Excellent analysis. At one time the Sierra Club discussed population controls, but that went nowhere. Yes we could be more like some of those European countries, but they are in dire straits due to socialist policies that discourage entrepreneurs and hard work and have many "free" perks. When a wolf comes after them they have zero defenses so it will be up to the old USA to save their bacon again. If we could get the Soviets to stop earning most of their revenue from oil then the threat would be lessened.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Politics - Quarantine Thread
- Thread starter steve841
- Start date
- Status
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
??? That has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing.... no one is discussing population control... if we're going from an era where 1:5 people need to work to one where 1:500 people need to work... reducing the population isn't going to change that ratio...
The Russians are going to have a hard time selling oil if we're successful in electrifying transportation...
A strong national defense and a basic minimum income are not mutually exclusive.
Population control should be a integral part of any energy discussion. Fewer people = less energy required = less pollution.
instead of wind power which kills millions of birds each year a few strategically place nuclear plants can power the entire population with minimal pollution. Not to be placed anywhere near faults or tsunami areas.
a big thank you to Ohmman and DWDIVER for their comments backed up with logic and thought.
instead of wind power which kills millions of birds each year a few strategically place nuclear plants can power the entire population with minimal pollution. Not to be placed anywhere near faults or tsunami areas.
a big thank you to Ohmman and DWDIVER for their comments backed up with logic and thought.
Last edited:
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
If you're worried about birds its not the turbines you should be concerned with....
Nuclear power is nice but it's now ~2x as expensive as solar or wind... Population control is more of a distraction than a solution. If we reduce the worlds population by 90% but are still addicted to fossil fuels we still have a problem. The Earths carrying capacity is >10B... if we stop using fossil fuels and eat less meat.
There's more than enough sun and wind for everyone...
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I fully agree with that, however we need to act much more quickly than any population control scheme, other than genocide, which I am not advocating.
Since wind bird deaths are a tiny portion of human influenced bird mortality that's not even a remotely rational argument. Until you start advocating that we live under ground because windows and buildings kill the most birds, don't even try to bring up bird deaths.
Until you address the waste disposal issue nuclear is not a reasonable option. LFTR's may be a viable version of nuclear, but also may be entirely unnecessary in the face of falling solar and battery prices.
dhrivnak
Active Member
I assume you have gone under the knife so you can say you have done your part
PS we adopted our children so no we did not add to the population.
This math works.. but I am still on the fence with regard to population being the main issue. The world population growth rate peaked in 1966. Most reasonable models project continued growth into the late century followed by a population decline. From what I understand of the issue, the best thing we can do to manage population is push education and comfortable economic growth into the third world. This is the only humanitarian way that I've seen which is proven to work. The downside is it takes time and effort, and at least a generation.
One of the positive aspects of our population is that there are lot more people working on energy problems. Bringing more great minds into the world can offset or even reverse some of the harm we're doing while furthering progress. The alternative is to go back to a sparsely populated hunter gatherer population, and wait for the inevitable extinction event. For some reason, that doesn't excite me as a human.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
One of the positive aspects of our population is that there are lot more people working on energy problems. Bringing more great minds into the world can offset or even reverse some of the harm we're doing while furthering progress. The alternative is to go back to a sparsely populated hunter gatherer population, and wait for the inevitable extinction event. For some reason, that doesn't excite me as a human.
I've heard similar arguments but I think they are flawed. Greater numbers of people struggling just to survive are not coming up with great ideas to cure the world's ills. A smaller population, living better lives, with basic needs met, and with more free time, are more likely to be able to spend time and energy innovating.
Sure, I couldn't agree more with your conclusion. However, you've created a bit of a false dichotomy here - those aren't the only two options. What if the options are a small population also struggling just to survive vs. a larger population with some struggling to just survive? Either way, the goal is to reach your ideal situation. I do think that's the stasis if economic stability can be achieved.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here, but it sounds like it. Did you need me to support my population assertion?
Population growth rate:
Source (aside from anywhere else you look for it).
ShotgunF15E
Member
They all probably just returned from a Trump rally.
Vote for Bernie. Tesla's will be free for everyone!
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
It's a curious irony that there are many folks who are die hard low tax capitalists yet are resentful of wealthy people.
Wealth in the United States is within people's reach if they follow the right path. I grew up coming out of a flat broke trailer home no asset family (a good family but once as broke as can be) and I am now reasonably well off and drive a Tesla Model S. One of the reasons I bought it was to help support R&D to bring down costs of the technology so more people can afford it, but I suppose not too many would respect that regardless.
Wealth in the United States is within people's reach if they follow the right path. I grew up coming out of a flat broke trailer home no asset family (a good family but once as broke as can be) and I am now reasonably well off and drive a Tesla Model S. One of the reasons I bought it was to help support R&D to bring down costs of the technology so more people can afford it, but I suppose not too many would respect that regardless.
Nope -- not if you get sick.
Normal countries have universal health care. All developed countries do. The UK has its National Health Service, which is considered by objective observers to be the best health system in the world, as well as the cheapest. Even *Mexico* has universal health care.
The US doesn't, because the US sucks. Instead the US government spends *more* per person on health care than any other government and still forces millions of people to spend $10K/year or more on profiteering private insurers. Because the US sucks.
This sort of uniquely American failure is why all people who actually understand what's going on are voting for Bernie. Because there's too much crazy bullshit being pushed by the establishment candidates.
Then there's the uniquely American system of saddling college graduates with immense debts which cannot be discharged even in bankruptcy. So, get sick two years out of college? You're in debt for life.
Bernie proposes that public universities be free for those who get admitted, *like it was in the 1950s in most states in the US* -- not exactly radical policy. Oh, and pretty much every other country has universities which are either free or super-cheap by US standards.
Medical schools combine both these problems -- all the best doctors are trained overseas now, becuase you'd have to be crazy or stupid to take on US medical school debt when you can graduate debt-free from nearly any medical school anywhere else in the world.
Actually, nearly everything Bernie is proposing either existed in the US under Eisenhower, or has been established in all of Europe for over 50 years with success. His tax rates on the ultra-rich would be *lower* than Eisenhower's tax rates on the ultra-rich. But of course in the US people refer to such conservative plans as "radical".
Anyway, the sort of people the OP encountered in Superior, MT... are not thinking. That's the best I can say for them. They're not thinking at all, they're just reacting emotionally. If you asked them to explain what they were thinking, they wouldn't be able to.
Last edited:
neroden, You may be a Happy Tesla Model S Owner but you sure are bitter about the US. The very country that produces Tesla. Like skotty i started out in a trailer park and now because of the upward mobility in this country I Too can afford two tesla's and the finer things in life. If you are so bitter about the U.S. try some other socialist systems like Cuba, Venezuela or Brazil. Bernie is a very likable guy but socialism has little to no upward mobility unless you are born with it.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
How old are you? Because that story is common for people who grew up from the 1930s through the 1970s, and very uncommon among people growing up in the 1990s or later.
There's a reason younger people are supporting Bernie overwhelmingly; they recognize what country they're living in *now*, rather than assuming it's the same as it was in the 1950s.
The FACTS are that the US has very poor upward mobility for the developed world. Go, look up the numbers. The worst. Western Europe has much better upward mobility.
It was totally different back under Eisenhower, and even as late as Jimmy Carter. We *used to* have the *best* upward mobiilty. We do not any more. It started declining under Reagan and has gotten worse since then. This is not arguable (though certain paid flacks attempt to argue it occasionally). This is proven fact.
Socio-economic mobility in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If I'm nostalgic for the days when the US did things right, why shouldn't I be?
Venezeula isn't socialist, it's mafia-run; they've had different fighting mafias for a while, which never works out well. (It's probably due to the high levels of lead poisoning; they still had lead in their gasoline until 2008. You can look up the lead-crime link.)
Cuba is an utterly bizarre case because of the decades-long US embargo and isn't a good example of *anything*. As far as I can tell, the embargo actually propped up Castro and kept him in power. *Still* social mobility seems to be higher under Castro's dictatorship than under Batista's dictatorship! So you can't honestly blame lack of social mobility on socialism...
Brazil has had low social mobility when it was run by right-wing governments for decades, and it's improved slightly in recent years, so you can't very well blame the socialists for the history of low social mobility.
Meanwhile, socialist Scandanavia does pretty well and has high social mobility.
Frankly, I'm doing fine for myself; I don't need social mobility. But I love the place I grew up in, the flora, the fauna, the land, the language. I don't want to abandon it to kleptocrats. If the kleptocrats manage to secure their stranglehold on the government, I will eventually leave, but for now I'm going to fight to make this a decent country again.
California is way more socialist than most of the US. It's not a coincidence that Tesla is centered in "socialist" California, not in right-wing Texas.
The extent to which Bernie's proposed policies are Eisenhower's policies is much larger than most people realize.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
