Over-Population Mythology

I define it as sloth on the part of the public sector regarding providing for the general welfare of the populace.
Well that is a bit of a political slant. I was looking at defining overpopulation more in terms of human caused depletions such as minerals, energy, arable land, fresh ground water, etc. It can be argued that there is plenty but we are wasting resources. On the other hand, that is human nature - to seek short term gain at the expense of long term sustainability. That is an important factor in the consideration of overpopulation.
 
The posts in the thread proved that there is no overpopulation...and, in fact, won't be.
There is a lot of argument on overpopulation. If it has been defined, I haven't seen it. There would really have to be a clear definition that all sides agree on before any argument makes sense. Can you refresh my memory on how you define overpopulation?
I define it as sloth on the part of the public sector regarding providing for the general welfare of the populace.


Margaret Thatcher:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."



Learn from it.
 
I define it as sloth on the part of the public sector regarding providing for the general welfare of the populace.
Well that is a bit of a political slant. I was looking at defining overpopulation more in terms of human caused depletions such as minerals, energy, arable land, fresh ground water, etc. It can be argued that there is plenty but we are wasting resources. On the other hand, that is human nature - to seek short term gain at the expense of long term sustainability. That is an important factor in the consideration of overpopulation.
There is no overpopulation with adequate infrastructure.
 
The posts in the thread proved that there is no overpopulation...and, in fact, won't be.
There is a lot of argument on overpopulation. If it has been defined, I haven't seen it. There would really have to be a clear definition that all sides agree on before any argument makes sense. Can you refresh my memory on how you define overpopulation?
I define it as sloth on the part of the public sector regarding providing for the general welfare of the populace.


Margaret Thatcher:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."



Learn from it.
I have. Capitalists make money with other peoples money--unlike the Right.
 
I define it as sloth on the part of the public sector regarding providing for the general welfare of the populace.
Well that is a bit of a political slant. I was looking at defining overpopulation more in terms of human caused depletions such as minerals, energy, arable land, fresh ground water, etc. It can be argued that there is plenty but we are wasting resources. On the other hand, that is human nature - to seek short term gain at the expense of long term sustainability. That is an important factor in the consideration of overpopulation.
On the other hand, that is human nature - to seek short term gain at the expense of long term sustainability.
"Human nature" under capitalism :)
 
The posts in the thread proved that there is no overpopulation...and, in fact, won't be.
There is a lot of argument on overpopulation. If it has been defined, I haven't seen it. There would really have to be a clear definition that all sides agree on before any argument makes sense. Can you refresh my memory on how you define overpopulation?
I define it as sloth on the part of the public sector regarding providing for the general welfare of the populace.


Margaret Thatcher:
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."



Learn from it.
You capitalists are profoundly deluded. Your economic system is bad for these reasons:

  • A land baron deserves all of his great wealth because of the great risk involved in his job. He has to manage an entire region full of serfs and direct the entire economic process. If he fails, there would be total disarray, but since he has not then this system is clearly justified. In exchange the serfs keep some of the food they produce and a hovel. Everybody gains!

  • Feudalism is a part of human nature. Like a child needs a parent, humans need a baron to control the land while the serfs work the land. It represents an orderly and stable system based upon our real human nature. If we gave this land away to capitalists then serfs would have to wander and find employment and their own new parent. There would be no incentive to work from all this chaos in economic society.

  • Capitalism and liberal democracy sound nice in theory but can only fail in practice. Have you not heard of the Reign of Terror? Every time capitalism is put into practice it ends up either failing or surviving but producing misery and death.

  • Feudalism has produced wonders for society and should be celebrated rather than attacked. All your pitchforks, swords, daggers, armor, and horses you own - that was created by the wonder of feudalism. A serf is better off now than they ever were in history through the growing standard of living feudalism provides.

  • Instead of ending feudalism, it would be smarter to reform and better it. We should concentrate on increasing the amount of grain a serf is allowed to keep while still respecting the hard work, wisdom, and intelligence a baron possesses that entitles them to their riches.
I urge you to reconsider your position. It is just a phase in your youth and you'll see how quickly you'll abandon it.

Long live the King!
 
On the other hand, that is human nature - to seek short term gain at the expense of long term sustainability.
"Human nature" under capitalism :)
Well it's certainly true in the US of corporations concerned with their current stock price(remember Enron), the government that runs up trillions in debt, and people who overrun their credit cards.
 

Forum List

Back
Top