Cycling Mob Cycling Forums - View Single Post - "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong

02-13-2007, 10:18 AM

>>> Here is one link. The author on this one thinks that 9.5--11 billion
>>> will be the limit. He does mention that 'Getaway' places are more
>>> popular than ever, indicating the stress of over population is
>>> getting to people even now.
>>
>> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...opulation.html

I seem to have missed the org msg so what other links do you have other than
one from a com-si major?

>>
>> The trouble is that what "people even now" see are only side effects
>> of population, not that we are overpopulated already. Of course the
>> first knee jerk response to that is "Whom are you proposing to kill
>> first?" This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition.
>> Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to reduce
>> population. Birth rate makes the difference.
>
> Correct logic since I was only proposing a fertility inhibitor.
> Some would label even that as murder, but it will have to be done to limit
> the exponential population growth. 6 billion people can not be sustained
> at our way of living. Not ever gonna happen. There will be wars, either
> holy or territorial, and anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't
> understand the human condition.
>>
>>> It's at best a messy conundrum we have gotten into.
>>
>> The messy part is that our economic goals demand we live in a Ponzi
>> scheme in which we need an ever increasing number of participants.
>> Birth rate makes the difference.
>>
>> That is true for developed countries as well as the most economically
>> backward ones.

If all this is true then things will get really messy when nature works it
out via famine, disease and/or wars.

>
> It gets messy when you consider that I (we baby boomers) and many others
> will be retiring within the next decade and we should like some of our
> money returned to us. What appears to have happened is that the government
> puts the SS money into a "General fund" and dips into it for things like,
> oh say, Bush's war games. Both senior and junior are guilty of starting
> things they can't control. I think that general fund is pretty wiped right
> now since it has probably been supporting welfare and 'friendly'
> countries. That made sense during the communist days but not now.
> We will be seeing a long and treacherous journey.

First off you can thank FDR for the basic problem with SS. Anyone with a
little sense should have known that a pyramid scheme such as this would fail
at some point. Remember your money is going to pay for the people retired
today, not being saved. Had to be that way because the first people who got
it (my grandparents for one) had paid almost nothing into it.

Second, its LBJ and the dems who have gotten SS into the problem its in now.
They are the ones who decided since there was so much money just laying
around in the SS funds they should use it to start buying votes (remember
the war on poverty which we seem to still be losing). It was supposed to be
a retirement safety net. They expanded it to cover more and more people.

Third, the SS fund was empty LONG before either Bush (IIRC, or even Reagan)
got into office. I believe it was sucked dry in the Carter years but I may
be off on that. Any way, the dems were the ones who got a great idea to get
around not using SS funds for general revenue. They just started
'borrowing' from the SS fund.

Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When it
reaches the point where you have just 2 or 3 workers to support one SS
recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the other government expenses they
will just say 'screw this'. There is already a fairly large 'under the
table' and barter economy going out there that is not taxed now. How large
do you thing its going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?

02-13-2007, 10:18 AM	#645 (permalink)
no spam Posts: n/a	Re: "Humans 'very likely' making earth warmer" is wrong >>> Here is one link. The author on this one thinks that 9.5--11 billion >>> will be the limit. He does mention that 'Getaway' places are more >>> popular than ever, indicating the stress of over population is >>> getting to people even now. >> >> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/p...opulation.html I seem to have missed the org msg so what other links do you have other than one from a com-si major? >> >> The trouble is that what "people even now" see are only side effects >> of population, not that we are overpopulated already. Of course the >> first knee jerk response to that is "Whom are you proposing to kill >> first?" This of course is a rude misinterpretation of the condition. >> Humans have a finite life and need not be "killed" to reduce >> population. Birth rate makes the difference. > > Correct logic since I was only proposing a fertility inhibitor. > Some would label even that as murder, but it will have to be done to limit > the exponential population growth. 6 billion people can not be sustained > at our way of living. Not ever gonna happen. There will be wars, either > holy or territorial, and anyone who thinks otherwise just doesn't > understand the human condition. >> >>> It's at best a messy conundrum we have gotten into. >> >> The messy part is that our economic goals demand we live in a Ponzi >> scheme in which we need an ever increasing number of participants. >> Birth rate makes the difference. >> >> That is true for developed countries as well as the most economically >> backward ones. If all this is true then things will get really messy when nature works it out via famine, disease and/or wars. > > It gets messy when you consider that I (we baby boomers) and many others > will be retiring within the next decade and we should like some of our > money returned to us. What appears to have happened is that the government > puts the SS money into a "General fund" and dips into it for things like, > oh say, Bush's war games. Both senior and junior are guilty of starting > things they can't control. I think that general fund is pretty wiped right > now since it has probably been supporting welfare and 'friendly' > countries. That made sense during the communist days but not now. > We will be seeing a long and treacherous journey. First off you can thank FDR for the basic problem with SS. Anyone with a little sense should have known that a pyramid scheme such as this would fail at some point. Remember your money is going to pay for the people retired today, not being saved. Had to be that way because the first people who got it (my grandparents for one) had paid almost nothing into it. Second, its LBJ and the dems who have gotten SS into the problem its in now. They are the ones who decided since there was so much money just laying around in the SS funds they should use it to start buying votes (remember the war on poverty which we seem to still be losing). It was supposed to be a retirement safety net. They expanded it to cover more and more people. Third, the SS fund was empty LONG before either Bush (IIRC, or even Reagan) got into office. I believe it was sucked dry in the Carter years but I may be off on that. Any way, the dems were the ones who got a great idea to get around not using SS funds for general revenue. They just started 'borrowing' from the SS fund. Fourth, there is no way the SS system will last much longer. When it reaches the point where you have just 2 or 3 workers to support one SS recipient AND welfare AND the rest of the other government expenses they will just say 'screw this'. There is already a fairly large 'under the table' and barter economy going out there that is not taxed now. How large do you thing its going to get when 50+% of wages are going to taxes?