R
ribozyme
Guest
Ask yourself this question, what will happen if the human population grows 2% each year compounded annually? Does anything think that could happen for more than 1,000 years?
Of course it is impossible.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Of course it is impossible.
R
redhen
Guest
Thank you. I just wanted to get someone on this forum, besides me, who believes that there are in fact limits to growth.Ask yourself this question, what will happen if the human population grows 2% each year compounded annually? Does anything think that could happen for more than 1,000 years?
Of course it is impossible.
That may seem obvious, but from what I’ve seen on this forum, everyone believes that there are no limits, and there is nothing at all to be concerned about.
Common sense seems to be so rare that it’s become a superpower.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
If that’s all you wanted to know, why did your post have all that filler space between the two sections I quoted above?Let me ask you again, do you believe that there are limits to growth? And by growth, I mean increase in human population, land use and resource development?
So, would you care now to the answer the question I’ve asked before; do you believe that there are limits to growth?
That’s all I want to know. Thanks.
But I digress…
Your question, regarding whether there are limits to growth in human population, land use, is not the OP’s topic. If you want to discuss that topic, I encourage you to start a new thread rather than hijack this one.
That being said, I will offer as simple and straightforward of an answer as I can in an effort to avoid being accused of avoiding the question…
Any prediction regarding the limit of human flourishing pursuant to a particular external limiting factor is inherently flawed because it cannot take into account the potential for our greatest natural resource, the human intellect, to compensate as it has consistently throughout human history. That is, external limitations to particular avenues of growth do not limit human flourishing because of our capacity to find ways to overcome those external limitations.
That being said, if you think this is worth its own thread, then by all means start one up.
R
redhen
Guest
Just pointing out your logical fallacies, that’s all.If that’s all you wanted to know, why did your post have all that filler space between the two sections I quoted above?
Your question, regarding whether there are limits to growth in human population, land use, is not the OP’s topic. If you want to discuss that topic, I encourage you to start a new thread rather than hijack this one.
Hmm, you mean birth control (the Pill, IUD’s, etc) and the feminist movement that has lead to a sub-replacement level of birth rates in Europe? Yup, homo sapiens is one smart species, we can come up with all kinds of ways of overcoming problems.That is, external limitations to particular avenues of growth do not limit human flourishing because of our capacity to find ways to overcome those external limitations.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Sure, those are certainly examples of the application of the human intellect to a variety of problems…Just pointing out your logical fallacies, that’s all.
Hmm, you mean birth control (the Pill, IUD’s, etc) and the feminist movement that has lead to a sub-replacement level of birth rates in Europe? Yup, homo sapiens is one smart species, we can come up with all kinds of ways of overcoming problems.
But my response specifically referred to the limitation of **human flourishing **resulting from external limiting factors.
Human flourishing is a well defined concept within Catholic Moral Teaching. The examples you cited do not contribute, in my opinion and the opinion of the Church, to **human flourishing. **
But your conclusion…
is consistent with my position, despite your sarcastic intent.homo sapiens is one smart species, we can come up with all kinds of ways of overcoming problems.
I would only add that, as moral agents, we have the capacity to evaluate and make judgements regarding the objective morality of the possible solutions we develop.
M
mpi
Guest
There are no limits to growth. Extra-planetary colonization will take place when the time is right.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
I hereby declare this thread officially hijacked.There are no limits to growth. Extra-planetary colonization will take place when the time is right.
:takeoff:
R
ribozyme
Guest
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Here’s quote from that article that I really think encapsulates this nut…
MJ: What about the argument that China, India, Indonesia won’t ever get on board, even after we finally make a decision? (question is regarding reducing fossil fuel use and carbon emissions.)
China’s population control policies probably rank among the top 3 massive human rights violations committed by the chi-coms, yet your “hero” praises them for these policies.PE: First of all, the Chinese are already more on board than we are. China is the only country that actually discussed in formal government documents how important it is to control the size of your populations if you’re going to limit emissions. People have not made the connection that the more of us there are, the more greenhouse gases go into the atmosphere. The Chinese have. They, unlike us, have a population policy. The right wingers just don’t understand that the country they’re in is probably the most overpopulated in the world, the one doing most of the destruction, and the one with horrendously bad leadership.
Odd that he didn’t mention that China is building so many new coal burning power plants that by 2030 they will produce more pollution annually ON THEIR OWN than was produced by the entire world last year.
But that’s OK, according to this lunatic, because they have a government policy that forces parents to abort their babies.
M
mpi
Guest
Demography is destiny. Nations that choose Paul Ehrlich’s population control see an economic boost for about 40 years after enacting the policy. This is the demographic dividend - a result of a rising worker to dependant ratio. After this 40 years is up then the nation experiences a demographic winter that is the beginning of the end. The worker to dependant ratio begins to fall and the economy stagnates. Japan was one of the first nations to see a birth rate drop after WWII. They had their boom in the 80s and early 90s. It has been stagnation ever since. The US will have their bust soon (maybe now), as it is about 40 years since “the pill”. China’s demographic winter will come in about 10 years - 40 years after its One Child policy was enacted.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
China’s pending population bust is already well documented- The one child rule, combined with tremendous social pressure to have a male child, has resulted in the deliberate abortion of unborn female babies.Demography is destiny. Nations that choose Paul Ehrlich’s population control see an economic boost for about 40 years after enacting the policy. This is the demographic dividend - a result of a rising worker to dependant ratio. After this 40 years is up then the nation experiences a demographic winter that is the beginning of the end. The worker to dependant ratio begins to fall and the economy stagnates. Japan was one of the first nations to see a birth rate drop after WWII. They had their boom in the 80s and early 90s. It has been stagnation ever since. The US will have their bust soon (maybe now), as it is about 40 years since “the pill”. China’s demographic winter will come in about 10 years - 40 years after its One Child policy was enacted.
The result is that chinese authorities predict the following:
Experts, and just about anyone who passed the first grade, now predict that serious gender imbalance can cause complicated social problems.
If this imbalance is allowed to proceed unchecked, the following social problems may occur:
- Pressure on marriage. Owing to their excessive number, males will find it difficult to find marriage partners.
- Adverse impacts on families and society. The gender imbalance is likely to cause more sexual crimes and adversely affect the stability of monogamous families.
- Difficulties in maintaining the population. With the decrease in the number of women, the country’s population reproduction capacity will decline.
- The surplus of male employees will place more pressure on female employees. In the next 10-20 years, men will find it more difficult to find jobs. Some sectors that females used to have advantages in, such as textiles and service, will hire more males, upping the pressure on female workers.
The solution offered by the Chinese government? More government control, of course…
In an attempt to halt the growing imbalance, China launched a “care for girls” campaign nationwide in 2000 to promote equality between men and women.
The government has also offered cash incentives to girl-only families in the countryside.
The authorities said such programs will continue to fight discrimination against girls and to adopt more policies to ensure the healthy growth of girls.
Yep-financial incentives for families to have a girl instead of a boy-
That means unborn boys are going to be the ones targeted for abortion for the next decade or so until the balance shifts in the other direction.
…and Paul Ehrlich had nothing but praise for China’s population control policies…
I really can’t believe that you idolize someone like Paul Ehrlich.
If you’re that desperate for someone to idolize, just pick a random name out of the phone book- chances are that person is much more deserving of your admiration than Ehrlich.
M
mpi
Guest
I think you hit “quote” on the wrong post. I can’t stand Paul Ehrlich and I ridicule him at every opportunity.China’s pending population bust is already well documented- The one child rule, combined with tremendous social pressure to have a male child, has resulted in the deliberate abortion of unborn female babies.
The result is that chinese authorities predict the following:
Experts, and just about anyone who passed the first grade, now predict that serious gender imbalance can cause complicated social problems.
If this imbalance is allowed to proceed unchecked, the following social problems may occur:
The solution offered by the Chinese government? More government control, of course…
Yep-financial incentives for families to have a girl instead of a boy-
That means unborn boys are going to be the ones targeted for abortion for the next decade or so until the balance shifts in the other direction.
…and Paul Ehrlich had nothing but praise for China’s population control policies…
I really can’t believe that you idolize someone like Paul Ehrlich.
If you’re that desperate for someone to idolize, just pick a random name out of the phone book- chances are that person is much more deserving of your admiration than Ehrlich.
R
ribozyme
Guest
He is one of my many idols…I really can’t believe that you idolize someone like Paul Ehrlich.
If you’re that desperate for someone to idolize, just pick a random name out of the phone book- chances are that person is much more deserving of your admiration than Ehrlich.
How about George Soros and Peter Singer? Are they better?
M
mpi
Guest
You are a 19 year old “godless liberal”. Those 3 things pretty much sum up your belief system.He is one of my many idols…
How about George Soros and Peter Singer? Are they better?
Enlighten me how any nation based on godless liberalism will thrive in the long run. I would love to hear your view.
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
You are nothing if not consistent.He is one of my many idols…
How about George Soros and Peter Singer? Are they better?
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
You said a mouthful.You are a 19 year old “godless liberal”. Those 3 things pretty much sum up your belief system.
That’s easy- all they have to do is keep redefining the word “Thrive.”Enlighten me how any nation based on godless liberalism will thrive in the long run. I would love to hear your view.
That happens all the time- for example, they’ve redefined poverty countless times… now it means owning a house, earning enough to eat out 4 times a week, paying your cell phone and cable bills, having a tv in every room, but not making enough to buy a new car every 3 years.
The word “Thrive” can eventually be redefined to mean “working for the government, being given government healthcare, sent to government schools, and assigned government housing.”
Sounds almost too good to be true, doesn’t it?
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
yes, my mistake- I meant to include a quote from the OP regarding his “hero” statement.I think you hit “quote” on the wrong post. I can’t stand Paul Ehrlich and I ridicule him at every opportunity.
R
ribozyme
Guest
It wouldn’t, and I even think Sweden needs religion for its welfare state.You are a 19 year old “godless liberal”. Those 3 things pretty much sum up your belief system.
Enlighten me how any nation based on godless liberalism will thrive in the long run. I would love to hear your view.
If religion keeps the masses from opposing the welfare state and keeping it functioning, then it should be encouraged (even if the people encouraging it do not believe in god.)
O
Oscarthecat
Guest
Just curious…It wouldn’t, and I even think Sweden needs religion for its welfare state.
If religion keeps the masses from opposing the welfare state and keeping it functioning, then it should be encouraged (even if the people encouraging it do not believe in god.)
Who are these people you’re talking about? …the ones encouraging religion as a service to the state?
M
mpi
Guest
A simple thought experiment - two nations side by side. One has the welfare state and one has rule of law and capitalism. Which one thrives and which one implodes?It wouldn’t, and I even think Sweden needs religion for its welfare state.
If religion keeps the masses from opposing the welfare state and keeping it functioning, then it should be encouraged (even if the people encouraging it do not believe in god.)
- Status
- Not open for further replies.