Population Explosion: Is it sustainable?

Yes this is the key point.

I am a liberal. However, let me speak on record:

Capitalism is the most successful economic system in the history of mankind.

HOWEVER, Capitalism MUST BE REGULATED. The right hates regulations, but they exist to protect the people from tragedy of the commons.

- - - Updated - - -

Flat tax is regressive. Flat tax and sales taxes absolutely destroy the lower classes.

 

This argument once appealed to me. Then I realized that it didn't make sense, because a cap still allows wage deferential. Would you rather be a janitor and make $11000 or a CEO and make $2.2 million? I think that the actual material incentive to make more wealth diminishes significantly after a certain point... And then it becomes about power and control.

 

a flat tax only works if ALL income is treated as income

if we set the poverty line at 25k, people that make 40k, only pay tax on 15k

.

 

Why is there still abject poverty in Africa after trillions of dollars pumped into it in foreign aid over the past 60 years coupled with education about family planning? Why in some African countries population doubles every 25 years? That's unsustainable.

- - - Updated - - -

Why is there still abject poverty in Africa after trillions of dollars pumped into it in foreign aid over the past 60 years coupled with education about family planning? Why in some African countries population doubles every 25 years? That's unsustainable.

 

You mean to tell me that a couple making 80k/yr that has 12 kids isn't poor?

 

If they are poor, it's because they had 12 kids.

 

So if you could speak for the 145 million American workers, do you believe most of them will accept a cap on their earnings?

 

You want to destroy the living standards of Western civilization and ship our wealth to third world rat holes in some delusional attempt to control their mating habits through `buying them off` and you have the audacity to claim others are "morally repugnant."

You are morally repugnant.

 

Most regulations were written by the super rich elite big business interest to stifle competition and keep small business from becoming big businesses that compete with them. That is why most of the super rich elite are big gov't supporters.

 

Its too bad that the poor in the US are multiplying faster than others. Part of the reason they're poor is because they're multiplying too fast, but that's another matter. Having 3 children is expensive if you want to maintain a comfortable life style and pay for all their college, go on vacations, ect. 2 is manageable, 1 is a joke. People who have 1 kid might as well not even bother, unless its due to a health issue. Ask any of them and its because they don't want their lives disrupted too much or its too hard. Pure definition of being selfish and egotistic. At least replace yourselves and do the country a favor=)

 

The purpose of taxation is raise money to run the government, not the redistribution of wealth.

Therefore notions of regressive or progressive are invalid.

A sales tax raises money for government operations. A system of tariffs and excises (collectively a sales tax) served the Republic just fine for a century and a quarter.

The income tax and the federal reserve arrived about the same time.

 

Do not worry about the population explosion. Things will take care of itself. Due to climate change, severe storms in some areas, drought and starvation in other areas, shortage of clean water, and wars to come in this century, by 2100, there will only be between one and two billion people on the Earth. Relax and enjoy this moment.

 

World leaders know that the population is booming far too fast. World War 3 will happen regardless if we want it or not.

 

This kind of post annoys the crap out of me. IF YOU ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO ACCEPT LESS, WHY HAVE YOU NOT ALREADY DONE SO?

UTTER FALSE PIETY.

In addition, I'm going to claim - right now - that you didn't EARN your 'life of luxury'.

Begone, liberal.

It's perfect that your first proclamation and your second discussing what is morally repugnant are so close together so they can smell each other and turn away and vomit.

 

Probably, as 90% of them will never earn anywhere close to the cap.

 

I get it. You are operating on the deluded belief that you don't owe anyone else anything, even though you have spent your entire life working and living in a country built on tax dollars. It is a pretty typical delusion among right-wingers, one that really didn't exist until twenty years ago when, for some reason, American conservatism lost its mind.

I already give much to charity, and I've worked hard for my success, for which I am compensated fairly. So if you want to play this game of "What's stopping you?" What's stopping you from moving to Mogadishu and living the life your twisted ideology demands of the rest of us? You don't have to pay taxes there. Go nuts bud.

 

You are right.. The one thing that is expanding much faster than the population is technology. We are in the midst of the biggest exponential boom in technology I think there has ever been. Because now is when all the different fields have started to merge in a way in which they can boost each other synergistically, including especially electronics, biology and nanotechnology, which can combine in a way to allow ourselves to take over from nature for our own evolution.

Colonies on Mars can be self-sustaining requiring nothing transported, in fact Mars can even be potentially terreformed to the point we have a whole new Earth! (almost).. We know there's plenty of water there, and maybe much more than we think. We will be able to fabricate water, biologically engineer ourselves to require less, even with artificial inorganic organs or 3D-printed organic ones customized for your own body so won't be rejected, live in vast subterranean networks, resources mined from our asteroid belt robotically. Already we fabricate things atom by atom. So theoretically, we should be able to build whatever it is we need.

Then on the other side of the coin, lifespans will be able to skyrocket. In fact, immortality, or near-immortality, could be potentially possible. The one thing I imagine won't happen soon enough, is interstellar travel, meaning that we could still wind up with another population crisis again. But we won't die off so long as we can get interstellar travel in five billion years before supernova time. Actually, we could still live on in self-sustaining ships flying away from the solar system. You might not get anywhere too quickly, but you could just fly and live perpetually, although you'd have to manage the population on-board your own craft.

Obviously I can't guarantee any of this and I've tossed in a bit of non-expert speculation.. But you have to watch Michio Kaku if you haven't before. He's awesome talking about this kinda stuff! He's one of my favorite science presenters besides the late Steve Irwin.

 

You don't 'get' crap. You bloviate about your "life of luxury" and bleed false piety claiming that you "can do with less", but you haven't done so. And those tax dollars upon which this country has been built? I provided a lot of them, after I provided my service to my country in the Army.

Everything about your posts is false. My Conservativism hasn't changed one iota, and represents Reagan/William Buckley traditionalism. You...you seem to be a silver spoon who loudly proclaims what others should do while not doing any of it himself.

Oh yes. Tell us all about it. You look 20 in your picture. You've worked hard, and at age 20 "live a life of luxury" and "give much to charity". I have personal credit built on this site; people know me and my life; we don't know yours. You're going to have to earn your gravitas here, not loudly proclaim you're worthy of it.

It all returns to your pious proclamation: "I can do with less". SO DO IT.

I am positively not your bud. I find your ideology repulsive, and I cannot tolerate false humility.

 

If population is indeed too high,somebody has to die.

As long as it isn't Americans...

 

No. It is not sustainable. And there are other factors that make things worse.

Energy. fossil fuels are starting to decline. Some feel we have already hit peak oil.

Food. This is also dependent on the population (demand) and energy, which is used to increase supply. IMO, these 3 factors are the biggest issues for the planet... much more so than the delusional global warming scam, or platitudes about social or economic justice. Those are ear tingling topics in the faculty lounge, but have little use in somalia.

Some of us have been discussing these factors here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=339639

 

Couple things:

1. I could care less that you served in the military. It is totally unrelated to this discussion. Last time I checked, serving in the military was a voluntary position for which people are compensated. Did you volunteer? Were you compensated? Yes? So what exactly do you think you are owed from bringing this up? There are heroes in war, but merely serving doesn't mean jack.

2. You seem to be operating under the assumption that it is "unfair" for government to take some of your earnings, but "fair" for people to go without food or healthcare, on the basis that they didn't win the cosmic lottery. I have nothing but disdain and bewilderment for that opinion. Especially considering there is an excellent chance that your career relied upon technology, infrastructure or services either invented or provided by government.

3. I also pay taxes. So not exactly sure what this proves? Do you want a pat on the back?

Again, I don't know what this means. I gladly pay taxes. I would gladly pay more taxes for certain results. I think a better idea is to cap compensation and introduce some decency and common sense to the market mechanism that controls it, but I can also deal with social programs that aren't nearly as effective but still help a bit.

By the way, I hope you don't use Medicare or collect a Social Security check. If so, you had better provide the forum with income slips proving that you've put more into it than you've taken out.

I'm 28. I guess you think a life of luxury would consist of flying around in jets, and other conspicuous displays of consumption. That probably accounts for why we see this issue so differently - you think it is "normal" for the average Westerner to live a better life than 99% of every human being who has ever lived. I think it is luxurious, and I'm not even upper class. Damn man, get some perspective. What kind of inward looking narcissist do you have to be, to be successful and whine about money in America?

I didn't think I was trying to present humility. I think that people making way more money than me is perfectly reasonable. Hell yes, a guy who is CEO of a major hospital deserves to make 100 times more than I do. A guy who runs a multinational corporation should be able to own mansions and buy cars worth more than what I'll make in a decade. I don't care, all the power to them. All I want is for society to draw a line of acceptability, and admit when the compensation scheme has become absurd. There is absolutely no way to justify a guy making millions a day in terms of merit or labour. It doesn't make sense on any level other than that is what the market has determined he is worth. It has no bearing whatsoever to what he is actually worth, just like the President of the United States making less annually than most professional athletes. There are obvious and common sense limits to what should be considered fair compensation. Give me a single reason (outside of argument from tradition) that any person should be considered worth $15 billion dollars.

 

lol no.

The 3rd world is going to become on hell of a place once resources there start running short.

 

The arrogance of people like this sickens me to no end. Their view of the world is so perverse and twisted and mentally deranged they've come to consider MOTHER NATURE "morally repugnant" because she disagrees with the bizarre sense of guilt they like to wrap themselves up in, usually to fill the void for their own lack of spirit and soul. Nature and the workings of nature is the supreme judge on what is moral and what is not. It over rules your false and decedent view of the world and always will. Your "compassion" no doubt played a large role in the state of these peoples lives.

Instead of letting nature runs its course with people, you interfere, in all your `profound wisdom` and moral supremacy, and as a result, keep entire people in a sad and decrepit state that lingers somewhere between life and death and you call it "compassion."

In many places, your so called moral supremacy has left populations like this:


Your interference in the natural order of things stays Nature's hand, for now, and leaves entire populations in a zombie-state of existence, "helped" just enough to conceal and perpetuate all the reasons why they are like this in the first place, so you can go to night clubs and lecture people on how "moral" and charitable you are like a stereotypical limousine liberal.
If you would leave these people alone and spare them your "morality", Nature would have already solved the problem, like a forest fire that eventually leads to a healthier and more lush woodland than the one that existed before it, killing off its weak and unhealthy and making way for their strong to come back anew as a much healthier and more vibrant people that are in no need of your wretched "morality."

The West once had to deal with its plagues and sicknesses and famines. I'm thankful you weren't there, in some distant civilization, to curse us with it for all eternity through your moral supremacy and charitable facade, or else that might still be the state of our existence.

 

I suggest you would be wrong since this is a psychological issue; makes no difference how much they will ever earn...they will focus on a cap as if something is being taken from them before they've even approached that something. No one, from the poor to the wealthy want a cap on their potential...

 

Yes.

Another question:

What would an overpopulated Earth do to the overall quality of life.