Do the Malthusian Eugenicists ever Quit?

That signal will be when people start bulldozing subdivisions in the San Fernando Valley and replant orange groves.

@ a rate of 500 foreclosures per month, with almost a thousand monthly notices of default...well...
Gimmie a call when the land becomes more valuable for agriculture than housing again.


That would require the Feds to quit holding CA's water hostage.
 
Fact: Earth con support a finite population

Fact: Globally, that number has theoretically not been reached if we abolish capitalism and ensure proper distribution of food and potable water

Fact: In certain regions, the population simply cannot be sustained without bringing the necessities of life from outside- much of Africa, for instance

I wonder whether the OP supports (A)socialism or (B) the starvation of the world's poor

Africa used to be able to feed itself.
 
But getting back on track here....

"It is a simple fact of basic physics that the earth's resources are limited and serve as a constraint on population growth. Denying as much is denying the most basic principles of science."

In other words, people require stock-flow resources to survive. Those resources are limited. While we can get more and more efficient at using them, the fact remains that adding people adds to the need for this flow of resources, and at some point our population exceeds the ability of those resources to replenish or be replaced. That is, again, just simple physics. The only question is whether we will have any price-signal to indicate we are beyond that rate.
The vague "finite resources" straw dog was used by both Mathus and Ehrlich, who both failed to take into account that technology doesn't stand still and that technologically advanced societies trend toward zero population growth, as a matter of course.

There is nothing vague about "finite resource". No amount of technology can overcome the fact that outputs require inputs - and adding people requires adding inputs. "Trending towards zero population growth" for advanced economies doesn't do us any good if there are not enough resources to support a world where all people are part of advanced economies.
 
But getting back on track here....

"It is a simple fact of basic physics that the earth's resources are limited and serve as a constraint on population growth. Denying as much is denying the most basic principles of science."

In other words, people require stock-flow resources to survive. Those resources are limited. While we can get more and more efficient at using them, the fact remains that adding people adds to the need for this flow of resources, and at some point our population exceeds the ability of those resources to replenish or be replaced. That is, again, just simple physics. The only question is whether we will have any price-signal to indicate we are beyond that rate.
The vague "finite resources" straw dog was used by both Mathus and Ehrlich, who both failed to take into account that technology doesn't stand still and that technologically advanced societies trend toward zero population growth, as a matter of course.

There is nothing vague about "finite resource". No amount of technology can overcome the fact that outputs require inputs - and adding people requires adding inputs. "Trending towards zero population growth" for advanced economies doesn't do us any good if there are not enough resources to support a world where all people are part of advanced economies.
If you cannot quantify the finiteness of the resource, then all you have is a nebulous strawman.

Insofar as resources such as food and timber are concerned, they are, for all practical purposes, infinite.
 
The vague "finite resources" straw dog was used by both Mathus and Ehrlich, who both failed to take into account that technology doesn't stand still and that technologically advanced societies trend toward zero population growth, as a matter of course.

There is nothing vague about "finite resource". No amount of technology can overcome the fact that outputs require inputs - and adding people requires adding inputs. "Trending towards zero population growth" for advanced economies doesn't do us any good if there are not enough resources to support a world where all people are part of advanced economies.
If you cannot quantify the finiteness of the resource, then all you have is a nebulous strawman.

Which resource would you like quantified? People get paid good money to quantify that kind of information.

Insofar as resources such as food and timber are concerned, they are, for all practical purposes, infinite.

Food and timber are, to varying degrees, renewable. Insomuch as the resources required to produce timber and food are NOT infinite, it stands to reason that the amount of timber and food available is indeed limited - constrained by the finite resources required to produce them.
 
There is nothing vague about "finite resource". No amount of technology can overcome the fact that outputs require inputs - and adding people requires adding inputs. "Trending towards zero population growth" for advanced economies doesn't do us any good if there are not enough resources to support a world where all people are part of advanced economies.
If you cannot quantify the finiteness of the resource, then all you have is a nebulous strawman.

Which resource would you like quantified? People get paid good money to quantify that kind of information.

Insofar as resources such as food and timber are concerned, they are, for all practical purposes, infinite.

Food and timber are, to varying degrees, renewable. Insomuch as the resources required to produce timber and food are NOT infinite, it stands to reason that the amount of timber and food available is indeed limited - constrained by the finite resources required to produce them.
Did you miss the "for all practical purposes" part?

Like I said, I'll start worrying when land currently used for housing becomes more valuable for agriculture.
 
Detroit is already leveling houses and creating agricultural plots within city limits.

That's what happens when a population shrinks. In the Central Valley, there are areas with tract homes that are virtually empty. These homes are being vandalized, with the property values of the remaining residents being utterly destroyed. The land would be put to better use for agriculture, but that would require water, which the Feds are holding hostage.
 
Fact: Earth con support a finite population

Fact: Globally, that number has theoretically not been reached if we abolish capitalism and ensure proper distribution of food and potable water

Fact: In certain regions, the population simply cannot be sustained without bringing the necessities of life from outside- much of Africa, for instance

I wonder whether the OP supports (A)socialism or (B) the starvation of the world's poor

Africa used to be able to feed itself.
Mother nature's maternal instincts suck

Something about years of drought being a bad thing and food being a finite resource and a necessity of life? :dunno:
 
The vague "finite resources" straw dog was used by both Mathus and Ehrlich, who both failed to take into account that technology doesn't stand still and that technologically advanced societies trend toward zero population growth, as a matter of course.

There is nothing vague about "finite resource". No amount of technology can overcome the fact that outputs require inputs - and adding people requires adding inputs. "Trending towards zero population growth" for advanced economies doesn't do us any good if there are not enough resources to support a world where all people are part of advanced economies.
If you cannot quantify the finiteness of the resource, then all you have is a nebulous strawman.

Insofar as resources such as food and timber are concerned, they are, for all practical purposes, infinite.
If that were true, they'd cost nothing
 
Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ...How many times can the same lamestream media doom-and-gloomery be written and re-written and re-re-re-re-re-written?
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A growing, more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources could make for an "unrecognizable" world by 2050, researchers warned at a major US science conference Sunday.

<snip>

The swelling population will exacerbate problems, such as resource depletion, said John Casterline, director of the Initiative in Population Research at Ohio State University.

But incomes are also expected to rise over the next 40 years -- tripling globally and quintupling in developing nations -- and add more strain to global food supplies.



Looks like these ivory tower dwelling self-anointed wizards of smart failed to notice, or outright ignored, the established fact that the more technologically advanced the culture is, the more it trends toward zero population growth.

How in hell can these "experts" be taken seriously anymore?

What are you bitching about? The article was essentially spot on. The underdeveloped world invests almost all of it's surplus into it's children, meaning population explosion.

Meanwhile resources are increasingly scarce and even rednecks from red states can no longer be trusted with money because they will spend it to waste petro resources at world record speed.

Which is why from a geopolitical perspective everybody from Rumsfeld and Bush to Obama and Gore realizes that the American middle class is unsustainable and must be impoverished asap. For the good of the human species.

Don't bother to offer some lame contradiction, every world leader on Earth gets it, even if you don't, Hillbilly skunk fucker.
 
Fact: Earth con support a finite population

Fact: Globally, that number has theoretically not been reached if we abolish capitalism and ensure proper distribution of food and potable water

Fact: In certain regions, the population simply cannot be sustained without bringing the necessities of life from outside- much of Africa, for instance

I wonder whether the OP supports (A)socialism or (B) the starvation of the world's poor
Oddball said:
Hi, you have received -352 reputation points from Oddball.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
fucking scum

Regards,
Oddball

Note: This is an automated message.


Yes, scum... because pointing out that Earth has finite resources is evil... or is it because I said Earth can feed everyone alive today?

Or is it just your Beckian programming reacting to the idea of helping toe world's poor?
Actually the worst thing ever to come into existence is the monetary system, before then the bartering system, and before then the kill/steal from each other for goods system which still exists today.

PS: But it all lives under the 'profit motive' that's true, it was the reason all attempts at true socialism and communism failed as well (then again it wasn't the people's fault that the leaders of revolution rapidly became egoistical and corrupt demagogues with a flair for violence and mass murder). Capitalism failed, but so has every other system due to human nature. :tinfoil:
 
Last edited:
I've seen some technology shows and presentations where they said in 50 years, we'd be building and farming up and down a lot more than out.

They showed a "Food Skyscraper". It was basically a big skyscraper, but with very big, very open balconeys on each floor. These floors were used as growing grounds for food. Soil was layed down on each floor, they had access to sunlight and rain. Food grew. The total acreage of the combined balconies was equal to a large farm, but only took up on square block of space, as a normal skyscraper would. They said they could build 10-20 of these and feed a city. It was absolutely brilliant. They then went into describing what humans would do in decades from now for space in cities. They said many things, such as massive movie theaters or shopping malls, could be rebuilt underground, with soil and farming being replaced above ground. They said this could be done fairly easily as technology advances even more (THANK YOU Capitalism and a drive for profits!!).


So, I don't buy the theory that we are running out of room and resources.

I do buy the FACT that the left wing has embraced the idea of killing off "unwanted people" through eugenics. It's easy to buy that, because it's so well documented and easily proven.
 

Forum List

Back
Top