Something verry wrong is going on.

[danyboy27]

I am not a conspiracy theorist, i dont believe in 2012 or may 21 end of the world scenario, but all these wild things happening for the last 2 year give me the feeling that something verry bad will eventually happen.

Natural disasters are at an all time high, its just insane, The economical crisis creating more inequality, growing political instability worldwide etc etc.

Sometimes i wonder if i will make it to my 50 before society completely collapse on itself.

[Proukunin]

I feel you comrade. It's not just us either many people think this. Many of my friends and their friends think this. It's very hard times right now and no one knows what to do to deal with it properly.

I feel the worst because I can't forget about it. Like trying to forget that things are going wrong because I get scared that disasters like BP(I live 100 miles from the coast) are going to sicken us or kill us.

It has been a year since BP and there is still millions of gallons of oil and dispersant in the gulf, piling into waterways and marshes of Louisiana. Reports of symptoms like neurological problems and respiratory problems from the spill are common.

My home was also attacked by a tornado for the first time during the early April tornado outbreak and storms. It wasn't as horrible as the Tuscaloosa but It took buildings out and that was weird because all of my life, 20 years, there has never been a Tornado around here.

Not to mention the radiation pouring out of Japan, and the pollution pouring out of everywhere and the scares of food shortages. That is how I feel almost everyday. It doesn't bother me as much as other days though.

[Dr Mindbender]

We only think this because we are living it, but compared to other eras of history the modern day is a cakewalk. Right up to the period before WW2 there was a depression which made today's recession look like an meagre economic downturn which was quickly followed by WW2 itself, the third Reich and the holocaust. Which was in itself the sequel to the 'war to end all wars'.

Or the plague which wiped out half of Europe. Nope, mankind has been through much worse than this and we will continue to trundle on in one way or another.

[bcbm]

mankind will survive, i don't think society as we know it can if we don't solve environmental and economic issues yesterday. which is to say, i don't think society as we know it will survive the next 100 years.

[agnixie]

We only think this because we are living it, but compared to other eras of history the modern day is a cakewalk. Right up to the period before WW2 there was a depression which made today's recession look like an meagre economic downturn which was quickly followed by WW2 itself, the third Reich and the holocaust. Which was in itself the sequel to the 'war to end all wars'.

Or the plague which wiped out half of Europe. Nope, mankind has been through much worse than this and we will continue to trundle on in one way or another.

The recession is still on the brink and nazis are poised to make the runup in France in the next presidential elections, hopefully not to win but with some polls saying they actually might, ultimately because they're still playing the old trick of being the "third position" against overwhelmingly neoliberal parties; which basically is picking between aids and a bad rash. From my perspective, things are pretty damn fucked.

The spate of wars and revolution from 1912 to 1920-ish was pretty much the epochal event that defined the 20th century. Let's just say I think we might be at the very beginning of the same for the 21st.

[Nolan]

Right, this is a relatively stable time to live, compared to World War 1 or 2.

The people that say nothing on that scale will ever happen again and from here on its just peace, prosperity, liberal democracy, and erosion of the nation state are full of shit, but I don't see it in the immediate future.

The worst of the 21st century might just be a bunch of Yugoslavia/Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya type interventions, multiple attacks on the scale of 9/11, diseases, third world civil wars, ethnic cleansings a la Balkans, etc.

Or the major powers could find themselves enemies in two blocs and leave a huge portion of the population dead. Who knows.

[ComradeMan]

It does all seem like the last days of Pompei at times. However, I think the fact that we are bombarded by negative news all the time makes it seem more acute. Even when Krakatoa erupted- a huge disaster- people at the time read about it in a newspaper (perhaps) and saw a drawing or "cartoon" sketch. Now we have 24/7 live images, perhaps in 3D, and endless speculation that make it all seem more "imminent".
Perhaps us oldies :lol: remember when the news, the TV and radio and the NEWSPAPER were all a bit more tame too- and there was no livefeed or Internet, or Youtube video clips etc.... It makes the Cold War days seem a lot better! :lol:

I worry about Mt Vesuvius....

But when the Anunaki come... we'll be ready!!!! ;)

eFTLKWw542g

[red cat]

mankind will survive, i don't think society as we know it can if we don't solve environmental and economic issues yesterday. which is to say, i don't think society as we know it will survive the next 100 years.

True, but that will be due to the world revolution.

[ComradeMan]

Anyone read about the meteor or asteroid that is sailing close by soon?

[#FF0000]

The thing is that you're probably just reading about it more. This stuff is happening about the same rate as it always has. Just more attention's being given to it, for whatever reason.

[bcbm]

True, but that will be due to the world revolution.

let's hope so

[Ele'ill]

Imagine what an asteroid the size of a moon would look like sailing into our atmosphere. Surreal. I can think of less beautiful ways to die.

[red_rich]

hasnt communication technology got a role to play here? We can now here about every 'natural disaster' from whereever in the world, previous generations would not have had the access to the information.

The econimic crisis is a completely different matter. I hope nobody is thinking there is some sort of correlation between economic collapse and natural disasters?

[hatzel]

I have a gut feeling that the earthquake in Japan and the credit crunch were probably unrelated...

[Anarchrusty]

What's this with 21th of May?

[agnixie]

hasnt communication technology got a role to play here? We can now here about every 'natural disaster' from whereever in the world, previous generations would not have had the access to the information.

The econimic crisis is a completely different matter. I hope nobody is thinking there is some sort of correlation between economic collapse and natural disasters?

A natural disaster can cause an economic crisis

[hatzel]

What's this with 21th of May?

http://newsoholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/may-21-2011.jpg

[agnixie]

http://newsoholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/may-21-2011.jpg

lol, I guess they had to have a "first prediction" for this century. There were already 8 or 9 in the last hundred year.

[Anarchrusty]

http://newsoholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/may-21-2011.jpg


Really? Haha. Who are these people and what do they base it on?

[hatzel]

Who are these peopleExceedingly wise individuals
what do they base it on?Fact...

[bcbm]

http://www.wecanknow.com/

[Ele'ill]

http://newsoholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/may-21-2011.jpg

I like how there's an image of someone actually entering the date into their personal calendar thing. Also note they have nothing else going on that day (or the next).

[Zhu Bailan]

Only 2 weeks left :scared: *order* (http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/03/miracle-manna.html) :lol:

[Hexen]

I get this feeling that the collapse of capitalism is near...well most likely the end of the U.S. empire is nigh.

[Dr Mindbender]

wonder what odds the bookies will give me that nothing will happen on May 21st.

[Proukunin]

there is also some Christian groups saying that he'll return May 11th.

[hatzel]

there is also some Christian groups saying that he'll return May 11th.

Revisionists

[Proukunin]

Revisionists? lol

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What if one is not of the "Christian persuasion"? Mark it on your calender anyway?

[Impulse97]

True, but that will be due to the world revolution.

That's what Marx said.


I get this feeling that the collapse of capitalism is near...well most likely the end of the U.S. empire is nigh.

Part of me says yes, part of me says no.

We can only hope.

[agnixie]

Revisionists

The idea of a second coming is already revisionist in itself, there would have to be a first ;)

[dernier combat]

http://newsoholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/may-21-2011.jpg
There's a huge billboard outside the train station here in my suburb which says in huge letters:

JUDGEMENT DAY IS COMING

May 21st 2011

Cry Unto God/The Lord (I can't remember which, not that it really matters)

[Anarchrusty]

I get this feeling that the collapse of capitalism is near...well most likely the end of the U.S. empire is nigh.

I have had this feeling since '93.

[Viet Minh]

I'm allergic to end-times uber christian websites, can someone give me the lowdown on the 21st May thing? Also I'm converting to the Mayan calender, it gives me an extra year to actually acheive something! :D

[RGacky3]

Its based on obscure christian numbers being used as symbols, and then calculations from when Jesus died, even from a biblican perspective its a bunch of crap, for example 10 being a numerical symbol for human completeness, and 7 being used as a symbol for heavenly completeness, and then he puts a bunch of numbers like that together in a way that gives him that date.

using christian mysticism you can take a bunch of different numbers and come up with litterally hundreds of dates and claim you found THE date.

BTW, the whole idea of an immortal soul and the rapture is'nt actually from the bible, most of it comes from platonic philosophy mixed with christian mysticism in the 3rd and 4th centuries.

As for the end of the Ameican Empire, if you look at the history of the Roman Empire, they went through many more terrible crisis before they ended as an empire, so its impossible to know.

[Leonid Brozhnev]

Fuck the return of Christ, I'll be playing LA Noire that weekend.

[red_rich]

A natural disaster can cause an economic crisis

I meant the global economic crisis. Of course natural disasters will effect the economy of the hit area. You cant extract much profit from your workers if they have been blown away, drowned or burnt by mother nature.:crying:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Among every generation, there are those with the conceit that they will be the last. They are always wrong, which tells you all you need to know about apocalypticism.

As for capitalism, my totally uneducated guess is that it will limp along for another century or two, perhaps meanwhile trying to drastically alter itself in a last-ditch attempt to survive.

Of course, that's not to say that the near future is not going to be "interesting" in the sense of the Chinese curse...

[Property Is Robbery]

What's this with 21th of May?
twenty-oneth :)

http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/assets/images/content/may-21-2011-palmcard.gif

[Viet Minh]

I saw a documentary about the Yellowstone supervolcano which scared the shit outta me. But we're more likely to die from nuclear war or man made plague I think.

[Revolution starts with U]

Yellowstone is about 300k years overdue for an eruption. If it's going to be anything (it's not), imo, it will be that.

What's with the little white fish inside all the black ones? Is that the hidden counter-revolutionary masquerading as a radical?

[ComradeMan]

Among every generation, there are those with the conceit that they will be the last. They are always wrong, which tells you all you need to know about apocalypticism.

As for capitalism, my totally uneducated guess is that it will limp along for another century or two, perhaps meanwhile trying to drastically alter itself in a last-ditch attempt to survive.

Of course, that's not to say that the near future is not going to be "interesting" in the sense of the Chinese curse...

Unless serious changes are made and serious decisions taken, in terms of sustainability alone, this modern global society cannot last another 50 years.

If we cannot feed 6.92 billion how will we manage to feed 9 billion?

Is our energy consumption decreasing- or is it increasing as our main sources of energy are beginning to run out?

[RGacky3]

If we cannot feed 6.92 billion how will we manage to feed 9 billion?



We can, we can feed 6.92 billion AND 9 billion, just not when prices are artificially raised and production is artificially cut to keep profits giong.

[ComradeMan]

We can, we can feed 6.92 billion AND 9 billion, just not when prices are artificially raised and production is artificially cut to keep profits giong.

No Gacky, in "theory" we can. But the problem is, as things stands- we can't because we aren't.

90% of the world's agricultural land is already intensively farmed.

If there is radical change and we manage it- we won't be living in the same world we live in now but everything fine and dandy and as it is "now" for the lucky few but for everyone.

[danyboy27]

No Gacky, in "theory" we can. But the problem is, as things stands- we can't because we aren't.

90% of the world's agricultural land is already intensively farmed.

If there is radical change and we manage it- we won't be living in the same world we live in now but everything fine and dandy and as it is "now" for the lucky few but for everyone.


no.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Colinpri1#p/u/1/OXrN9HhnCcM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM

[Thug Lessons]

We have absolutely no problem producing enough food to feed the world's population. Hunger and famine are still significant problems almost entirely because of inefficient distribution, both as a result of structural inequality and neoliberal trade policies.

[ComradeMan]

We have absolutely no problem producing enough food to feed the world's population. Hunger and famine are still significant problems almost entirely because of inefficient distribution, both as a result of structural inequality and neoliberal trade policies.


Which are....... not going away. :rolleyes:

So the fact that 6.92 billion people could eat in theory if everything were put right does not change the concrete reality that most of the world is actually going hungry and no one is really attempting to put anything right. Now, this situation is bad now- how will it be by 2050, 39 years time, with an estimated population of 9 billion?

[agnixie]

Which are....... not going away. :rolleyes:

So the fact that 6.92 billion people could eat in theory if everything were put right does not change the concrete reality that most of the world is actually going hungry and no one is really attempting to put anything right. Now, this situation is bad now- how will it be by 2050, 39 years time, with an estimated population of 9 billion?

That's sort of the point of a revolution - and of course there's the thing where some countries have yet to have an agricultural revolution. Even without reforming agriculture worldwide, we can feed humanity twice over.

Also long term demographic trends tend to be wrong: demographic projections for the arab countries, e.g., assumed large growth would continue, but they're now at levels comparable to the latin European countries.

[Thug Lessons]

Which are....... not going away. :rolleyes:

So the fact that 6.92 billion people could eat in theory if everything were put right does not change the concrete reality that most of the world is actually going hungry and no one is really attempting to put anything right. Now, this situation is bad now- how will it be by 2050, 39 years time, with an estimated population of 9 billion?

I wouldn't dispute the notion that overpopulation is a problem, but I'm doubtful that agriculture will ever become a bottleneck. Food is a renewable resource, and if we actually reached a hard limit the problem would solve itself, (to put it euphemistically). Regardless though, even if your predictions are realized, it wouldn't mean societal collapse by any means. The bubonic plague killed off most of Europe's population but feudalism remained more or less intact, and mass famine as a result of population growth would probably have similar results. There would definitely be more instability, but it wouldn't be the end of society, or even capitalism necessarily, by a long shot.

[RGacky3]

Which are....... not going away. :rolleyes:

So the fact that 6.92 billion people could eat in theory if everything were put right does not change the concrete reality that most of the world is actually going hungry and no one is really attempting to put anything right. Now, this situation is bad now- how will it be by 2050, 39 years time, with an estimated population of 9 billion?

Ok, but the problem is'nt population is it, its distribution.

[danyboy27]

Which are....... not going away. :rolleyes:

So the fact that 6.92 billion people could eat in theory if everything were put right does not change the concrete reality that most of the world is actually going hungry and no one is really attempting to put anything right. Now, this situation is bad now- how will it be by 2050, 39 years time, with an estimated population of 9 billion?

Just look at the video i sent you, its clear that the problem is not overpopulation or lack of food.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

"Overpopulation" is usually a racist dog-whistle or some other cover for any variety of truly vile politics.

Apparently it's not capitalism, or a lack of social, agricultural and industrial development that's a cause of the world's ills, but it's apparently overpopulation. Especially of poor brown people, how dare they!

[ComradeMan]

Just look at the video i sent you, its clear that the problem is not overpopulation or lack of food.

You're missing the point.

Sitting around saying that the problem, no doubt, is bad management etc etc is all well and good- it doesn't stop people starving in the reality of NOW. If this is the situation now- with little change in sight, then how is it going to be with 9 billion?

[Publius]

http://newsoholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/may-21-2011.jpg

Honestly though, how funny would it be if Christ actually did come back on that day?

Oh man, I'd get a great laugh out of that before I got around to patching things up with him:

"Hey, Jesus, we're still cool, right?"

[RGacky3]

"Overpopulation" is usually a racist dog-whistle or some other cover for any variety of truly vile politics.

Apparently it's not capitalism, or a lack of social, agricultural and industrial development that's a cause of the world's ills, but it's apparently overpopulation. Especially of poor brown people, how dare they!


No its not racism, some people are just ill informed.


Sitting around saying that the problem, no doubt, is bad management etc etc is all well and good- it doesn't stop people starving in the reality of NOW. If this is the situation now- with little change in sight, then how is it going to be with 9 billion?

More people will be starving .... because there are more people and the distribution is still messed up ....

[danyboy27]

You're missing the point.

Sitting around saying that the problem, no doubt, is bad management etc etc is all well and good- it doesn't stop people starving in the reality of NOW. If this is the situation now- with little change in sight, then how is it going to be with 9 billion?

Well, debunking the myths of overpopulation is doing something in my book.
Education is the key of constructing a better world, Peoples need to know how fucked up our economical system is. Its with number that we will be able to do something about it in the long run.

by the way, what are you offering has a solution?

[Zav]

I am not a conspiracy theorist, i dont believe in 2012 or may 21 end of the world scenario, but all these wild things happening for the last 2 year give me the feeling that something verry bad will eventually happen.

Natural disasters are at an all time high, its just insane, The economical crisis creating more inequality, growing political instability worldwide etc etc.

Sometimes i wonder if i will make it to my 50 before society completely collapse on itself.
That has to do with environmental destabilisation and growing dissatisfaction with Capitalism. Who knows? Perhaps 2012 will be the start of the Revolution.

[Thug Lessons]

"Overpopulation" is usually a racist dog-whistle or some other cover for any variety of truly vile politics.

Apparently it's not capitalism, or a lack of social, agricultural and industrial development that's a cause of the world's ills, but it's apparently overpopulation. Especially of poor brown people, how dare they!

This is absurd and only makes sense in your utopian fantasy-land where it's unnecessary to address environmental issues socially because technology is magic and will solve them all for us. You want to ignore real, present environmental crises because you can imagine a world where they don't exist, like a smoker who refuses to quit because he's convinced they'll have cures cancer and emphysema by the time he gets them. It's absolute garbage that's indefensible from any realistic point of view.

[La Comédie Noire]

May you live in interesting times. - Chinese Proverb.

[ComradeMan]

The problem is that basically the world's population cannot just keep growing exponentially.

If we solve the food problem, by the means proposed, then there will most likely be an even greater level of population growth and we will find ourselves with increasing problems connected to agricultural production and its environmental impact.

If we don't solve the food problem- i.e. let the situation continue as it is, then even more people will be starving and that would be morally indefensible.

:confused:

We, as humanity, need to fight the battle on all fronts. We have an energy problem and a food problem- we need to deal with those as well as being able to manage population growth in an ethical way. The problem with the issue of population growth is that it seems to be a subject few want to touch because of how easily we can get into arguments about eugenics and racism etc.

This does not change the difficult but true fact that the world's resources and agricultural land are finite and we do not have the Mars colonies yet to alleviate the problem. ;)

[RGacky3]

The problem is that basically the world's population cannot just keep growing exponentially.


Yeah, but that is FAR off from being a problem, and populations have always, over time, gone up and down, they don't JUST go up. If there are too many people for the earth, what will happen, is a lot of people will die, or something will happen, i.e. nature takes care of it, but thats Farr farr from being an issue, and amount of food is not the problem at all yet.


If we solve the food problem, by the means proposed, then there will most likely be an even greater level of population growth and we will find ourselves with increasing problems connected to agricultural production and its environmental impact.


Not neccessarily, Europe as very good food security, yet their populations are not exploding, infact in many countries they are dropping.


The problem with the issue of population growth is that it seems to be a subject few want to touch because of how easily we can get into arguments about eugenics and racism etc.


The reason people don't want to touch it is that its on the bottom of the barrell of problems the world has to face and its far off.


This does not change the difficult but true fact that the world's resources and agricultural land are finite and we do not have the Mars colonies yet to alleviate the problem. ;)

And we have bigger things to worry about right now.

[ComradeMan]

Yeah, but that is FAR off from being a problem, and populations have always, over time, gone up and down, they don't JUST go up. If there are too many people for the earth, what will happen, is a lot of people will die, or something will happen, i.e. nature takes care of it, but thats Farr farr from being an issue, and amount of food is not the problem at all yet..

Firstly, as science, medicine and food distribution progress lifespan increases, infant mortality rates go down and populations expand. You can't build a policy around a hypothetical argument to the future that depends on some catastrophe or other. When Heile Selassie more or less adopted that approach he was condemned by most of the world- he basically said that famines were the way of Africa or something and did little to alleviate the problem in his country. What you are saying is tantamount to a vindication of that view.


Not neccessarily, Europe as very good food security, yet their populations are not exploding, infact in many countries they are dropping.

Yes but Europe is only a very small part of the world Gacky... :rolleyes:


The reason people don't want to touch it is that its on the bottom of the barrell of problems the world has to face and its far off..

Not really. I disagree. An expanding population causes:-
1) more demand on resources
2) more demand on land- people need somewhere to live
3) increased pollution and environmental impact


And we have bigger things to worry about right now.

A very myopic view indeed. Fundamentally all conflict arises from the allocation/distribution of resources and therefore any factor that is contingent to the issues of resources lies at the bottom of most of the problems in the world.

Here is a simple breakdown of the effects according to Wiki- with references based on scientific studies. I have put in bold the effect I personally believe to be unavoidable and connected to issues of sustainability.

Effects of human overpopulation
Some problems associated with or exacerbated by human overpopulation:

Inadequate fresh water[182] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-Shiklomanov-11-32-181) for drinking water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_water) use as well as sewage treatment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewage_treatment) and effluent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effluent) discharge. Some countries, like Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia), use energy-expensive desalination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination) to solve the problem of water shortages.[205] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-204)[206] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-205)
Depletion of natural resources, especially fossil fuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuels)[207] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-206)
Increased levels of air pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution), water pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution), soil contamination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_contamination) and noise pollution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noise_pollution). Once a country has industrialized and become wealthy, a combination of government regulation and technological innovation causes pollution to decline substantially, even as the population continues to grow.[208] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-opinionjournal-Box-207)
Deforestation and loss of ecosystems[209] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-208) that sustain global atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide balance; about eight million hectares of forest are lost each year.[210] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-209)
Changes in atmospheric composition and consequent global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)[211] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-210)[212] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-211)
Irreversible loss of arable land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land) and increases in desertification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertification)[213] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-212) Deforestation and desertification can be reversed by adopting property rights, and this policy is successful even while the human population continues to grow.[214] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-213)
Mass species extinctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_extinctions).[215] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-214) from reduced habitat in tropical forests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_forest) due to slash-and-burn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash-and-burn) techniques that sometimes are practiced by shifting cultivators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shifting_cultivation), especially in countries with rapidly expanding rural populations; present extinction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction) rates may be as high as 140,000 species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species) lost per year.[216] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-215) As of 2008, the IUCN Red List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IUCN_Red_List) lists a total of 717 animal species having gone extinct during recorded human history.[217] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-216)
High infant and child mortality.[218] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-217) High rates of infant mortality are caused by poverty. Rich countries with high population densities have low rates of infant mortality.[219] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-218)
Intensive factory farming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_farming) to support large populations. It results in human threats including the evolution and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria diseases, excessive air and water pollution, and new virus that infect humans.
Increased chance of the emergence of new epidemics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics) and pandemics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic)[220] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-219) For many environmental and social reasons, including overcrowded living conditions, malnutrition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition) and inadequate, inaccessible, or non-existent health care (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care), the poor are more likely to be exposed to infectious diseases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infectious_disease#Mortality_from_infectious_disea ses).[221] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-220)
Starvation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation), malnutrition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition)[181] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-FAO-Italy-180) or poor diet with ill health and diet-deficiency diseases (e.g. rickets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickets)). However, rich countries with high population densities do not have famine.[222] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-221)
Poverty coupled with inflation in some regions and a resulting low level of capital formation. Poverty and inflation are aggravated by bad government and bad economic policies. Many countries with high population densities have eliminated absolute poverty and keep their inflation rates very low.[223] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-heritage-Index-Economic-222)
Low life expectancy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy) in countries with fastest growing populations[224] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-223)
Unhygienic living conditions for many based upon water resource depletion, discharge of raw sewage[225] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-224) and solid waste disposal. However, this problem can be reduced with the adoption of sewers. For example, after Karachi, Pakistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi,_Pakistan) installed sewers, its infant mortality rate fell substantially.[226] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-225)
Elevated crime rate due to drug cartels and increased theft by people stealing resources to survive[227] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-226)
Conflict over scarce resources and crowding, leading to increased levels of warfare[228] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-227)
Less Personal Freedom / More Restrictive Laws. Laws regulate interactions between humans. Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law) "serves as a primary social mediator of relations between people." The higher the population density, the more frequent such interactions become, and thus there develops a need for more laws and/or more restrictive laws to regulate these interactions. It is even speculated that democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy) is threatened due to overpopulation, and could give rise to totalitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarian) style governments.[dubious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disputed_statement) – discuss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Overpopulation#section)]
Some economists, such as Thomas Sowell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell)[229] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-228) and Walter E. Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams)[230] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-229) argue that third world poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty) and famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine) are caused in part by bad government and bad economic policies. Most biologists and sociologists see overpopulation as a serious threat to the quality of human life.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-Nielsen-9)[231] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-230)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Effects_of_human_overpopulation

My own opinion is that there is indeed an economic argument as pointed out however this does not negate the biological argument either.

[RGacky3]

Yes but Europe is only a very small part of the world Gacky... :rolleyes:


But again it shows MORE FOOD SECURITY DOES NOT MEAN MORE PEOPLE!!! Which was the damn point.

infact it could mean less.


Firstly, as science, medicine and food distribution progress lifespan increases, infant mortality rates go down and populations expand. You can't build a policy around a hypothetical argument to the future that depends on some catastrophe or other. When Heile Selassie more or less adopted that approach he was condemned by most of the world- he basically said that famines were the way of Africa or something and did little to alleviate the problem in his country. What you are saying is tantamount to a vindication of that view.


well empirically it does not, its not hypothetical.


Not really. I disagree. An expanding population causes:-
1) more demand on resources
2) more demand on land- people need somewhere to live
3) increased pollution and environmental impact


1) Most of the reasources are wasted by a small part of the population, so its not the world populations problem.

2) All the people that have ever lived can have a whole acre and just fill up texas (or something like that), i.e. land is'nt the problem.

3) Same as 1, its a small part of the population creatin the pollution.


Fundamentally all conflict arises from the allocation/distribution of resources and therefore any factor that is contingent to the issues of resources lies at the bottom of most of the problems in the world.


the distribution is the problem, not the population.


Some economists, such as Thomas Sowell (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell)[229] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-228) and Walter E. Williams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams)[230] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-229) argue that third world poverty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty) and famine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine) are caused in part by bad government and bad economic policies. Most biologists and sociologists see overpopulation as a serious threat to the quality of human life.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-Nielsen-9)[231] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#cite_note-230)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpop...overpopulation (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation#Effects_of_human_overpopulation)


I can address each point, but all of this stuff has to do with distribution, so yeah, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL it could be a problem, but we should not be fighting for all other things being equal.

[ComradeMan]

But again it shows MORE FOOD SECURITY DOES NOT MEAN MORE PEOPLE!!! Which was the damn point.

But it is not much of a point in the light of little food security definitely does mean starvation, disease and malnourishment. The issues around food security are not the only issues.




1) Most of the reasources are wasted by a small part of the population, so its not the world populations problem..

So in short we can't feed the world population as is....



2) All the people that have ever lived can have a whole acre and just fill up texas (or something like that), i.e. land is'nt the problem...

Except agriculture is not as simplistic as that. You also have to look at the environmental impact of agriculture and the fact that land cannot be used indefinitely at currents rates of production.



I can address each point, but all of this stuff has to do with distribution, so yeah, ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL it could be a problem, but we should not be fighting for all other things being equal.

Except you don't. :glare:

The food issue is one of the issues- but not the only issue.

The original point was that if we do not look to a sustainable solution we won't have much time left.

[danyboy27]

Except agriculture is not as simplistic as that. You also have to look at the environmental impact of agriculture and the fact that land cannot be used indefinitely at currents rates of production.

We posses great knowledge in growing food, technology and science allow us to grow more food, with less land, and we can now grow food in place where we didnt think it was originaly possible.

we made tremendous technological advencement in that field you know.

[ComradeMan]

We posses great knowledge in growing food, technology and science allow us to grow more food, with less land, and we can now grow food in place where we didnt think it was originaly possible.

we made tremendous technological advencement in that field you know.

Like what? GM? Great start...

[RGacky3]

So heres what your saying, we have enough for 3 cookies for 50 people, we have 20 people, but 1 of them has taken 140 of the cookies, so the problem is .... to many people ...... So no more people can join the cookie party, no thats not the problem, the problem is one dude is taking 140 of the cookies.

[ComradeMan]

So heres what your saying, we have enough for 3 cookies for 50 people, we have 20 people, but 1 of them has taken 140 of the cookies, so the problem is .... to many people ...... So no more people can join the cookie party, no thats not the problem, the problem is one dude is taking 140 of the cookies.


No.... that's not what I am saying but at least you didn't use your baseball bat analogy.

I am well aware that Marxism hasn't accepted the idea of overpopulation, since Marx' days and Malthus' ideas however that was a long time ago before people had the knowledge we have now of the environmental impact. Even if the means of distribution were rectified and we could indeed feed the nearly 7 billion people on the planet that completely ignores the fact of the disastrous environmental impact such agricultural exploitation is having- with consequences for "feeding the world" in the future.

Are you arguing that our current production, even ignoring distribution, is sustainable?

[RGacky3]

Are you arguing that our current production, even ignoring distribution, is sustainable?

Not neccessarily, because we waste TONS AND TONS AND TONS on overhead, pure waste in persuits of profits (such as burning crops to keep prices up and not saturate the market), military, new production of things that are not at all needed (who needs a new iphone every year).

But thats not the populations problem.

[ComradeMan]

Not neccessarily, because we waste TONS AND TONS AND TONS on overhead, pure waste in persuits of profits (such as burning crops to keep prices up and not saturate the market), military, new production of things that are not at all needed (who needs a new iphone every year).

But thats not the populations problem.

So, we waste food that is produced at great environmental cost at the same time as people are starving and that's not also the population's problem?

I think you're missing the point- I am not saying that overpopulation per se causes starvation but what I am saying is that starvation will be exacerbated by overpopulation. You also need to assess the other issues around overpopulation- not just food issues, although everything is inter-connected.

[RGacky3]

So, we waste food that is produced at great environmental cost at the same time as people are starving and that's not also the population's problem?


ITS NOT THE PROBLEM OF OVER POPULATION, did you really not get that?


I think you're missing the point- I am not saying that overpopulation per se causes starvation but what I am saying is that starvation will be exacerbated by overpopulation. You also need to assess the other issues around overpopulation- not just food issues, although everything is inter-connected.

All right, well there we go. Back to my analogy.

[ComradeMan]

ITS NOT THE PROBLEM OF OVER POPULATION, did you really not get that?

All right, well there we go. Back to my analogy.


Gacky, will you stop reducing everything to vague and simplistic analysis all the time.

Overpopulation and sustainability tied to energy production and use, food production and distribution as well as environmental sustainability are big and complex issues and quite frankly, burying your head in the sand like an ostrich and saying it's not an issue is ridiculous- especially when the only "solution" is to either say it doesn't exist or to say that some hypothetical future situation that is not even on the horizon will put things right.

Even if we could feed 6.92 billion people fairly NOW- it doesn't mean that the environmental impact and damage being done to produce the same amount of food (whoever eats it) is not an issue. This brings us to the key question- albeit in a fair-distribution model world- how many people can the planet, as in the biosphere, actually sustain? And no- before someone gets in with it- I am not advocating anarcho-primitivism.

[Le Libérer]

BTW, the whole idea of an immortal soul and the rapture is'nt actually from the bible, most of it comes from platonic philosophy mixed with christian mysticism in the 3rd and 4th centuries.


The Rapture Doctrine didnt come into existance until the 1800s. The movement in which this teaching began originated in small groups in England and Ireland about 1828 and by 1831 was part of the official teaching of the Plymouth Brethren. By 1860 the "rapture" had made its way to the United States.

In the late 1800's, America was fertile ground for a wide variety of religious extremists, most notably the Adventist movements. These movements, which produced new denominations, sects, and cults, almost always had as one of their chief tenets the belief that Christ was going to return to earth "very soon" and that they could tell you when.
Source (http://www.onearthasinheaven.com/rapture.html)

[RGacky3]

The Rapture Doctrine didnt come into existance until the 1800s. The movement in which this teaching began originated in small groups in England and Ireland about 1828 and by 1831 was part of the official teaching of the Plymouth Brethren. By 1860 the "rapture" had made its way to the United States.

In the late 1800's, America was fertile ground for a wide variety of religious extremists, most notably the Adventist movements. These movements, which produced new denominations, sects, and cults, almost always had as one of their chief tenets the belief that Christ was going to return to earth "very soon" and that they could tell you when.
Source (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.onearthasinheaven.com/rapture.html)

yeah, I was talking about the concept of an immortal soul, I did'nt make that clear.

[RGacky3]

Gacky, will you stop reducing everything to vague and simplistic analysis all the time.


Your the one saying overpopulation is the problem, when clearly its systemic problems, not demographics questions.


Overpopulation and sustainability tied to energy production and use, food production and distribution as well as environmental sustainability are big and complex issues and quite frankly, burying your head in the sand like an ostrich and saying it's not an issue is ridiculous- especially when the only "solution" is to either say it doesn't exist or to say that some hypothetical future situation that is not even on the horizon will put things right.


Except it DOES'NT exist, people starve not because there is'nt enough food, or because there rae too many people, pollution does'nt happen because there is too many people.

The Solution to those issues is to restructure the economy.

Again, the most advanced parts of society DO NOT have rediculous population growth, its places with extreme poverty that does, so I also think that there is a connection, so even the eventual hypothetical problem of maybe one day there actually being too many people would'nt happen.


Even if we could feed 6.92 billion people fairly NOW- it doesn't mean that the environmental impact and damage being done to produce the same amount of food (whoever eats it) is not an issue. This brings us to the key question- albeit in a fair-distribution model world- how many people can the planet, as in the biosphere, actually sustain? And no- before someone gets in with it- I am not advocating anarcho-primitivism.

We can feed 6.92 billion people faily now (logistically), and how many people can the planet sustain? I don't know, but its probably much more than we have now. Our planet is a pretty tough cookie.

[ComradeMan]

Your the one saying overpopulation is the problem, when clearly its systemic problems, not demographics questions..

No... I am not... I am saying it's one of the inter-linked problems.


Except it DOES'NT exist, people starve not because there is'nt enough food, or because there rae too many people, pollution does'nt happen because there is too many people...

It's like talking to a brickwall- so in spite of the scientific studies etc etc that all point to a problem with overpopulation that in turn is exacerbated and indeed exacerbates issues like starvation, unfair distribution etc-- you say it "doesn't exist". Well done Mr Ostrich. :lol:


The Solution to those issues is to restructure the economy....

And colonise Mars and a lot of other things---- WHICH AREN'T HAPPENING AND DON'T LOOK LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!


We can feed 6.92 billion people faily now (logistically), and how many people can the planet sustain? I don't know, but its probably much more than we have now. Our planet is a pretty tough cookie.

No Gacky, we "could" feeld 6.92 billion people in theory- but IT ISN'T HAPPENING.

As for the rest- well thanks for the enlightening and scientific approach to the issue.

You completely skip over the fact that if, using 90% of the world's available agricultural land we can feed 6.92 billion people fairly then okay, but we have only about 10% land left- so that means, by crude calculations, that once we get to figures of 9 billion, or even the high estimate of 12 billion we are going to have problems. This of course ignores the fact that of the 90% of land currently used to produce x amount of food- much of that agricultural use is destructive and unsustainable.

Let's imagine we do have fair distribution and then we wake up one day and, oh shit, our distribution systems and our fair society have actually fucked up the planet so we can't produce anything? :crying:

[maskerade]

sc4HxPxNrZ0

[ComradeMan]

In relation to previous post- I found this- I cound vouch for the political persuasions of the site or the opinions but I am just looking at the maths.


Assuming the global biocapacity and average footprint [F1] remain stable at the 2003 level, then, to become sustainable, the world population needs to contract to a maximum of 5.1 billion.
For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap (without allowances for biodiversity or change of biocapacity), the sustainable population is 3.4 billion.
For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap, plus a 12% allowance for biodiversity (but none for attrition of biocapacity), the sustainable population is 3.0 billion.
For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap, plus a 20% margin for biodiversity and attrition of biocapacity then the sustainable population is 2.7 billion.
Source: http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.optimum.html

[agnixie]

In relation to previous post- I found this- I cound vouch for the political persuasions of the site or the opinions but I am just looking at the maths.


Assuming the global biocapacity and average footprint [F1] remain stable at the 2003 level, then, to become sustainable, the world population needs to contract to a maximum of 5.1 billion.
For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap (without allowances for biodiversity or change of biocapacity), the sustainable population is 3.4 billion.
For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap, plus a 12% allowance for biodiversity (but none for attrition of biocapacity), the sustainable population is 3.0 billion.
For a ‘modest’ world footprint of 3.3 gha/cap, plus a 20% margin for biodiversity and attrition of biocapacity then the sustainable population is 2.7 billion.
Source: http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.optimum.html

This assumes fossil fuel consumption as main power source - we have enough uranium and thorium (India is planning to switch 25% of its power consumption to Thorium-based nuclear plants) to make the world go nuclear for tens to hundreds of thousands of years (waterborne uranium at "peak" prices would still be cheaper than coal and oil at regular prices), while their section on food production seems to have no methodology at all and no rhyme or reason.

Also it's pretty obvious that much of the world is overusing and wasting resources.

[RGacky3]

so in spite of the scientific studies etc etc that all point to a problem with overpopulation that in turn is exacerbated and indeed exacerbates issues like starvation, unfair distribution etc-- you say it "doesn't exist". Well done Mr Ostrich. :lol:


All of the issues that you brought up could be remedied by by reorganizing the economic system, meaning, thats the main problem, and a lot of those problems will still be around with a lesser population.


And colonise Mars and a lot of other things---- WHICH AREN'T HAPPENING AND DON'T LOOK LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO HAPPEN!


Trying to artificially mess with the population is less likely and less ethical than restructuring the economy.


No Gacky, we "could" feeld 6.92 billion people in theory- but IT ISN'T HAPPENING.


Not because of the NUMBER of people.


You completely skip over the fact that if, using 90% of the world's available agricultural land we can feed 6.92 billion people fairly then okay, but we have only about 10% land left- so that means, by crude calculations, that once we get to figures of 9 billion, or even the high estimate of 12 billion we are going to have problems. This of course ignores the fact that of the 90% of land currently used to produce x amount of food- much of that agricultural use is destructive and unsustainable.

Let's imagine we do have fair distribution and then we wake up one day and, oh shit, our distribution systems and our fair society have actually fucked up the planet so we can't produce anything? :crying:

Are we using 90% of the earths airiable land right now? I seriously doubt it.

But look, IF agricultural methods tha twer used now are unsustainable then we need to figure out sustainable methods, not figure out a way to artificially control populations (which againt would probably be controlled naturally, with an advancing society).

[ComradeMan]

...


http://www.overpopulation.org/agriculture.html

[agnixie]

http://www.overpopulation.org/agriculture.html

And yet we still produce enough food for 9-12 billion people, give or take.

Also, proper agriculture, as opposed to oil-fueled US style monoculture, can be sustainable at equivalent productivity.

[Tik-Tok]

The US is in freefall thanks to the many progressive policies led by the neo cons and the leftists.

The solutions are fairly simple but most people aren't ready for a libertarian government under this strange idea that it's insane to have a small government that simply maintains itself rather than one which collects revenue like a private business.

[RGacky3]

The US is in freefall thanks to the many progressive policies led by the neo cons and the leftists.

The solutions are fairly simple but most people aren't ready for a libertarian government under this strange idea that it's insane to have a small government that simply maintains itself rather than one which collects revenue like a private business.

Yeah, so the problems were actually due to FDR and teddy roosavelt.

Not Reagen and clinton, whos reforms actually preceded the problems.

You want to see libertarianism in action see iceland and argentina.

[agnixie]

Yeah, so the problems were actually due to FDR and teddy roosavelt.

Not Reagen and clinton, whos reforms actually preceded the problems.

You want to see libertarianism in action see iceland and argentina.

You forgot Eisenhower, the last "progressive party" republican president. For all the bullshit that was done in terms of political repression of the left, he did maintain the same internal policies as Roosevelt.

I won't mention one of the common threads of these three but they're pretty common dog whistle politics for a certain sphere in the right ;)

[W1N5T0N]

the stains in their coffeemugs?