Greatest thread to human civilization : capitalist greed - Stephen Hawkin

[Soggy in NOLA]

Doesn't the Bible teach that money is the root of all evil?

No.

Then why does it say so?

It doesn't.. the quote is actually "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs." (English Standard Version) Timothy6:10.

 

[bedowin62]

why dont you left-wingnutjobs just give more of what you have??

 

[The Rabbi]

“If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.” Hawking continued, “Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."

We have been warned.

Stephen Hawking Warns About The Greatest Threat To Humanity | Zero Hedge

So we've been warned about the greatest "thread"? Ok, thanks.

What a bunch of liberal drivel. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and has created more prosperity and societal growth than any other system in human history.

China is a good example of a country that used to follow all the economic policies that our liberals advocate but that has ditched them and become far wealthier as a result.

Context man, context . Take into account the context.
Was overpopulation a threat to mankind 100 years ago ? No.
Is overpopulation a threat to mankid today.Yes, it is.
Conversely , full automation and capitalism combined pose a threat to humanity.

LOL! No, it isnt. And btw Malthus predicted overpopulation would be a threat, yeah over 100 years ago. He was wrong then and that view is wrong now In fact the opposite is the problem.

He was actually right. Easter Island and the Mayan civilization collapsed due to overpopulation .
A given territory can only sustain about 1,400 people per square kilometre, so an actuall worldwide collapse can only happen if such threshold is reached. In the mean time we can expect local collapses if countries surpass such limit.

No he wasnt, as history shows. A localized collapse (and there can be different reasons such as weather change) does not prove Mathus' theory. You could even argue the Mayans collapsed because they introduced socialism and people stopped working.
Many places have population density well over 1400/sq meter. They seem to be doing fine.

 

[CultureCitizen]

why dont you left-wingnutjobs just give more of what you have??

I do ... now get some free (gratis) economic education courtesy of me and some other 3,500 donnors :

 

[CultureCitizen]

“If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.” Hawking continued, “Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."

We have been warned.

Stephen Hawking Warns About The Greatest Threat To Humanity | Zero Hedge

So we've been warned about the greatest "thread"? Ok, thanks.

What a bunch of liberal drivel. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and has created more prosperity and societal growth than any other system in human history.

China is a good example of a country that used to follow all the economic policies that our liberals advocate but that has ditched them and become far wealthier as a result.

Context man, context . Take into account the context.
Was overpopulation a threat to mankind 100 years ago ? No.
Is overpopulation a threat to mankid today.Yes, it is.
Conversely , full automation and capitalism combined pose a threat to humanity.

LOL! No, it isnt. And btw Malthus predicted overpopulation would be a threat, yeah over 100 years ago. He was wrong then and that view is wrong now In fact the opposite is the problem.

He was actually right. Easter Island and the Mayan civilization collapsed due to overpopulation .
A given territory can only sustain about 1,400 people per square kilometre, so an actuall worldwide collapse can only happen if such threshold is reached. In the mean time we can expect local collapses if countries surpass such limit.

No he wasnt, as history shows. A localized collapse (and there can be different reasons such as weather change) does not prove Mathus' theory. You could even argue the Mayans collapsed because they introduced socialism and people stopped working.
Many places have population density well over 1400/sq meter. They seem to be doing fine.

Easter Island collapsed due to a lack of environmental policy : they cut down all the trees. No trees, no timber , no fishing boats, followed by deaths until they reached a sustainable level.

Mayans were not socialists. They collapsed because they overpopulated the zone, and then a drought hit them.
A similar situation is happening in California, luckily the US is centuries more advanced than the mayans, so I am confident the outcome will be different.

 

[The Great Goose]

CultureCitizen has won the debate!

 

[CultureCitizen]

CultureCitizen has won the debate!

You can never win against a conservative ... ah , but anyway , thanks.

 

[The Rabbi]

So we've been warned about the greatest "thread"? Ok, thanks.

What a bunch of liberal drivel. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and has created more prosperity and societal growth than any other system in human history.

China is a good example of a country that used to follow all the economic policies that our liberals advocate but that has ditched them and become far wealthier as a result.

Context man, context . Take into account the context.
Was overpopulation a threat to mankind 100 years ago ? No.
Is overpopulation a threat to mankid today.Yes, it is.
Conversely , full automation and capitalism combined pose a threat to humanity.

LOL! No, it isnt. And btw Malthus predicted overpopulation would be a threat, yeah over 100 years ago. He was wrong then and that view is wrong now In fact the opposite is the problem.

He was actually right. Easter Island and the Mayan civilization collapsed due to overpopulation .
A given territory can only sustain about 1,400 people per square kilometre, so an actuall worldwide collapse can only happen if such threshold is reached. In the mean time we can expect local collapses if countries surpass such limit.

No he wasnt, as history shows. A localized collapse (and there can be different reasons such as weather change) does not prove Mathus' theory. You could even argue the Mayans collapsed because they introduced socialism and people stopped working.
Many places have population density well over 1400/sq meter. They seem to be doing fine.

Easter Island collapsed due to a lack of environmental policy : they cut down all the trees. No trees, no timber , no fishing boats, followed by deaths until they reached a sustainable level.

Mayans were not socialists. They collapsed because they overpopulated the zone, and then a drought hit them.
A similar situation is happening in California, luckily the US is centuries more advanced than the mayans, so I am confident the outcome will be different.

So actualluy none of them collapsed due to overpopulation. Another liberal claim refuted.
California has a drought because policiticans fucked up. Socialism kills.

 

[bedowin62]

why dont you left-wingnutjobs just give more of what you have??

I do ... now get some free (gratis) economic education courtesy of me and some other 3,500 donnors :

great now get 3,500 other moronic, sanctimonious left-wing losers who rant about fairness to do the same ok??

 

[IsaacNewton]

So we've been warned about the greatest "thread"? Ok, thanks.

What a bunch of liberal drivel. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty and has created more prosperity and societal growth than any other system in human history.

China is a good example of a country that used to follow all the economic policies that our liberals advocate but that has ditched them and become far wealthier as a result.

Context man, context . Take into account the context.
Was overpopulation a threat to mankind 100 years ago ? No.
Is overpopulation a threat to mankid today.Yes, it is.
Conversely , full automation and capitalism combined pose a threat to humanity.

LOL! No, it isnt. And btw Malthus predicted overpopulation would be a threat, yeah over 100 years ago. He was wrong then and that view is wrong now In fact the opposite is the problem.

He was actually right. Easter Island and the Mayan civilization collapsed due to overpopulation .
A given territory can only sustain about 1,400 people per square kilometre, so an actuall worldwide collapse can only happen if such threshold is reached. In the mean time we can expect local collapses if countries surpass such limit.

No he wasnt, as history shows. A localized collapse (and there can be different reasons such as weather change) does not prove Mathus' theory. You could even argue the Mayans collapsed because they introduced socialism and people stopped working.
Many places have population density well over 1400/sq meter. They seem to be doing fine.

Easter Island collapsed due to a lack of environmental policy : they cut down all the trees. No trees, no timber , no fishing boats, followed by deaths until they reached a sustainable level.

Mayans were not socialists. They collapsed because they overpopulated the zone, and then a drought hit them.
A similar situation is happening in California, luckily the US is centuries more advanced than the mayans, so I am confident the outcome will be different.

You are talking about Carrying Capacity. In simplest terms take a square mile of forest, it will support a maximum number of deer, say 100. However, at the maximum they will eat all the food, cause alot of waste and destruction of the fauna, and cause a drastic die out until the level of deer that square mile can sustain has come back down to a sustainable level. The example of Easter Island is spot on. The most sustainable level for any population per its limited environment is 1/2 Carrying Capacity.

Because of our technology humans have extended the Carrying Capacity of a square mile of land for our species. But that technology only extends it, it doesn't extend it to infinity. The growing lack of fresh water and greatly reduced fishing grounds around the world is a visible indication that resources are finite regardless of technology. And most of the human population on Earth reside in areas where technology has NOT extended the Carrying Capacity of an area.

And good lord, some people here have 'socialism' on the brain. WTF is that.

 

[bedowin62]

CultureCitizen has won the debate!

YAWN
every time these idiots are getting spanked they stop and declare victory, or some idiot supporter of theirs chimes in with same!! lol

 

[bedowin62]

Context man, context . Take into account the context.
Was overpopulation a threat to mankind 100 years ago ? No.
Is overpopulation a threat to mankid today.Yes, it is.
Conversely , full automation and capitalism combined pose a threat to humanity.

LOL! No, it isnt. And btw Malthus predicted overpopulation would be a threat, yeah over 100 years ago. He was wrong then and that view is wrong now In fact the opposite is the problem.

He was actually right. Easter Island and the Mayan civilization collapsed due to overpopulation .
A given territory can only sustain about 1,400 people per square kilometre, so an actuall worldwide collapse can only happen if such threshold is reached. In the mean time we can expect local collapses if countries surpass such limit.

No he wasnt, as history shows. A localized collapse (and there can be different reasons such as weather change) does not prove Mathus' theory. You could even argue the Mayans collapsed because they introduced socialism and people stopped working.
Many places have population density well over 1400/sq meter. They seem to be doing fine.

Easter Island collapsed due to a lack of environmental policy : they cut down all the trees. No trees, no timber , no fishing boats, followed by deaths until they reached a sustainable level.

Mayans were not socialists. They collapsed because they overpopulated the zone, and then a drought hit them.
A similar situation is happening in California, luckily the US is centuries more advanced than the mayans, so I am confident the outcome will be different.

You are talking about Carrying Capacity. In simplest terms take a square mile of forest, it will support a maximum number of deer, say 100. However, at the maximum they will eat all the food, cause alot of waste and destruction of the fauna, and cause a drastic die out until the level of deer that square mile can sustain has come back down to a sustainable level. The example of Easter Island is spot on. The most sustainable level for any population per its limited environment is 1/2 Carrying Capacity.

Because of our technology humans have extended the Carrying Capacity of a square mile of land for our species. But that technology only extends it, it doesn't extend it to infinity. The growing lack of fresh water and greatly reduced fishing grounds around the world is a visible indication that resources are finite regardless of technology. And most of the human population on Earth reside in areas where technology has NOT extended the Carrying Capacity of an area.

And good lord, some people here have 'socialism' on the brain. WTF is that.

good lord look at the self-impressed left-wing losers and their 70-line posts of stupid shit nobody will read!1
it's a message board you idiot

 

[bedowin62]

what happened in Detroit?? lol

 

[IsaacNewton]

LOL! No, it isnt. And btw Malthus predicted overpopulation would be a threat, yeah over 100 years ago. He was wrong then and that view is wrong now In fact the opposite is the problem.

He was actually right. Easter Island and the Mayan civilization collapsed due to overpopulation .
A given territory can only sustain about 1,400 people per square kilometre, so an actuall worldwide collapse can only happen if such threshold is reached. In the mean time we can expect local collapses if countries surpass such limit.

No he wasnt, as history shows. A localized collapse (and there can be different reasons such as weather change) does not prove Mathus' theory. You could even argue the Mayans collapsed because they introduced socialism and people stopped working.
Many places have population density well over 1400/sq meter. They seem to be doing fine.

Easter Island collapsed due to a lack of environmental policy : they cut down all the trees. No trees, no timber , no fishing boats, followed by deaths until they reached a sustainable level.

Mayans were not socialists. They collapsed because they overpopulated the zone, and then a drought hit them.
A similar situation is happening in California, luckily the US is centuries more advanced than the mayans, so I am confident the outcome will be different.

You are talking about Carrying Capacity. In simplest terms take a square mile of forest, it will support a maximum number of deer, say 100. However, at the maximum they will eat all the food, cause alot of waste and destruction of the fauna, and cause a drastic die out until the level of deer that square mile can sustain has come back down to a sustainable level. The example of Easter Island is spot on. The most sustainable level for any population per its limited environment is 1/2 Carrying Capacity.

Because of our technology humans have extended the Carrying Capacity of a square mile of land for our species. But that technology only extends it, it doesn't extend it to infinity. The growing lack of fresh water and greatly reduced fishing grounds around the world is a visible indication that resources are finite regardless of technology. And most of the human population on Earth reside in areas where technology has NOT extended the Carrying Capacity of an area.

And good lord, some people here have 'socialism' on the brain. WTF is that.

good lord look at the self-impressed left-wing losers and their 70-line posts of stupid shit nobody will read!1
it's a message board you idiot

So don't read it. You aren't the person I'm talking to, yours is a world of Flintstone vitamins, nascar, and butterfly nets. Ignorance does not recognize its own ignorance, and therefore does not see the need to correct it.

I'm sure you didn't read that, or this, or this, or this.....

 

[bedowin62]

He was actually right. Easter Island and the Mayan civilization collapsed due to overpopulation .
A given territory can only sustain about 1,400 people per square kilometre, so an actuall worldwide collapse can only happen if such threshold is reached. In the mean time we can expect local collapses if countries surpass such limit.

No he wasnt, as history shows. A localized collapse (and there can be different reasons such as weather change) does not prove Mathus' theory. You could even argue the Mayans collapsed because they introduced socialism and people stopped working.
Many places have population density well over 1400/sq meter. They seem to be doing fine.

Easter Island collapsed due to a lack of environmental policy : they cut down all the trees. No trees, no timber , no fishing boats, followed by deaths until they reached a sustainable level.

Mayans were not socialists. They collapsed because they overpopulated the zone, and then a drought hit them.
A similar situation is happening in California, luckily the US is centuries more advanced than the mayans, so I am confident the outcome will be different.

You are talking about Carrying Capacity. In simplest terms take a square mile of forest, it will support a maximum number of deer, say 100. However, at the maximum they will eat all the food, cause alot of waste and destruction of the fauna, and cause a drastic die out until the level of deer that square mile can sustain has come back down to a sustainable level. The example of Easter Island is spot on. The most sustainable level for any population per its limited environment is 1/2 Carrying Capacity.

Because of our technology humans have extended the Carrying Capacity of a square mile of land for our species. But that technology only extends it, it doesn't extend it to infinity. The growing lack of fresh water and greatly reduced fishing grounds around the world is a visible indication that resources are finite regardless of technology. And most of the human population on Earth reside in areas where technology has NOT extended the Carrying Capacity of an area.

And good lord, some people here have 'socialism' on the brain. WTF is that.

good lord look at the self-impressed left-wing losers and their 70-line posts of stupid shit nobody will read!1
it's a message board you idiot

So don't read it. You aren't the person I'm talking to, yours is a world of Flintstone vitamins, nascar, and butterfly nets. Ignorance does not recognize its own ignorance, and therefore does not see the need to correct it.

I'm sure you didn't read that, or this, or this, or this.....

yours is the world of 100-lines posts on a message board when you cant admit nearly everything you morons say you are against happens on a regular basis anywhere you losers govern


lol

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[bedowin62]

Memo to left-wing losers; while you were reading a book your PROGRESSIVE POLICIES FAILED.

idiots and hypocrites

 

[The Great Goose]

Context man, context . Take into account the context.
Was overpopulation a threat to mankind 100 years ago ? No.
Is overpopulation a threat to mankid today.Yes, it is.
Conversely , full automation and capitalism combined pose a threat to humanity.

LOL! No, it isnt. And btw Malthus predicted overpopulation would be a threat, yeah over 100 years ago. He was wrong then and that view is wrong now In fact the opposite is the problem.

He was actually right. Easter Island and the Mayan civilization collapsed due to overpopulation .
A given territory can only sustain about 1,400 people per square kilometre, so an actuall worldwide collapse can only happen if such threshold is reached. In the mean time we can expect local collapses if countries surpass such limit.

No he wasnt, as history shows. A localized collapse (and there can be different reasons such as weather change) does not prove Mathus' theory. You could even argue the Mayans collapsed because they introduced socialism and people stopped working.
Many places have population density well over 1400/sq meter. They seem to be doing fine.

Easter Island collapsed due to a lack of environmental policy : they cut down all the trees. No trees, no timber , no fishing boats, followed by deaths until they reached a sustainable level.

Mayans were not socialists. They collapsed because they overpopulated the zone, and then a drought hit them.
A similar situation is happening in California, luckily the US is centuries more advanced than the mayans, so I am confident the outcome will be different.

You are talking about Carrying Capacity. In simplest terms take a square mile of forest, it will support a maximum number of deer, say 100. However, at the maximum they will eat all the food, cause alot of waste and destruction of the fauna, and cause a drastic die out until the level of deer that square mile can sustain has come back down to a sustainable level. The example of Easter Island is spot on. The most sustainable level for any population per its limited environment is 1/2 Carrying Capacity.

Because of our technology humans have extended the Carrying Capacity of a square mile of land for our species. But that technology only extends it, it doesn't extend it to infinity. The growing lack of fresh water and greatly reduced fishing grounds around the world is a visible indication that resources are finite regardless of technology. And most of the human population on Earth reside in areas where technology has NOT extended the Carrying Capacity of an area.

And good lord, some people here have 'socialism' on the brain. WTF is that.

This thread has gone in the perfect direction

 

[kiwiman127]

“If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.” Hawking continued, “Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality."

We have been warned.

Stephen Hawking Warns About The Greatest Threat To Humanity | Zero Hedge

Idiots. It is amazing how some of the smartest people can be so dumb.
Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else. IT's benefits are literally without precedence.

Hawkins has facts you could never accept on his side.
Capitalism prior to the 1980s was great but then things changed, facts back it up.
Offshoring jobs started and wage growth flattened out for most workers, both started in the 1980's. Down the road wealth/income inequality followed. Find me economist that dispute this other than your typical hyper-partisan economists, even most of them agree with facts from the real world.

 

[The Great Goose]

Memo to left-wing losers; while you were reading a book your PROGRESSIVE POLICIES FAILED.

idiots and hypocrites

Why are you bringing politics into this. It's clearly a scientific discussion.

 

[The Great Goose]

what happened in Detroit?? lol

Why the obsfucation?