when science was still in charge and we knew we were heading for a cool spell.
You're going from strength to strength in your posts.....
While it varies from country to country one of the most pressing problems in the Western world is in fact a low birth rate. The situation is actually quite critical with most countries headed towards extinction at an exponential rate. Of course you could try to counter that by massive increases in immigration but there aren't enough immigrants to go around and in any case the immigrants then typically adopt the ways of the country after a generation or two.
Even China has a serious problem. Apart from a low birth rate they have a shortage of females.
The U.S. has only recently fallen prey to this misguided " small is beautiful" approach. Even at a birth rate of 2 you head towards certain extinction.
Instead of paying middle managers hefty bonuses the countries should be paying women a lot ( and I don't mean $100k) for each child. The situation is critical and as the age distribution shifts to the right social and medical institutions will simply collapse.
Birthrate is going down in all countries (more or less) and appears to stabilize around 2 (+/_). This will according to demographers result in a stable population on earth of around 11 billion, which hardly means extinction and which I believe the earth can fairly easily support. Eventually the age distribution will level out, but before that I doubt this will pose the level of problem you present, and I doubt paying females can make a difference.
Birthrate is going down in all countries (more or less) and appears to stabilize around 2 (+/_). This will according to demographers result in a stable population on earth of around 11 billion, which hardly means extinction and which I believe the earth can fairly easily support. Eventually the age distribution will level out, but before that I doubt this will pose the level of problem you present, and I doubt paying females can make a difference.
The +/- part is important. At 2 you do not obtain a stable population. You get extinction ( this is basic branching theory and admittedly is a simple model but is surprisingly robust). The birth rates in most western countries iare closer to 1.6 which is very serious. Europe for example has a serious aging problem. There simply are no children relatively speaking. It's difficult to talk about the whole world when discussing population predictions. I am not up on the 11 billion figure but having no people in North America (- Mexico), none in Europe, none in Russia, etc... is not exactly reassuring. Of course those countries would be flooded by migration from the parts of the world that still have birth rates of over 2.5 say.
The age distribution will not level out in the countries I was talking about. They will keep shifting to the right with increasing taxation of younger people resulting in very dissatisfied workers.
I don't know if paying females enough would work. There are few examples of populations that have been able to turn around falling birth rates. Certainly a small sum doesn't work. That has been tried in many locations and has never worked. But if one considers that having and raising children to be as important as say a middle manager in a company I would hope that $100k/year might at least be attempted. That might be enough. If not then keep raising the amount. At some point it should work.
Unfortunately, these types of stochastic models used in population predictions are fairly simplistic. They are still pretty mathematical and not really in the toolkits of everyone predicting the future. The extinction predictions, if one accepts the models, are well known results. The situation is far more serious than many realize.
Where do all these weirdo "deniers" come from ready to flame on? Pumping billions and billions of tons of C02 greenhouse gases into the atmosphere doesn't cause climate change? Really? Does it just drift away into space? The arguments from these clowns seemed to go
- It's not getting hotter - Ok , it's getting hotter, but this is a natural cycle. - Ok, it's getting hotter, it's not a natural cycle, but man is not causing it's caused by( insert volnanoes, sun-spots, Kim Kardasian, etc) - Ok, it's getting hotter, it's caused by man, but , hey, it won't be that bad - Oh sh**t, my house is under water, why doesn't the government do something about it!
The science is so clear and unequivocal about this - the only arguments left are how many feet the oceans will rise and how fast..
While it varies from country to country one of the most pressing problems in the Western world is in fact a low birth rate. The situation is actually quite critical with most countries headed towards extinction at an exponential rate. Of course you could try to counter that by massive increases in immigration but there aren't enough immigrants to go around and in any case the immigrants then typically adopt the ways of the country after a generation or two.
Even China has a serious problem. Apart from a low birth rate they have a shortage of females.
The U.S. has only recently fallen prey to this misguided " small is beautiful" approach. Even at a birth rate of 2 you head towards certain extinction.
Instead of paying middle managers hefty bonuses the countries should be paying women a lot ( and I don't mean $100k) for each child. The situation is critical and as the age distribution shifts to the right social and medical institutions will simply collapse.
Wonderful. We can't feed our current population so let's add more.
I don't think he meant that we can't feed the U.S. population.
Well, we’re specifically discussing the west and its falling birthrates. It makes sense to discuss western production.
I hope he realizes that Africa’s birthrates are so high only because we give them food aid (which is a waste of our money and the perpetuation of their poverty). If he really believes that overpopulation exists, he should be screaming for the end of all food aid. But that would force him to acknowledge that we CAN actually feed everyone.
End food aid, save our money and food, save THEM from poverty.
Well, we’re specifically discussing the west and its falling birthrates. It makes sense to discuss western production.
I hope he realizes that Africa’s birthrates are so high only because we give them food aid (which is a waste of our money and the perpetuation of their poverty). If he really believes that overpopulation exists, he should be screaming for the end of all food aid. But that would force him to acknowledge that we CAN actually feed everyone.
End food aid, save our money and food, save THEM from poverty.
Literally no downside.
True enough. Misguided incentives create bad outcomes. Just like endless bailouts in the US and loose monetary policies have resulted in malinvestment and a massive new stock market bubble that has been building (most money in the US is apparently concentrated in just 6 main stocks).
Comments
I wasn't citing you, I was citing Tallest Skil. Look more carefully.
While it varies from country to country one of the most pressing problems in the Western world is in fact a low birth rate. The situation is actually quite critical with most countries headed towards extinction at an exponential rate. Of course you could try to counter that by massive increases in immigration but there aren't enough immigrants to go around and in any case the immigrants then typically adopt the ways of the country after a generation or two.
Even China has a serious problem. Apart from a low birth rate they have a shortage of females.
The U.S. has only recently fallen prey to this misguided " small is beautiful" approach. Even at a birth rate of 2 you head towards certain extinction.
Instead of paying middle managers hefty bonuses the countries should be paying women a lot ( and I don't mean $100k) for each child. The situation is critical and as the age distribution shifts to the right social and medical institutions will simply collapse.
I had already figured that you would not accept the offer. But I though I'd be polite.
Why bother with cognitive dissonance in life....
You're going from strength to strength in your posts.....
While it varies from country to country one of the most pressing problems in the Western world is in fact a low birth rate. The situation is actually quite critical with most countries headed towards extinction at an exponential rate. Of course you could try to counter that by massive increases in immigration but there aren't enough immigrants to go around and in any case the immigrants then typically adopt the ways of the country after a generation or two.
Even China has a serious problem. Apart from a low birth rate they have a shortage of females.
The U.S. has only recently fallen prey to this misguided " small is beautiful" approach. Even at a birth rate of 2 you head towards certain extinction.
Instead of paying middle managers hefty bonuses the countries should be paying women a lot ( and I don't mean $100k) for each child. The situation is critical and as the age distribution shifts to the right social and medical institutions will simply collapse.
Birthrate is going down in all countries (more or less) and appears to stabilize around 2 (+/_). This will according to demographers result in a stable population on earth of around 11 billion, which hardly means extinction and which I believe the earth can fairly easily support. Eventually the age distribution will level out, but before that I doubt this will pose the level of problem you present, and I doubt paying females can make a difference.
I wonder what the average carbon footprint of politicians is compared to regular citizens.
This thread got off to a predictable start...
Thanks Obama!
The +/- part is important. At 2 you do not obtain a stable population. You get extinction ( this is basic branching theory and admittedly is a simple model but is surprisingly robust). The birth rates in most western countries iare closer to 1.6 which is very serious. Europe for example has a serious aging problem. There simply are no children relatively speaking. It's difficult to talk about the whole world when discussing population predictions. I am not up on the 11 billion figure but having no people in North America (- Mexico), none in Europe, none in Russia, etc... is not exactly reassuring. Of course those countries would be flooded by migration from the parts of the world that still have birth rates of over 2.5 say.
The age distribution will not level out in the countries I was talking about. They will keep shifting to the right with increasing taxation of younger people resulting in very dissatisfied workers.
I don't know if paying females enough would work. There are few examples of populations that have been able to turn around falling birth rates. Certainly a small sum doesn't work. That has been tried in many locations and has never worked. But if one considers that having and raising children to be as important as say a middle manager in a company I would hope that $100k/year might at least be attempted. That might be enough. If not then keep raising the amount. At some point it should work.
Unfortunately, these types of stochastic models used in population predictions are fairly simplistic. They are still pretty mathematical and not really in the toolkits of everyone predicting the future. The extinction predictions, if one accepts the models, are well known results. The situation is far more serious than many realize.
The arguments from these clowns seemed to go
- It's not getting hotter
- Ok , it's getting hotter, but this is a natural cycle.
- Ok, it's getting hotter, it's not a natural cycle, but man is not causing it's caused by( insert volnanoes, sun-spots, Kim Kardasian, etc)
- Ok, it's getting hotter, it's caused by man, but , hey, it won't be that bad
- Oh sh**t, my house is under water, why doesn't the government do something about it!
The science is so clear and unequivocal about this - the only arguments left are how many feet the oceans will rise and how fast..
No, it's the picture talking.
Here's one for Hillary:
I’d post the picture of Al Gore in his office with three 30” Cinema Displays and completely surrounded by stacks of paper, but I don’t have it.
EDIT: And now I do.
Not sure where you’re getting that. Plenty of lefties here.
Wonderful. We can't feed our current population so let's add more.
Of course we can. We throw 40% of our food away.
Samsung are a super-conservative company and would love your money.
I don't think he meant that we can't feed the U.S. population.
I don't think customers should be forced into boxes. Everyone's money has the same ideology when it comes to Apple profits.
Funny how the anti gay posters from a month ago are the climate deniers now. So predictable. Must get all their talking points from Fox News.
Well, we’re specifically discussing the west and its falling birthrates. It makes sense to discuss western production.
I hope he realizes that Africa’s birthrates are so high only because we give them food aid (which is a waste of our money and the perpetuation of their poverty). If he really believes that overpopulation exists, he should be screaming for the end of all food aid. But that would force him to acknowledge that we CAN actually feed everyone.
End food aid, save our money and food, save THEM from poverty.
Literally no downside.
Well, we’re specifically discussing the west and its falling birthrates. It makes sense to discuss western production.
I hope he realizes that Africa’s birthrates are so high only because we give them food aid (which is a waste of our money and the perpetuation of their poverty). If he really believes that overpopulation exists, he should be screaming for the end of all food aid. But that would force him to acknowledge that we CAN actually feed everyone.
End food aid, save our money and food, save THEM from poverty.
Literally no downside.
True enough. Misguided incentives create bad outcomes. Just like endless bailouts in the US and loose monetary policies have resulted in malinvestment and a massive new stock market bubble that has been building (most money in the US is apparently concentrated in just 6 main stocks).