Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
I'm betting that the NRA's answer to all this is more guns! More Guns! And More Guns!
Observation: Overpopulation Is The Root Cause Of Most Of Our Problems On Planet Earth
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
Into the Night
Verified User
I disagree. There are vast stretches of the planet where people don't even go. I find that most people that figure there is a population control problem have simply not gotten out into the country enough.
The total surface area of the urban areas is quite small, compared to the total land area. To assume the planet is being spoiled is leaping to a conclusion and taking a pessimistic view. The very reason people travel is to see the beauty of Earth and it's different cultures and people.
As a prime example in the U.S., all one has to do is drive out across the plains of Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, etc.
Shortages are not a function of how much food and resources there are, it is the distribution of that food and other resources. It is not uniform. It is often blocked by local wars. War itself has been part of Man for millennia. It's not fought over shortages, but over conquest of territory or religion.
The nuclear bomb itself was created to hasten victory in a war that was fought over Marxism and conquest. Since then, the Bomb has kept the peace between major powers. The cost of using it in an all out war is understood not just by us, but by every major nuclear power.
The answer to world peace is a simple one...profit. You don't go around shooting your customers. It is theft and attempted theft that causes wars.
evince
Truthmatters
I fixed this post
I accidently typed job numbers instead if unemployment numbers
so I fixed my mistake
My apologies for my now corrected error
evince
Truthmatters
you were right to question that post of mine
my apologies
I have corrected the post to reflect my true intent instead of my mistake
If all the work that has to be done can be done by 1,000,000 people...why try to find jobs for 350,000,000 people.
The notion that each person must "work for a living" is the thing that has to go.
The reason for the technological revolution is to make life easier for humans...to have machines, computers, and robots do the majority of the work so that humans can relax more.
What the hell are we doing with this?
Do you people want "digging holes and filling them in" to be the norm...just so everyone can work for a living?
We have to grow the hell up.
And we have to do it by yesterday!
evince
Truthmatters
Other countries have a working week below our own
how about paying enough to live on at a 20 hour week?
all healthcare paid
and easy access to all birth control
yes that means the corporations pay more
the only way to fix anything from now on is to MAKE the corporations pay
if they want customers
they have to pay people enough to afford their products
how about paying enough to live on at a 20 hour week?
all healthcare paid
and easy access to all birth control
yes that means the corporations pay more
the only way to fix anything from now on is to MAKE the corporations pay
if they want customers
they have to pay people enough to afford their products
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Has anybody else here read this book?
I did, shortly after it came out. That was 12 years ago. All of the statistics quoted in the book are now out of date, but they are still rather shocking when you think about it.
The major problem for population expansion is that pretty much all the good rural agricultural lands have been taken. When farming families have more children, there are not enough farming lands for them to take up the work their parents did. They are forced to leave the places they were born and raised, and set out for life in the city. They are not alone. With opportunity in the cities unable to keep up with the demand for jobs, these people often end up living in squalor. Indeed, as Davis points out in the book, the largest portion of population growth on Earth is urban poor.
As capitalism brings us increasingly extreme wealth inequality, downsizing and minimizing labor, well-paying jobs are not keeping up with population growth.
The big picture: The world is becoming increasingly a place of a small number of pampered and luxurious well-off, and the rest of the population surviving on very little. We see this in the USA, and it is happening on a greater scale world wide.
If capitalism produces the highest standards of living, the slowly accumulating evidence of human expansion is not supporting that belief.
We are gradually becoming a Planet Of Slums.
We are slowly reverting to a hierarchy which resembles the serfs and the lords.
I contend that proper planning could reverse this trend.
We humans would have to get really organized and plan our future instead of letting it come at us in the haphazard fashion we are witnessing.
That would require coordination between the nations, or possibly, indicate the need for a world government.
Perhaps it is time to stop identifying as subjects of individual nations, and to instead recognize that the planet has become relatively much smaller, and humans would be wise to unite all across the globe, get organized, and carefully plan our future.
Maybe John Lennon was at least partially right:
Now, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
I hope one day you will join us.
I did, shortly after it came out. That was 12 years ago. All of the statistics quoted in the book are now out of date, but they are still rather shocking when you think about it.
The major problem for population expansion is that pretty much all the good rural agricultural lands have been taken. When farming families have more children, there are not enough farming lands for them to take up the work their parents did. They are forced to leave the places they were born and raised, and set out for life in the city. They are not alone. With opportunity in the cities unable to keep up with the demand for jobs, these people often end up living in squalor. Indeed, as Davis points out in the book, the largest portion of population growth on Earth is urban poor.
As capitalism brings us increasingly extreme wealth inequality, downsizing and minimizing labor, well-paying jobs are not keeping up with population growth.
The big picture: The world is becoming increasingly a place of a small number of pampered and luxurious well-off, and the rest of the population surviving on very little. We see this in the USA, and it is happening on a greater scale world wide.
If capitalism produces the highest standards of living, the slowly accumulating evidence of human expansion is not supporting that belief.
We are gradually becoming a Planet Of Slums.
We are slowly reverting to a hierarchy which resembles the serfs and the lords.
I contend that proper planning could reverse this trend.
We humans would have to get really organized and plan our future instead of letting it come at us in the haphazard fashion we are witnessing.
That would require coordination between the nations, or possibly, indicate the need for a world government.
Perhaps it is time to stop identifying as subjects of individual nations, and to instead recognize that the planet has become relatively much smaller, and humans would be wise to unite all across the globe, get organized, and carefully plan our future.
Maybe John Lennon was at least partially right:
Now, you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
I hope one day you will join us.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Into The Night,
The problem with that concept is that profit comes from getting more production from fewer and fewer workers. That represents an imbalance which equals increasing general poverty, not increasing general wealth. The wealth that is increasing is the wealth of the powerful. The rest are lucky if they are not losing wealth. And eventually, inflation will eradicate their wealth as well.
The problem with that concept is that profit comes from getting more production from fewer and fewer workers. That represents an imbalance which equals increasing general poverty, not increasing general wealth. The wealth that is increasing is the wealth of the powerful. The rest are lucky if they are not losing wealth. And eventually, inflation will eradicate their wealth as well.
Into the Night
Verified User
Much of the concern for over population beliefs is the perception that we are running out of resources such as oil, natural gas, etc.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Like hydroelectric power, oil and natural gas are both renewable sources of energy. This extraordinary statement is in direct conflict to what is commonly taught in grade school, that such fuels come from dinosaurs (Sinclair Oil even has a brontosaurus as its logo!). It is now known different, thanks to the Germans and the Russians. We started seeing other problems with this theory. Some oil wells are quite deep (some go down to 2 miles!). That is well below any fossil layer, and well below any dinosaur fossils. Some oil sources are quite shallow, existing as surface ponds of the stuff. Some is under rock layers that must be cracked using hydraulic pressure before a drill head can get through (that's what fracking is).
During WW2, the U.S. and Europe was putting the screws to the Germany economy, making it much harder for them to get the oil products they needed to conduct the war. In response, Germany, being the chemical leaders that they were, decided to have a go at making their own oil synthetically. They succeeded. Known as the Fischer-Tropsche process, this endothermic reaction combines a carbon salt (such as CO2, CO, CaCO, etc) with a source of hydrogen (H2, H2O, H2SO4, etc), with tremendous heat and pressure (the source of energy to run the endothermic reaction) and in the present of an iron catalyst. The result is a variety of hydrocarbons, also known in the industry as light sweet crude (if H2SO4 is used, you get sour crude).
These conditions are naturally found deep in the Earth.
Now look at where the major oil fields of the world are. They are all primarily located on or near edges of tectonic plates, especially where spreading action is taking place. The Mid-East. The North Sea. The Alaskan North Slopes. The Caribbean and Gulf seas, and all the way up into PA and Texas.
While drilling the Vostok ice core, the Russians learned how to drill a hole deeper than anyone had ever done before. They took this technology and drilled a hole deep in Siberia, far away from any tectonic plate edge. They found oil and natural gas. It was deep, but it was there. Essentially then, the Earth is a giant Fischer-Tropsche reactor that is constantly making new oil. It is why we can drain an oil well dry, cap it, and return later to find it full of oil again. It is why oil comes closest to the surface near plate edges.
The market for oil (and natural gas that comes with it), is not something easily compared to yesterday, due to the changing values of world currencies. In general, all world currencies in the last many decades has been falling (lately, quite rapidly). This inflation masks the price of oil as compared to other commodities. Today, both oil and natural gas are CHEAP. They are about the lowest they've ever been. This compared to other commodities, not by money. We are effectively awash in oil. Correspondingly, we have plenty of natural gas. These two fuels are NOT fossil fuels (no surprise, fossils don't burn!) but are created continuously by the Earth itself.
Water and food are other resources to consider. Plenty of water is available, but WHERE it is available is the question. Water is not uniformly distributed across the land. It varies literally with the weather. We are so dependent on it that most cities and towns are built along rivers, lakes, and streams (including underground ones!). However, rivers change course. So do underground ones. They silt up. Cities and towns built along them might find their water source as simply moved away. If too much is wasted, you have won't have enough to drink. This is currently California's problem, as well as the problem in the mid-west States. Sometimes people pollute the water, other times it is used to raise crops that are very water intensive (such as rice, almonds, or cattle). More wars have been fought over water over the millennia than any other resource!
Food is somewhat related. It takes effort to grow food, but today, thanks to modern techniques, we can grow all the food we need. The United States alone can feed almost the entire world by itself. The problem with food, like water, is distribution (and hostile areas blocking that distribution), not a lack of it.
Real estate is not a problem. Like I said, most of the land area is open country. Only a very small percentage is urban.
Therefore, all the reasons to try to implement some form of population controls are based on beliefs on shortages that are really not there. We have enough and to spare for all of us, if we can only get to it.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Like hydroelectric power, oil and natural gas are both renewable sources of energy. This extraordinary statement is in direct conflict to what is commonly taught in grade school, that such fuels come from dinosaurs (Sinclair Oil even has a brontosaurus as its logo!). It is now known different, thanks to the Germans and the Russians. We started seeing other problems with this theory. Some oil wells are quite deep (some go down to 2 miles!). That is well below any fossil layer, and well below any dinosaur fossils. Some oil sources are quite shallow, existing as surface ponds of the stuff. Some is under rock layers that must be cracked using hydraulic pressure before a drill head can get through (that's what fracking is).
During WW2, the U.S. and Europe was putting the screws to the Germany economy, making it much harder for them to get the oil products they needed to conduct the war. In response, Germany, being the chemical leaders that they were, decided to have a go at making their own oil synthetically. They succeeded. Known as the Fischer-Tropsche process, this endothermic reaction combines a carbon salt (such as CO2, CO, CaCO, etc) with a source of hydrogen (H2, H2O, H2SO4, etc), with tremendous heat and pressure (the source of energy to run the endothermic reaction) and in the present of an iron catalyst. The result is a variety of hydrocarbons, also known in the industry as light sweet crude (if H2SO4 is used, you get sour crude).
These conditions are naturally found deep in the Earth.
Now look at where the major oil fields of the world are. They are all primarily located on or near edges of tectonic plates, especially where spreading action is taking place. The Mid-East. The North Sea. The Alaskan North Slopes. The Caribbean and Gulf seas, and all the way up into PA and Texas.
While drilling the Vostok ice core, the Russians learned how to drill a hole deeper than anyone had ever done before. They took this technology and drilled a hole deep in Siberia, far away from any tectonic plate edge. They found oil and natural gas. It was deep, but it was there. Essentially then, the Earth is a giant Fischer-Tropsche reactor that is constantly making new oil. It is why we can drain an oil well dry, cap it, and return later to find it full of oil again. It is why oil comes closest to the surface near plate edges.
The market for oil (and natural gas that comes with it), is not something easily compared to yesterday, due to the changing values of world currencies. In general, all world currencies in the last many decades has been falling (lately, quite rapidly). This inflation masks the price of oil as compared to other commodities. Today, both oil and natural gas are CHEAP. They are about the lowest they've ever been. This compared to other commodities, not by money. We are effectively awash in oil. Correspondingly, we have plenty of natural gas. These two fuels are NOT fossil fuels (no surprise, fossils don't burn!) but are created continuously by the Earth itself.
Water and food are other resources to consider. Plenty of water is available, but WHERE it is available is the question. Water is not uniformly distributed across the land. It varies literally with the weather. We are so dependent on it that most cities and towns are built along rivers, lakes, and streams (including underground ones!). However, rivers change course. So do underground ones. They silt up. Cities and towns built along them might find their water source as simply moved away. If too much is wasted, you have won't have enough to drink. This is currently California's problem, as well as the problem in the mid-west States. Sometimes people pollute the water, other times it is used to raise crops that are very water intensive (such as rice, almonds, or cattle). More wars have been fought over water over the millennia than any other resource!
Food is somewhat related. It takes effort to grow food, but today, thanks to modern techniques, we can grow all the food we need. The United States alone can feed almost the entire world by itself. The problem with food, like water, is distribution (and hostile areas blocking that distribution), not a lack of it.
Real estate is not a problem. Like I said, most of the land area is open country. Only a very small percentage is urban.
Therefore, all the reasons to try to implement some form of population controls are based on beliefs on shortages that are really not there. We have enough and to spare for all of us, if we can only get to it.
Into the Night
Verified User
I now address the main subject, population controls themselves. Personally, I find anyone advocating such controls callous and abhorrent.
There are three methods:
1) The first is killing existing adults. There ARE some that actually practice this. It usually done by removing some 'inferior' race in an act of genocide. These events happen in dictatorships and oligarchies. It can and does happen even in republics that have elements of dictatorships and oligarchies within them (such as the United States currently does). Yes, it has happened to the United States too. See the history of the Trail of Tears.
2) The second is killing unborn children in the womb. There a LOT of people that practice this, often for the sake of convenience. It IS killing, however. It is the taking of a human life by force. To give a government this power to require it to meet some arbitrary quota is abhorrent. The mother is no longer even consulted on the issue. The baby is killed, even if she wants the baby.
3) The third is by birth controls. while it seems that requiring the use of contraceptives to be the cleanest method, there are several major problems, some of which is being demonstrated by China even now.
The first problem is a simple one. What do you about the inevitable 'illegal' pregnancies that do develop? No contraceptive is 100% effective, sometimes they are used incorrectly or not at all, and some will want to have kids anyway, regardless of what the government says. Now the 'clean' solution becomes an ugly one. You are forced to option 2). What penalties, if any, do you put on the parents involved? Remember, this is all to meet some arbitrary quota set by the government.
The second problem, and the one demonstrated by China today, is that people are not just a liability. They are actually an asset. It takes people to work the fields, to engineer the latest gadget, to find or create new sources of water and oil, etc. The very people you want to not have in society are the very people that can increase our own resources. China is finding this out the hard way. For years, they limited the number of children in a family. Now they are paying for it. There is no one left to expand their economy and work in the factories, no matter how many cities devoid of people China builds. Further, the work force they DO have is retiring soon. Since the Chinese government 'broke the iron rice bowl' by removing any sort of subsidies for the elderly, these workers are saving every penny instead of spending it. Money velocity has almost completely stalled in China. Those with wealth to lose in the coming crash are getting their money out any way they can (even though it's illegal). They're not stupid. They see what's coming.
All if it produced by limiting reproduction.
Many cultures hold a high value on large families. You are NOT going to force them to practice birth control without a real war on your hands. They will reject any 'dictators of the world' telling them otherwise.
The final upshot? Population controls are not only unnecessary, they are also about killing human beings, make no mistake about it. The only way to implement it is by force. That means war, with all the suffering, misery, and destruction that entails.
It is high time to come out the ivory (or silicon) tower and see the world for what it is. It is beautiful. It is bountiful. It is filled with people that have very different values than you do and will fight to protect those values.
There are three methods:
1) The first is killing existing adults. There ARE some that actually practice this. It usually done by removing some 'inferior' race in an act of genocide. These events happen in dictatorships and oligarchies. It can and does happen even in republics that have elements of dictatorships and oligarchies within them (such as the United States currently does). Yes, it has happened to the United States too. See the history of the Trail of Tears.
2) The second is killing unborn children in the womb. There a LOT of people that practice this, often for the sake of convenience. It IS killing, however. It is the taking of a human life by force. To give a government this power to require it to meet some arbitrary quota is abhorrent. The mother is no longer even consulted on the issue. The baby is killed, even if she wants the baby.
3) The third is by birth controls. while it seems that requiring the use of contraceptives to be the cleanest method, there are several major problems, some of which is being demonstrated by China even now.
The first problem is a simple one. What do you about the inevitable 'illegal' pregnancies that do develop? No contraceptive is 100% effective, sometimes they are used incorrectly or not at all, and some will want to have kids anyway, regardless of what the government says. Now the 'clean' solution becomes an ugly one. You are forced to option 2). What penalties, if any, do you put on the parents involved? Remember, this is all to meet some arbitrary quota set by the government.
The second problem, and the one demonstrated by China today, is that people are not just a liability. They are actually an asset. It takes people to work the fields, to engineer the latest gadget, to find or create new sources of water and oil, etc. The very people you want to not have in society are the very people that can increase our own resources. China is finding this out the hard way. For years, they limited the number of children in a family. Now they are paying for it. There is no one left to expand their economy and work in the factories, no matter how many cities devoid of people China builds. Further, the work force they DO have is retiring soon. Since the Chinese government 'broke the iron rice bowl' by removing any sort of subsidies for the elderly, these workers are saving every penny instead of spending it. Money velocity has almost completely stalled in China. Those with wealth to lose in the coming crash are getting their money out any way they can (even though it's illegal). They're not stupid. They see what's coming.
All if it produced by limiting reproduction.
Many cultures hold a high value on large families. You are NOT going to force them to practice birth control without a real war on your hands. They will reject any 'dictators of the world' telling them otherwise.
The final upshot? Population controls are not only unnecessary, they are also about killing human beings, make no mistake about it. The only way to implement it is by force. That means war, with all the suffering, misery, and destruction that entails.
It is high time to come out the ivory (or silicon) tower and see the world for what it is. It is beautiful. It is bountiful. It is filled with people that have very different values than you do and will fight to protect those values.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Into The Night,
Well that all sounds very encouraging, but I'll have to reserve believing it until I see that concept more widely out there. Read: In the main stream media.
As for Energy, I don't think we have to extract and burn. Bill Gates appears to be on the cusp of solving that problem with Traveling Wave Nuclear Power. This ingenious reactor design solves the safety issue. Left unattended, it simply does nothing else. Does not require cooling like the previous designs. It's not gonna melt down ever. Uses the spent fuel from 1st gen reactors. That solves another nasty problem. What to do with all that spent fuel? This reactor design uses that fuel and produces safe nuclear power. Now, I know my liberal friends will have a tough time warming up to this idea, but they will in time. The first one is being built right now in China. Bill had to do it there because the USA regulations are all designed for the old dangerous traditional design. This design is so radically different they can't possibly gain approval for everything that was required for a traditional reactor. Our government moves far too slowly for this exciting new technology to wait. But the Chinese don't work that way. Communism has it's advantages sometimes. If they want to change a policy it doesn't take a lot of red tape. So they did it, and now they are working with Bill Gates. The Chinese will have this technology before we will, but that's OK. We will get it in time. Zero emissions. Safe. It's a solution.
So lots of things have been covered, but not all. Rare earths? Biodiversity? Species extinction rates are way up. Humans are wiping out species at an unprecedented rate. There was once a Carolina Parakeet. Gone. It had pretty feathers so we killed 'em all. And then there were no more pretty Carolina Parakeet feathers to be had. Coulda used some more of those pesky regulations and government.
What are we going to make batteries out of after all that material has been depleted?
How are we going to prevent mass revolt due to extreme wealth inequality?
We gonna take all the trees and put 'em in a tree museum?
Charge people a dollar and a half to see 'em?
Well that all sounds very encouraging, but I'll have to reserve believing it until I see that concept more widely out there. Read: In the main stream media.
As for Energy, I don't think we have to extract and burn. Bill Gates appears to be on the cusp of solving that problem with Traveling Wave Nuclear Power. This ingenious reactor design solves the safety issue. Left unattended, it simply does nothing else. Does not require cooling like the previous designs. It's not gonna melt down ever. Uses the spent fuel from 1st gen reactors. That solves another nasty problem. What to do with all that spent fuel? This reactor design uses that fuel and produces safe nuclear power. Now, I know my liberal friends will have a tough time warming up to this idea, but they will in time. The first one is being built right now in China. Bill had to do it there because the USA regulations are all designed for the old dangerous traditional design. This design is so radically different they can't possibly gain approval for everything that was required for a traditional reactor. Our government moves far too slowly for this exciting new technology to wait. But the Chinese don't work that way. Communism has it's advantages sometimes. If they want to change a policy it doesn't take a lot of red tape. So they did it, and now they are working with Bill Gates. The Chinese will have this technology before we will, but that's OK. We will get it in time. Zero emissions. Safe. It's a solution.
So lots of things have been covered, but not all. Rare earths? Biodiversity? Species extinction rates are way up. Humans are wiping out species at an unprecedented rate. There was once a Carolina Parakeet. Gone. It had pretty feathers so we killed 'em all. And then there were no more pretty Carolina Parakeet feathers to be had. Coulda used some more of those pesky regulations and government.
What are we going to make batteries out of after all that material has been depleted?
How are we going to prevent mass revolt due to extreme wealth inequality?
We gonna take all the trees and put 'em in a tree museum?
Charge people a dollar and a half to see 'em?
Into the Night
Verified User
This comes from the mistaken idea that money is wealth. It is not.
What is money? Why does a piece of paper with pretty pictures on it or a coin with nice artwork on it make it worth anything? What is it about shells, bits of gold, bits of silver, or just bits in a computer, that make it worth anything to anybody? Money is funny stuff. But it is not wealth.
Money has two characteristics: a representation of value, and a unit of account. Let me explain.
Before money, there was barter. I would sell you a couple of my chickens for your medical services, etc. A chicken has a value. You can eat it, you can collect the eggs from it, you can breed other chickens with it, you can even use it as a burglar alarm. Medical services also has a value. It keeps you alive and healthy so you can continue to raise chickens. The problem with barter, of course, is that the doctor may not want chickens. He needs a pig instead. I have no pigs, so I'm out of luck? No, I can find someone that has a pig and give some of my chickens to him, then use the pig for the doctor. Even though an intermediate transaction has entered the picture, there is still no money involved.
A unit of account is the simplest to explain. It is simply a way of saying that money is a way to count something. So many pennies in a dollar, so many Knuts to a Galleon, etc. It is a way of setting a number on a price. What this means is that I don't have to price everything by a number of chickens or pigs (how do you get change for a chicken??)
The representation of value is a representation of wealth. It is not wealth itself. The wealth itself is the chickens, pigs, and medical services. What money does is provide a commonly agreed upon intermediary so I don't have to go find someone with a pig. The doctor himself can do that, even choosing which pig he wants.
Now let's take your scenario of a currency collapse (a very real possibility). Let's for simplicity's sake, assume that there are only dollars in the world, and that their value collapses into nothing or next to nothing. People simply do not want dollars anymore. Is that destruction of wealth? No. Chickens, pigs, and medical services are still there. The wealth is still there. What is lost is the convenience of the money itself. People like money though, due to its convenience. They will choose another currency to use. The dollar is history. What currency will they use? Probably one that can't be arbitrarily printed by any government or bank. It might be returning to a gold standard, a silver standard, a Bitcoin standard, who knows?
That said, there ARE people that collect money itself and consider it wealth. Those days are simply the rude awaking that money is not wealth after all. Indeed, all those dollars they hold are not even much of a representation of wealth anymore. The dollar has ceased to be money. It is on that day that such people will suddenly realize they have no wealth. They have no farm, no ranch, no chickens, no pigs, no skill as a medical doctor, etc.
Now to the subject of poverty and its causes. What capitalism actually does, and why it is the only way out of this mess.
'Poverty' is actually a government invention. Whether someone is rich or poor has to do with the wealth they own (including their own families and support among each other), rather then the money itself. Those that don't apply themselves to produce wealth that others want, if they do it long enough, will have no wealth and no skill to offer. What enables this is handouts from the government that oftentimes go on for generations. There is no incentive to get off the drugs, get out of the gangs, get out of sitting in the chair at home and play video games all day, or to develop any kind of talent or skill that is useful to someone.
Even the disabled can be productive. In my travels, I have personally hired a blind man to work in a radio station, and another one as a piano tuner (he was excellent!). I have seen a cripple that had no use of his legs (he lost them to polio) start several successful businesses. He even flew regularly to conduct his business. If you hear those crutches behind clumping along in the airport, you better get out of the way! He'd run you down! He's actually a good friend of mine.
Do you know how much an 'uneducated' sewage plumber makes? It's a respectable wage! Very few people WANT to do the kind of business he's in!
No, capitalism is not evil.
Into the Night
Verified User
I now address capitalism, where it comes from, and why it works. This may seem off topic at first, but it goes hand in hand with the desire to implement population controls in the first place, which tends to come from those that doubt capitalism.
For this example, I will take the western U.S. This is actually true anywhere in the world through the ages, but this particular example is one in recent history (at least recent enough to identify with it). Here I am speaking of the Old West.
When people first traveled out towards the West, there is nothing. There were a few indians warring with each other (and with the newcomers), but that was it. There was land, some bits of gold, a lot of animals, but no cities, no towns, just a few tribal villages that generally wanted to be left alone.
These people banded together around some resource, whether it was trees, water, animals, gold, whatever. They took that resource and create wealth out of it. Not money, wealth. Gold is worthless sitting in the ground. Animals are useless as wealth unless you convert them to skins, meat, pets, livestock, or tourist attractions. Trees are useless unless you log them, mill them, and convert them into useful lumber and other materials (or use them as a tourist attraction), or use their fruit, bark, or sap.
In other words, there was no wealth. These people created wealth out of the resources they found around them. They did not bother with money much. It was usually the barter system, although gold was used as money a fair bit of the time. These people knew they no one to depend on but each other. They formed their own towns, their own laws, and their own government. Government does not provide wealth. Wealth is created by people.
Today, that process still continues. In the mid 70's, a new way of making complex integrated circuits was developed. Using these, an entire industry was born that employs tens of thousands and directly benefits hundreds of thousands. The software industry that came out of the microprocessor being developed started with a few hobbyists, and developed in the Web, the Cloud, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube. All of this wealth was created out of nothing. It IS what capitalism is all about.
The free market is immortal. You can't kill it. You can drive it underground, but it will always be there (ask any drug dealer for details). There, price discovery works just as it always has. Money is facing it's true definition. It is a unit of account, and it represents wealth (even if that wealth is 'illegal').
Governments try to impose price controls. They fail every time. Always the same reason. They create shortages.
In the mid 70's, Pres. Carter attempted to implement price controls on gasoline. The result was inevitable. Faced with not charging enough to cover their own costs for a gallon of gasoline, gasoline vendors just sat on it, saying they were 'out of gasoline'. The government responded with rationing. Fights broke out. Eventually, price controls were repealed. Prices 'skyrocketed' (returned to the price set by price discovery). and gasoline was suddenly available everywhere again (although at higher prices). What happened? The dollar fell...a lot...due directly to government action.
Most recently in Seattle, they tried to impose rent controls on apartments. Again, the result was predictable. Faced with renting units for less than the cost of operating the apartment complex, owners sold their properties to developers which tore them down, replacing them with stores and condominiums (at very high prices, since the price of a condo is somewhat related to apartment rental prices). What few apartment complexes survived this attempt (which was again repealed) now were in a market if very few apartments and a whole host of people trying to rent them. Prices naturally 'skyrocketed' again as price discovery regained control.
The free market (and capitalism) is all about price discovery and the creation of new wealth. It is the only system that creates wealth. No one selling can ask just any old price and expect to get it. The customer will go where he can get that product or service where it is cheaper. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Jobs and employment is again price discovery. It is the free market in action. It is capitalism in action. These ARE the natural forces of economies. Your wage will be based on the availability of the product (your skills) and the number of companies needing it. Unskilled labor is naturally the lowest paying. There is a glut of unskilled workers, and not enough jobs for them. If you want higher pay, make yourself worth it to somebody. Get a skill. Do a job very few others wants to do. Do a job in a unique way that no one else offers. You need not wallow in poverty and do nothing.
Socialism, that other form of economy, can only exist by redistributing the wealth from producers of it to those who are not producing it. It can only be done by force. People do not want to naturally give up their wealth to unproductive uses like this. In other words, socialism is theft. It can only exist by force. It can only exist where there are dictatorships and oligarchies. It treats wealth as if it were a closed unchanging amount of it and that it somehow found itself concentrated in 'the wealthy'. If you have read anything of what I have written, you know how wrong an idea that is. Wealth is something that can be created. It doesn't have to be stolen. The rich are rich because they produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for. That includes every rich guy (or gal!) walking around. It includes Trump, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Doug McMillon. It includes every Hollywood actor, every NFL player, and even the guy willing to pump out your septic tank and truck the contents to the local sewage treatment plant.
The poor are poor because somebody (usually the government) is telling them they can't succeed, they have to stay unproductive or lose their benefits, and places other obstacles in their way to get out of their poverty. The inner city poor are no different than the old plantations of the South. It is slavery all over again.
For this example, I will take the western U.S. This is actually true anywhere in the world through the ages, but this particular example is one in recent history (at least recent enough to identify with it). Here I am speaking of the Old West.
When people first traveled out towards the West, there is nothing. There were a few indians warring with each other (and with the newcomers), but that was it. There was land, some bits of gold, a lot of animals, but no cities, no towns, just a few tribal villages that generally wanted to be left alone.
These people banded together around some resource, whether it was trees, water, animals, gold, whatever. They took that resource and create wealth out of it. Not money, wealth. Gold is worthless sitting in the ground. Animals are useless as wealth unless you convert them to skins, meat, pets, livestock, or tourist attractions. Trees are useless unless you log them, mill them, and convert them into useful lumber and other materials (or use them as a tourist attraction), or use their fruit, bark, or sap.
In other words, there was no wealth. These people created wealth out of the resources they found around them. They did not bother with money much. It was usually the barter system, although gold was used as money a fair bit of the time. These people knew they no one to depend on but each other. They formed their own towns, their own laws, and their own government. Government does not provide wealth. Wealth is created by people.
Today, that process still continues. In the mid 70's, a new way of making complex integrated circuits was developed. Using these, an entire industry was born that employs tens of thousands and directly benefits hundreds of thousands. The software industry that came out of the microprocessor being developed started with a few hobbyists, and developed in the Web, the Cloud, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube. All of this wealth was created out of nothing. It IS what capitalism is all about.
The free market is immortal. You can't kill it. You can drive it underground, but it will always be there (ask any drug dealer for details). There, price discovery works just as it always has. Money is facing it's true definition. It is a unit of account, and it represents wealth (even if that wealth is 'illegal').
Governments try to impose price controls. They fail every time. Always the same reason. They create shortages.
In the mid 70's, Pres. Carter attempted to implement price controls on gasoline. The result was inevitable. Faced with not charging enough to cover their own costs for a gallon of gasoline, gasoline vendors just sat on it, saying they were 'out of gasoline'. The government responded with rationing. Fights broke out. Eventually, price controls were repealed. Prices 'skyrocketed' (returned to the price set by price discovery). and gasoline was suddenly available everywhere again (although at higher prices). What happened? The dollar fell...a lot...due directly to government action.
Most recently in Seattle, they tried to impose rent controls on apartments. Again, the result was predictable. Faced with renting units for less than the cost of operating the apartment complex, owners sold their properties to developers which tore them down, replacing them with stores and condominiums (at very high prices, since the price of a condo is somewhat related to apartment rental prices). What few apartment complexes survived this attempt (which was again repealed) now were in a market if very few apartments and a whole host of people trying to rent them. Prices naturally 'skyrocketed' again as price discovery regained control.
The free market (and capitalism) is all about price discovery and the creation of new wealth. It is the only system that creates wealth. No one selling can ask just any old price and expect to get it. The customer will go where he can get that product or service where it is cheaper. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Jobs and employment is again price discovery. It is the free market in action. It is capitalism in action. These ARE the natural forces of economies. Your wage will be based on the availability of the product (your skills) and the number of companies needing it. Unskilled labor is naturally the lowest paying. There is a glut of unskilled workers, and not enough jobs for them. If you want higher pay, make yourself worth it to somebody. Get a skill. Do a job very few others wants to do. Do a job in a unique way that no one else offers. You need not wallow in poverty and do nothing.
Socialism, that other form of economy, can only exist by redistributing the wealth from producers of it to those who are not producing it. It can only be done by force. People do not want to naturally give up their wealth to unproductive uses like this. In other words, socialism is theft. It can only exist by force. It can only exist where there are dictatorships and oligarchies. It treats wealth as if it were a closed unchanging amount of it and that it somehow found itself concentrated in 'the wealthy'. If you have read anything of what I have written, you know how wrong an idea that is. Wealth is something that can be created. It doesn't have to be stolen. The rich are rich because they produce a product or service that people are willing to pay for. That includes every rich guy (or gal!) walking around. It includes Trump, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, and Doug McMillon. It includes every Hollywood actor, every NFL player, and even the guy willing to pump out your septic tank and truck the contents to the local sewage treatment plant.
The poor are poor because somebody (usually the government) is telling them they can't succeed, they have to stay unproductive or lose their benefits, and places other obstacles in their way to get out of their poverty. The inner city poor are no different than the old plantations of the South. It is slavery all over again.
Frank: "If all the work that has to be done can be done by 1,000,000 people...why try to find jobs for 350,000,000 people."
Jack: A good question. Why should 1,000,000 people try and support themselves ... plus another 250,000,000 people who AREN'T working?
Frank: "The notion that each person must "work for a living" is the thing that has to go."
Jack: Many Trust-fund babies and Shareholders already agree with you.
Frank: "The reason for the technological revolution is to make life easier for humans...to have machines, computers, and robots do the majority of the work so that humans can relax more."
Jack: The reason for the technology revolution is to increase productivity and create 'wealth' for the Ownership Class.
Frank: "What the hell are we doing with this?"
Jack: Making money.
Frank: "Do you people want "digging holes and filling them in" to be the norm...just so everyone can work for a living?"
Jack: THAT is the question. Why import MORE people that are going to be useless in the Future.
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
"Over"population? Capitalism and mass consumption will toast us all in the end. As for hominids getting organized, concentrated wealth and power is quite organized. The unsubstantial people cannot get organized because they have been inprinted to compete to the end. Cooperation and the commons is anathama to the extract, horde and expand mantra of capitalism as we understand it. It is the cult of the self as god.
Into the Night
Verified User
I don't bother with them much anymore. The difference between the 'mainstream' media (such as the Associated Press) and the supermarket tabloids is smaller than most people like to think about.
It's about cost. Oil and natural gas are CHEAP. Burning either one efficiently is not a problem.
What problem? Yes, Bill Gates is funding research into 'waste fuel' reactors.
Modern reactors really do not have safety issues. Even when the Fukushima plants were almost entirely destroyed by a tidal wave, very few people lost their lives from it (six). That is far less than most industrial accidents.
Same with modern nuclear reactors.
The 'cooling' that you refer to is energy extraction. All engines require a 'hot' side and a 'cold' side. A nuclear reactor power station is no different. That cooling tower you see is the 'cold' side of the engine. It gives a place for the steam driving the turbines to go. That steam is not radioactive. The reactor itself contains the primary loop, which only goes to a heat exchange and right back to the reactor again. This minimizes the flow of coolant that may contain traces of radioactivity.
The word 'coolant' itself is somewhat of a misnomer. A 'coolant' is simply a way of transporting heat. It's a conveyor belt for heat.
While current nuclear reactors can melt down if they are left exposed without any coolant at all, it is not as devastating as the movies make it out to be. Mostly, it's an expensive loss of power plant equipment.
Nothing wrong with that! The only reason that fuel is dangerous is because it is putting out energy. There is nothing preventing anybody building a reactor to tap that energy.
Waste fuel reactors are wonderful devices. They've been around awhile, but until recently it hasn't been worth building such a plant. The amount of waste fuel from current plants is not very large. It is much less than the ash you have to clean out of a typical coal plant periodically.
I consider both reactors safe nuclear power.
Heh. I know what you mean. There is a LOT of politics and fear around technologies people don't understand. Just look at the simple fears people have over the Alexa devices out there and how Amazon is 'listening to every word'. They aren't. Alexa devices don't transmit ANY network activity until they hear their wake word, and only as long as the indicator lights are lit (I've verified this).
The first one was already built some time ago, right here in the United States, as an experimental reactor. Yes...it works.
Actually, they're not. While these regulations refer to different types of nuclear reactors, they do not prohibit any particular type.
Actually, they can, and they did. The problem is the power companies don't see the profitability of building one. They are not as efficient in producing usable power as the reactor systems they've already invested in.
Heh. They CAN be a stick in the mud, that's for sure.There ARE ways around that.
Actually, they're worse. They're such sticks in the mud they are STILL trying to build their way out of their current economic problems by constructing useless cities for no one to live in.
None. See my article on capitalism.
Dealing with the Chinese government IS an exercise in red tape! Ask anyone from China.
I'm glad you like the idea of 'waste fuel' reactors. I've been advocating them for some time now. The problem is they can't replace natural gas and oil. Not all power supplies are fixed. Some have to be mobile.
The U.S.has plenty.They are not as 'rare' as you are led to believe.
So is species discovery.
Actually, we're doing much better than we used to!
The America Buffalo? Private individuals are raising them. Salmon? Private individuals are farming them. The numbers of both species has improved greatly. My favorite one: the whales. We used to hunt them mercilessly. Whole areas of the ocean had been fished out. Want to know what saved them? Big oil! We don't need the whales for lamp oil anymore!
This is wrong. These birds were destroyed wholesale because they were a major pest, especially to corn farmers. Oh, a few collected the pretty feathers, but that's not what made them extinct. We don't even know if they ARE truly extinct. We just think they might be.
Heh. Government was in on destroying them!
Batteries don't depend on rare earths.
If you want to start a war over stealing the wealth of those that created it, that's your own risk.I would advise caution. They are better armed than you are.
We actually have more trees than ever in the United States, thanks to farmers like Weyerhauser.
No need. We have more trees than ever.
Mason Michaels
Verified User
I always thought air pollution helps get ones body out of wack.Drug abuse is a unconscious attempt to get back in balance.
Into the Night
Verified User
Since the topic has come up, I will now address 'renewable' power sources.
There are two kinds: fixed power supplies (like a regular power station providing electricity for your home), and mobile power supplies (like fuel for vehicles, be it a car, boat, plane, or railroad engine).
I have already discussed why oil and natural gas are renewable power sources. These fuels are cheap, and they can be applied equally as well to fixed as well as mobile power plants. There is no reason not to use them.
That said, other power sources are quite practical. Sites for practical hydroelectric power exist in several places right here in the Northwest, and so we depend on a lot of our fixed power source using that method. We also have a nuclear power station that produces quite a lot of power in its own right. It is clean, the waste fuel is very little, but is toxic and must be handled carefully. There are better ways to deal with this spent fuel (see Politalker's article on 'waste fuel' reactors). The spent fuel from these is so low in energy that it can be safely disposed in a standard landfill. Even then, we are talking about only a few points for the tremendous energy produced by both of these plants. These plants are good only as fixed power supplies.
Fusion is another potential power source that could be very clean. It uses just water for fuel, and produces helium as the waste product (a valuable commodity today!). So far, we haven't been able to contain what is effectively a star in a reaction chamber and have it survive. There are some ideas, but this is a long ways off. It would be practical only for fixed power supplies.
Coal is primarily carbon. Although there are theories, we really don't know where it comes from. We don't know if it is a renewable fuel or not. The most popular theory today is that it comes from decayed plant material. There is plenty of it in the United States though, and it's easy to get at. Indeed, all over the Americas, North and South, coal is plentiful and cheap. There are a lot of concerns about coal, among them the concept that it is a 'dirty' fuel. It doesn't have to be. This fuel is useful for both fixed and mobile power supplies, although currently is primarily used in fixed supplies. You'll still find occasionally a steam locomotive or a steam driven car though! These external combustion engines have certain advantages over internal combustion engines we use today. They also have certain disadvantages. Coal is cheap. It can be used anywhere. It doesn't have to be a 'dirty' fuel. It can burn quite clean.
Wind power systems are nice for remote areas, but as fixed power plants, they are very expensive, often running 10-20 times the cost of other fuels per watt produced. Further, the wind doesn't blow at a rate usable by the wind turbines all the time, and such a system must be ballasted, resulting in even higher costs (ballasting a system is storing the energy, either in batteries, mechanically, hydraulically, whatever). Such wind farms also consume a lot of real estate, can be a hazard to certain birds, and are dangerous to be within a mile of them. Wind power is only practical as a fixed power supply (with the notable exception of sailboats!).
Solar power is better, but is still tremendously expensive. It too must be ballasted. The cost per watt is again some 10 to 20 times the cost of 'traditional' fuels like oil and natural gas. Like wind power, it is only really practical for fixed power supplies. Some experimental craft have been built to run on solar power (including even aircraft!), but these are unable to carry any appreciable load. In aircraft, particularly, the ballasting system adds quite a bit of weight. To be fair, a regular old glider is a solar powered aircraft. It only stays up because of updrafts coming from the ground (due to solar activity). At night, though, they must come down. It's time to land.
Power sources vary depending on where you are. It's not practical, for example, to build hydroelectric power where there is little water or little vertical drop. Small systems such as waterwheels, can work, but they are not enough for industrial sized electric power plants. Such waterwheels are good for local use, such as grinding, hammering, or sawing, usually within the mill itself.
Each part of the world will use the power sources most easily obtainable for it for the cheapest price to get the amount they need. No power source will fill the needs of everybody everywhere. Whatever is plentiful in an area and cheap, people will use.
Trying to dictate to the world what power sources they should use isn't practical. At best, it's price controls, which never work, and at worst, it's dictatorial thinking that is making people use unwanted sources by force.
There are two kinds: fixed power supplies (like a regular power station providing electricity for your home), and mobile power supplies (like fuel for vehicles, be it a car, boat, plane, or railroad engine).
I have already discussed why oil and natural gas are renewable power sources. These fuels are cheap, and they can be applied equally as well to fixed as well as mobile power plants. There is no reason not to use them.
That said, other power sources are quite practical. Sites for practical hydroelectric power exist in several places right here in the Northwest, and so we depend on a lot of our fixed power source using that method. We also have a nuclear power station that produces quite a lot of power in its own right. It is clean, the waste fuel is very little, but is toxic and must be handled carefully. There are better ways to deal with this spent fuel (see Politalker's article on 'waste fuel' reactors). The spent fuel from these is so low in energy that it can be safely disposed in a standard landfill. Even then, we are talking about only a few points for the tremendous energy produced by both of these plants. These plants are good only as fixed power supplies.
Fusion is another potential power source that could be very clean. It uses just water for fuel, and produces helium as the waste product (a valuable commodity today!). So far, we haven't been able to contain what is effectively a star in a reaction chamber and have it survive. There are some ideas, but this is a long ways off. It would be practical only for fixed power supplies.
Coal is primarily carbon. Although there are theories, we really don't know where it comes from. We don't know if it is a renewable fuel or not. The most popular theory today is that it comes from decayed plant material. There is plenty of it in the United States though, and it's easy to get at. Indeed, all over the Americas, North and South, coal is plentiful and cheap. There are a lot of concerns about coal, among them the concept that it is a 'dirty' fuel. It doesn't have to be. This fuel is useful for both fixed and mobile power supplies, although currently is primarily used in fixed supplies. You'll still find occasionally a steam locomotive or a steam driven car though! These external combustion engines have certain advantages over internal combustion engines we use today. They also have certain disadvantages. Coal is cheap. It can be used anywhere. It doesn't have to be a 'dirty' fuel. It can burn quite clean.
Wind power systems are nice for remote areas, but as fixed power plants, they are very expensive, often running 10-20 times the cost of other fuels per watt produced. Further, the wind doesn't blow at a rate usable by the wind turbines all the time, and such a system must be ballasted, resulting in even higher costs (ballasting a system is storing the energy, either in batteries, mechanically, hydraulically, whatever). Such wind farms also consume a lot of real estate, can be a hazard to certain birds, and are dangerous to be within a mile of them. Wind power is only practical as a fixed power supply (with the notable exception of sailboats!).
Solar power is better, but is still tremendously expensive. It too must be ballasted. The cost per watt is again some 10 to 20 times the cost of 'traditional' fuels like oil and natural gas. Like wind power, it is only really practical for fixed power supplies. Some experimental craft have been built to run on solar power (including even aircraft!), but these are unable to carry any appreciable load. In aircraft, particularly, the ballasting system adds quite a bit of weight. To be fair, a regular old glider is a solar powered aircraft. It only stays up because of updrafts coming from the ground (due to solar activity). At night, though, they must come down. It's time to land.
Power sources vary depending on where you are. It's not practical, for example, to build hydroelectric power where there is little water or little vertical drop. Small systems such as waterwheels, can work, but they are not enough for industrial sized electric power plants. Such waterwheels are good for local use, such as grinding, hammering, or sawing, usually within the mill itself.
Each part of the world will use the power sources most easily obtainable for it for the cheapest price to get the amount they need. No power source will fill the needs of everybody everywhere. Whatever is plentiful in an area and cheap, people will use.
Trying to dictate to the world what power sources they should use isn't practical. At best, it's price controls, which never work, and at worst, it's dictatorial thinking that is making people use unwanted sources by force.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Air pollution is definitely bad. A lot of substance abuse though is self-treatment for depression and other psychiatric ailments.