APP - 'What we need now is economic and social development...'

midcan5

Member
"Impossibility statements are the very foundation of science. It is impossible to: travel faster than the speed of light; create or destroy matter-energy; build a perpetual motion machine, etc. By respecting impossibility theorems we avoid wasting resources on projects that are bound to fail. Therefore economists should be very interested in impossibility theorems, especially the one to be demonstrated here, namely that it is impossible for the world economy to grow its way out of poverty and environmental degradation. In other words, sustainable growth is impossible." Link below

By Stabroek staff * June 12, 2010 in Letters

"That said, my position is that: “Achieving a good life for more than 6 billion people, without further threatening the ecological systems on which we all depend, is the greatest challenge of our age” (Simms and Smith). Mr David Cameron, the new British Prime Minister, has argued that instead of focusing on GDP (Gross Domestic Product) we should put our faith in GWB (General Well-Being) measured by indicators such as the Happy Planet Index of the NEF (New Economics Foundation). “It goes to show,” he observed, “what most of us instinctively feel: that the pursuit of wealth is no longer – if it ever was – enough to meet people’s hopes and aspirations; that over-consumption of the world’s resources cannot satisfy our most inborn desires; and yes, that quality of life means more than quantity of money."

As if to enhance this conclusion, the environmentalist, Alan Durning found that, compared to 1950, GDP per capita in the USA has tripled since 1950 and that the average American family has twice as many cars, uses twenty-one times as much plastic, and travels twenty-five times further by air, but that life satisfaction has fallen. “More Americans say their marriages are unhappy, their jobs are unfulfilling, and they don’t like the place where they live. In the UK, per capita GDP grew 66 per cent between 1973 and 2001, but has failed to translate into higher satisfaction levels. Suicide rates have increased markedly, as have levels of violence, alcoholism, drug addiction and substance abuse.” Using recent conservative estimates, in a typical calendar year, the United Kingdom stops living off its own natural resources and starts to ‘live off’ the rest of the world from about April 15. No wonder Secretary of State Benn, noted: “A good life in the twenty-first century will have to be one that is lived within the earth’s means, consuming the resources of just one planet, and not the three that the WWF estimates we are currently using.""

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2010/le...ve-improvement-without-growth-in-consumption/

http://dieoff.org/page37.htm

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=26797
 
What we need? a leader. Someone who makes decisions and finds the people to implement them.

I didn't read your post, BTW
 
Last edited:
Midcan, the problem is that you are connecting two dissimilar facts and claiming it means something.

Are we happier now than we were 60 years ago? Perhaps not.

Is this because of our degradation of the environment? No evidence to show it is.

The population is so bombarded and manipulated by the media, they will never be happy or content.
 
MYTH 1: The world is overcrowded and population growth is adding overwhelming numbers of humans to a small planet.
.
In fact, people do live in crowded conditions, and always have. We cluster together in cities and villages in order to exchange goods and services with one another. But while we crowd together for economic reasons in our great metropolitan areas, most of the world is empty, as we can see when we fly over it. It has been estimated by Paul Ehrlich and others that human beings actually occupy no more than 1-3% of the earth's land surface.
.
If you allotted 1250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. Try the math yourself: 7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person. The population density of this giant city would be about 21,000 -- somewhat more than San Francisco and less than the Bronx.
.
Another fact: World population growth is rapidly declining. United Nations figures show that the 79 countries that comprise 40% of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965-70 to 1.5 in 1990-95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960-65 to 1.70 in 1990-95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 -- that is, effectively zero -- in 1990-95.And the annual rate of change in world population fell from 2% in 1965-70 to less than 1.5% in 1990-95.
.
Worldwide, the number of children the typical woman had during her lifetime (total fertility) fell from 5 in 1950-55 to less than 3 in 1990-95. (The number necessary just to "replace" the current generation is 2.1.) In the more developed regions, total fertility fell from 2.77 to 1.68 over the same period. In the less developed regions it fell from more than 6 to 3.3. Total fertility in Mexico was 3.1 in 1990-95. In Spain it stood at 1.3, and in Italy, it was 1.2.
.
Official forecasts of eventual world population size have been steadily falling. In 1992-93, the World Bank predicted world population would exceed 10 billion by the year 2050. In 1996, the UN predicted 9 billion for 2050. If the trend continues, the next estimate will be lower still.
.
MYTH 2: Overpopulation is causing global warming.
.
The message that is most likely to arouse the fervor of young people is that overpopulation is destroying the environment and the biosphere. On this point, the first thing to keep in mind is that some of the most beautiful parts of the world, with the highest environmental quality, are in densely populated countries such as western Germany, which has more than 600 persons per square mile, and the Netherlands, which has almost 1200 persons per square mile, compared with 330 in China. Several myths promote the belief that we are engulfed in an environmental catastrophe.
.
For instance, Vice-President Al Gore and some scientists say population growth is causing global warming. But there is much disagreement in the scientific community about this. Seventy-nine scientists issued the "Leipzig Declaration" in 1995 saying "...There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about ... greenhouse warming ...." Additionally, the satellite readings of global temperature, available on the NASA Web site at www.nasa.com, do not show a warming trend. And further, respected climatologists such as Hugh Ellsaesser, Richard S. Lindzen and Robert C. Balling vigorously dispute the notion of a global warming danger.
.
MYTH 3: Overpopulation causes ozone depletion.
.
Like global warming, the cause and significance of the so-called ozone "hole" is a matter of intense scientific dispute, although the United States and other nations have agreed to reductions in the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were alleged to have caused it. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist who participated in the earliest ozone measurements, calls the ozone scare a "misuse of science." In fact, many think the chief function of the CFC ban has been to help big chemical companies establish highly profitable new monopolies on the CFC substitutes which they developed.
.
MYTH 4: The world's forests are disappearing because of overpopulation.
.
This is an important matter because forests are an essential part of the world's environment and, therefore, humanity's well-being. The Psalmists spoke in awe of the cedars of Lebanon. Today we know that trees inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, which means that they are a first line of defense against air pollution and the specter of global warming. The world forested area, estimated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), currently amounts to four billion hectares, covering 30% of the land surface of the earth. Few people realize this is the same figure as in the 1950s.
.
In the United States, vast forests cover a third of the land, according to the US Forest Service. That's equivalent to two-thirds of the amount of land that was forested when the Europeans arrived in the 1600s. This acreage has not declined since 1920. In fact, annual forest growth today is more than 3-1/2 times what it was in 1920. Two-thirds of the nation's forests are classed as timberland, capable of producing at least 20 cubic feet per acre of industrial wood annually. Another fact: Trees are growing 33% faster than they are being cut.
.
The highest volumes of growth occur on privately-owned forest industry land, while the government-owned national forests, where the trees are older, have the lowest volumes of tree growth. The National Wilderness Preservation System grew from nine million acres in 1964 to 96 million acres in 1993. But this is not enough for the environmentalists of The Wildlands Project, who hope to turn fully half of the land area of the United States into wilderness areas inhabited by grizzly bears, wolverines and mountain lions, and make it off-limits to humans. There has also been great agitation about the "destruction of the tropical rainforests." Someone has claimed that an area twice the size of Belgium is now being logged worldwide each year, but people don't realize Belgium could fit into the world's tropical forests 500 times, and in the meantime, the rest of the world's trees -- 99.6% of them -- are continuing to grow. One of the greatest of these tropical stands exists in Brazil, with more than half of the forests of South America.
.
FAO and Brazilian government figures suggest that logging takes about 0.2% of forest acreage per year, and in 1993, Brazilian forests covered 58% of the country's total land area. Such figures hardly suggest a catastrophic decline. Another thing that's misleading is that FAO figures show a "decline" in forest cover even when forest land is appropriated for use as public parks, and not a single tree is cut down. And if in fact some deforestation is occurring in Brazil, it can scarcely be the result of overpopulation; Brazil has less than half as many people per square mile (31.2) as the world average (101).
.
MYTH 5: Air pollution is the result of overpopulation, and acid rain, a byproduct of air pollution, is destroying lakes, rivers and forests.
.
In fact, air and water pollution levels have been highest in the centrally-planned economies of Eastern Europe and China, where population growth is low or negative. Legendary air pollution in Poland and Russia has occurred in areas with thinly-settled populations. In the United States, air pollution is declining significantly. The federal government's National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program recently reported "no widespread forest or crop damage in the United States" related to acid rain.
.
MYTH 6: Many plants and animals are disappearing because of the growth in human numbers.
.
There is absolutely no scientific data whatsoever to support this claim. Even a scientist such as David Jablonski, who believes species will decline, says, "We have no idea how many species are out there and how many are dying." Some species, such as blue whales, spotted owls and blackfooted ferrets, have been found to be more numerous than was once thought. Since many species exist in forests and the earth's forest cover is remaining about the same, the claims of massive species extinction appear doubtful.
.
MYTH 7: Overpopulation is threatening the world food supply.
.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, world food supplies exceed requirements in all world areas, amounting to a surplus approaching 50% in 1990 in the developed countries, and 17% in the developing regions. "Globally, food supplies have more than doubled in the last 40 years ... between 1962 and 1991, average daily per caput food supplies increased more than 15% ... at a global level, there is probably no obstacle to food production rising to meet demand," according to FAO documents prepared for the 1996 World Food Summit. The FAO also reported that less than a third as many people had less than 2100 calories per person per day in 1990-92 as had been the case in 1969-71.
.
At present, farmers use less than half of the world's arable land. The conversion of land to urban and built-up uses to accommodate a larger population will absorb less than 2% of the world's land, and "is not likely to seriously diminish the supply of land for agricultural production," according to Paul Waggoner, writing for the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology in 1994.
.
MYTH 8: Overpopulation is the chief cause of poverty.
.
In reality, problems commonly blamed on "overpopulation" are the result of bad economic policy. For example, Western journalists blamed the Ethiopian famine on "overpopulation," but that was simply not true. The Ethiopian government caused it by confiscating the food stocks of traders and farmers and exporting them to buy arms. That country's leftist regime, not its population, caused the tragedy. In fact, Africa, beset with problems often blamed on "overpopulation," has only one-fifth the population density of Europe, and has an unexploited food-raising potential that could feed twice the present population of the world, according to estimates by Roger Revelle of Harvard and the University of San Diego. Economists writing for the International Monetary Fund in 1994 said that African economic problems result from excessive government spending, high taxes on farmers, inflation, restrictions on trade, too much government ownership, and overregulation of private economic activity. There was no mention of overpopulation.
.
The government of the Philippines relies on foreign aid to control population growth, but protects monopolies which buy farmers' outputs at artificially low prices, and sell them inputs at artificially high prices, causing widespread poverty. Advocates of population control blame "overpopulation" for poverty in Bangladesh. But the government dominates the buying and processing of jute, the major cash crop, so that farmers receive less for their efforts than they would in a free market. Impoverished farmers flee to the city, but the government owns 40% of industry and regulates the rest with price controls, high taxes and unpublished rules administered by a huge, corrupt, foreign-aid dependent bureaucracy. Jobs are hard to find and poverty is rampant. This crowding leads to problems such as sporadic or inefficient food distribution, but this problem is caused -- as in Ethiopia -- by that country's flawed domestic policies.
.
It is often claimed that poverty in China is the result of "overpopulation." But Taiwan, with a population density five times as great as mainland China's, produces many times as much per capita. The Republic of Korea, with a population density 3.6 times as great as China's, has a per capita output almost 16 times as great. The Malaysian government abandoned population control in 1984, ushering in remarkable economic growth under free market reforms, while Ecuador, Uruguay, Bulgaria and other countries complained at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo that though they had reduced their population growth, they still had deteriorating economies.
.
MYTH 9: Women and men throughout the world are begging for the means to control their fertility.
.
Not so, according to reports from such places as Bangladesh, Africa and the Philippines. The fact is, surplus condoms and birth control pills fill warehouses in the less developed world and women flee the birth control workers and beg to have their implants and IUDs removed.
.
US foreign assistance law requires countries receiving American foreign aid to take steps to reduce population growth [you can find this in 22 US Code, sec. 2151-1; 22 US Code, sec. 2151(b)]. Far from meeting an "unmet need" for birth control, foreign-supported family planners in India, Bangladesh and other countries must pay, or force, their clients to accept it, according to reports from these countries. Foreign-supported population control is so unpopular in Bangladesh that riots over this issue prevented the prime minister from attending the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo in 1994.
.
Dr. Margaret Ogola, a Kenyan pediatrician, disputed the claim of "unmet need" for family planning at the International Conference on Population and Develop-ment in Cairo in 1994. She said that foreign aid givers have lavished pills, condoms and IUDs on hospitals and clinics in Kenya, but that simple medicines for common diseases remain unavailable. A United Nations survey of abortion and birth control policies throughout the world found that high proportions of women were familiar with and were using "traditional" methods (NFP) of limiting births.
.
In 1981, the typical Bangladeshi woman was having seven children during her lifetime; since then the number has fallen to 3.4. According to Bangladesh press reports in 1994, the secretary of health acknowledged that "coercion, blackmail [and] abuse of payment provisions" were problems in the population control program. Alarmed by extremely low fertility, South Korea reported to the International Conference in Cairo that it has slashed its government expenditures on birth control. Singapore, faced with below-replacement fertility, reported that it now offers tax rebates to couples with more than two children. Government-supported "family planning" agencies in the United States, such as Planned Parenthood, claim their services save public assistance costs. In fact, published research has shown that states which spend large amounts on birth control subsequently have higher costs of public assistance. Research also shows that states which require parental consent for a minor to have an abortion have lower rates of adolescent pregnancy.
.
MYTH 10: Overpopulation causes war and revolution.
.
The most war-torn continent on earth -- Africa -- is also one of the least densely populated, with about half as many people per square mile as in the world as a whole. Bad governments, propped up by ineptly and unjustly managed foreign aid, are more probably the root of strife.
.
The worldwide movement which promotes population control is not small or weak. It is a powerful alliance of United Nations agencies, national governments, foundations and "nongovernmental organizations." It commands many billions of dollars in resources. Its members include family planning agencies, radical leftist environmental organizations such as the Sierra Club and the World Wildlife Fund, development planners, international financial institutions such as the World Bank, foreign relations agencies such as the US Agency for International Development, and "research" organizations such as Worldwatch Institute. Its ideology increasingly dominates school and college instructional programs and textbook publishing.
.
Ultimately, however, its power rests on public ignorance in countries such as the United States. For the billions of people who inhabit God's creation, and for the billions more He intends it for, it's up to us to find out the truth about "overpopulation," and to share it with as many people as will listen.

http://www.juntosociety.com/guest/sperlazzo/bs_opm1010903.html
 
How can the "obvious" logic of the population control lobby be wrong? Because the resources of the planet are not a fixed pie that dwindle with each birth. The resources are whatever we can make of this planet - or solar system - and it takes the work of human beings to transform raw materials and energy into useful resources. Humans are not a liability, but a resource that we need! On this topic, I recommend the work of Drs. C. Maurice and C. Smithson of Texas A&M, The Doomsday Myth, Hoover Instit. Press, Stanford Univ., 1984. (This gem will help you have a lot more fun and success in debates with the doomsaying crowd.)

Our technological society, fueled by the precious resource of abundant working, thinking human beings, has enabled crop lands to skyrocket in productivity and has enabled humans to live vastly longer than ever before. The resulting large population, living at a higher standard than ever before, breathing cleaner air and drinking purer water, is a cause for celebration, not for doomsaying. Once-neglected resources - solar energy, sand, radioactive minerals, salt water, carbon dioxide, the vast interior mantle of the earth itself - may provide the foundations for future economies beyond anything we have today. The future could be bright, unless we surrender what's left of our free economy for a global, centrally-planned economy in which political elitists rule and decide how many of us must live to achieve "the optimum number of human beings."

http://www.jefflindsay.com/Overpop.shtml
 
In a world in which a child - a living sentient being - dies every few seconds and most of the world survives on less than two dollars a day reading the replies above strikes me as absurd.

The question of happiness is not a comparison but rather does modern material life make us happy or provide for a situation that provides for happiness? Consider the rush to bomb Iraq, consider the tea party, consider the battle to simply pass healthcare. Do I need to explain these in enough detail that you see the discontent, the unhappiness.

I wonder do people look out their windows and assume because the view is OK that all the earth is OK. How narrow minded, how stupid most are.

Check out "Planet Earth." "Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia." Kurt Vonnegut


http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html
 
In a world in which a child - a living sentient being - dies every few seconds and most of the world survives on less than two dollars a day reading the replies above strikes me as absurd.

The question of happiness is not a comparison but rather does modern material life make us happy or provide for a situation that provides for happiness? Consider the rush to bomb Iraq, consider the tea party, consider the battle to simply pass healthcare. Do I need to explain these in enough detail that you see the discontent, the unhappiness.

I wonder do people look out their windows and assume because the view is OK that all the earth is OK. How narrow minded, how stupid most are.

Check out "Planet Earth." "Human beings will be happier — not when they cure cancer or get to Mars or eliminate racial prejudice or flush Lake Erie — but when they find ways to inhabit primitive communities again. That’s my utopia." Kurt Vonnegut


http://www.ted.com/talks/james_balog_time_lapse_proof_of_extreme_ice_loss.html

These problems are not due to overpopulation. They're due to mismanagement and faulty political systems.
 
Ok mican.

1. You say people are dying every two seconds, or whatever, and simulataneously that quantity of money is not the problem. But for that starving person, money was the problem. see. a fundamental paradox in your position.
 
Ok mican.

1. You say people are dying every two seconds, or whatever, and simulataneously that quantity of money is not the problem. But for that starving person, money was the problem. see. a fundamental paradox in your position.

Eating money is hardly nutritious. Next question.


"For more than 30 years, I’ve been reading, writing and teaching about the ethical issue posed by the juxtaposition, on our planet, of great abundance and life-threatening poverty. Yet it was not until, in preparing this article, I calculated how much America’s Top 10 percent of income earners actually make that I fully understood how easy it would be for the world’s rich to eliminate, or virtually eliminate, global poverty. (It has actually become much easier over the last 30 years, as the rich have grown significantly richer.)"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...?em&ex=1166763600&en=008e5238d37554dc&ei=5070



"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html

.
 
Eating money is hardly nutritious. Next question.


"For more than 30 years, I’ve been reading, writing and teaching about the ethical issue posed by the juxtaposition, on our planet, of great abundance and life-threatening poverty. Yet it was not until, in preparing this article, I calculated how much America’s Top 10 percent of income earners actually make that I fully understood how easy it would be for the world’s rich to eliminate, or virtually eliminate, global poverty. (It has actually become much easier over the last 30 years, as the rich have grown significantly richer.)"

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/m...?em&ex=1166763600&en=008e5238d37554dc&ei=5070





"On moral grounds, then, we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent to return that wealth to its real owners. In the United States, even a flat tax of 70 percent would support all governmental programs (about half the total tax) and allow payment, with the remainder, of a patrimony of about $8,000 per annum per inhabitant, or $25,000 for a family of three. This would generously leave with the original recipients of the income about three times what, according to my rough guess, they had earned."

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR25.5/simon.html

.

But if they had money they could buy food. There are not too many people on earth. There are enough resources. it is a distribution problem.

And economies are not a zero sum game, you don't have tax western economies to help third world economies. turning the people into wage slaves is not a help either.

The output of planet earth can be much greater, your scarcity lies are just the way the elites are convincing you to destroy the people in western societes.
 
But if they had money they could buy food. There are not too many people on earth. There are enough resources. it is a distribution problem.

And economies are not a zero sum game, you don't have tax western economies to help third world economies. turning the people into wage slaves is not a help either.

The output of planet earth can be much greater, your scarcity lies are just the way the elites are convincing you to destroy the people in western societes.
Just let them breed themselves into obscurity, AssHat. I encourage their participation in a program that would keep them from breeding.
 
Just let them breed themselves into obscurity, AssHat. I encourage their participation in a program that would keep them from breeding.


See, you've succumbed to the scarcity delusion. Your "us or them" mentality makes you support nihilist statist programs of genocide.
 
See, you've succumbed to the scarcity delusion. Your "us or them" mentality makes you support nihilist statist programs of genocide.
Nah, I support their right to join into self-annihilation if they choose to do so. I don't support any legislation along those lines, I just encourage them to take their civil-mindedness to extreme measures and take themselves out of the gene pool.
 
I find it hard to believe anyone can seriously derive a political philosophy from the writings of utopia minded idiots who actually use phrases like "Happy Planet Index" as if they hold meaning. I mean really: "Happy Planet Index"? Sounds like people who are consuming way too much "Happy Planet Weed".

Are people less satisfied than 50 years ago? Sure seems that way. Is it due to the horrible, immoral, baby eating rich? Hardly. It's just a manifestation of silver spoon syndrome. We are less satisfied with more because we are spoiled children who refuse to grow up.

All the above is nothing more than a continuation of the ever-present "I'm sad and it's someone else's fault" bullshit of the far left, using their crap to justify their programs of massive tax increases to grow more government dependence. The fact is that, in the end, socialism is NOT about any theory of social justice, but is actually about growing power for government.

The sad part is how many brain dead twits, who never got over being taken from mommy's teats, who fall for the socialist twaddle, ignoring the long term consequences because of the lure of the feel-good of "helping" the needy through theft from others. (Heaven forbid these socialist "do-gooders" should actually propose to accept the responsibility of helping others themselves!)
 
Nah, I support their right to join into self-annihilation if they choose to do so. I don't support any legislation along those lines, I just encourage them to take their civil-mindedness to extreme measures and take themselves out of the gene pool.

wait. Who's they?
 
wait. Who's they?
The group promoting the idea that this should be the "last generation"... Let them self-annihilate. I fully support their effort to make sure they have no more children and strongly hope that they take drastic measures to make sure they have no more children.
 
Back
Top