The coming economic crisis

[ralis]

Filtration and recycling of the reclaimed materials ought to work pretty well.

 

Out of curiosity, are you aware that the biomass of termites on the planet exeeds the biomass of humans on the planet? Why is there not an uproar about the need to consider the unbridled population growth in this species except for when they are eating your house? (Termites taste like cinnamon, BTW -- wanna guess how I know?)

 

Great idea! However, I believe there is only 20% of the freshwater on the planet that is clean. Nothing is happening to stop this disaster!

 

Termites as well as any other species never outstrip their food supply. Nature always takes care of business by limiting populations. Further, all species with the exception of humans, don't engage in oil well drilling, strip mining etc.

 

 

ralis

[Tao99]

.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Tao99

[gendao]

Any attempt to limit the population needs to take into account quality control. It's best to have a population with a high IQ, hopefully one which is rising over time, rather than having the enormous masses of low IQ dumbasses we have here in the US breed like rabbits whist being supported by well-intentioned yet naive government services, as in the movie Idiocracy.

I agree!

 

Unfortunately, the opposite is happening now with smart people breeding less and dumb people breeding much, much more. Which liberalism supports via wealth redistribution and by glorifying the "ghetto" lifestyle.

 

The UN has it backwards too. High IQs "loosely" lead to lower birth rates and greater wealth. Low IQs "loosely" the opposite. The best way to combat poverty is to lower birth rates. See the stratospheric rise of China after its 1-child policy and IQ And The Wealth Of Nations. Or to see the complete FAILURE of the UN's theory - see Africa after 40 years of ~$4 trillion in foreign aid to "combat poverty." What an absolute JOKE!

 

Just for clarity - here is the difference in the 2 theories. One country practiced population control (with no foreign welfare) to combat poverty & the other received tons of global welfare (but no population control):

Capiche?

 

Of course, the NW0 goal is to turn the US into a 3rd world slum that is entirely dependent upon a UN-like government for survival. Which is why they actively encourage the ghettoization of our country. The last thing they want is a population full of politically-astute, self-reliant and independent-minded "Tea Party" & Libertarian types who will actively resist Socialist totalitarianism.

 

Unfortunately, the bankers are winning and our grandkids are really going to suffer living in such a 3rd world totalitarian slum.

Edited July 22, 2010 by vortex

[ralis]

I agree!

 

Unfortunately, the opposite is happening now with smart people breeding less and dumb people breeding much, much more. Which liberalism supports via wealth redistribution and glorifying the "ghetto" lifestyle.

 

The UN has it backwards too. High IQs "loosely" lead to lower birth rates and greater wealth. Low IQs "loosely" the opposite. The best way to combat poverty is to lower birth rates. See the stratospheric rise of China after its 1-child policy and IQ And The Wealth Of Nations. Or to see the complete FAILURE of the UN's theory - see Africa after 40 years of ~$4 trillion in foreign aid to "combat poverty." What an absolute JOKE!

 

Just for clarity - here is the difference in the 2 theories. One country practiced population control (with no foreign welfare) to combat poverty & the other received tons of global welfare (but no population control):

Capiche?

 

Of course, the NW0 goal is to turn the US into a 3rd world slum that is entirely dependent upon a UN-like government for survival. Which is why they actively encourage the ghettoization of our country. The last thing they want is a population full of politically-astute, self-reliant and independent-minded "Tea Party" & Libertarian types who will actively resist Socialist totalitarianism.

 

Unfortunately, the bankers are winning and our grandkids are really going to suffer living in such a 3rd world totalitarian slum.

 

 

You are really full of it with your untenable conspiracy theories. I suggest you study some history and get your facts straight. Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove et al have reframed the political debate and it appears you have been victimized by their propaganda. BTW, study Noam Chomsky and read 1984 by Orwell.

 

ralis

[ralis]

if humans were the size of termites, it probably wouldn't be a problem....

 

[Brian]

..

[-O-]

I agree!

 

Unfortunately, the opposite is happening now with smart people breeding less and dumb people breeding much, much more. Which liberalism supports via wealth redistribution and by glorifying the "ghetto" lifestyle.

 

....

 

 

Your reference is more to do with the education of women and hte finding come from Africa. It is not so much about stupid people breeding as much as it has to do with cultural roles of men and women. As women are allow to be educated, vote, work - essentailly have the same opportunities as men - then pragmatic decision around planned pregnancy, birth control etc. begin to have an impact on the whole population. So it is not a matter of IQ's produce lower populations as much as education leads to mature life decisions.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Wow, based on 'A Seeker', vortexxx, and Joeblast, I have extrapolated their theories of Earth's carrying capacity to my own domicile. I currently have only 2 human beings and one termite colony occupying 1560 square feet of my home, obviously I could utilize this resource more efficiently and occupy it to it's carrying capacity. I have 2.5 bathrooms and 3 bedrooms. Assuming I could have tents put up in my 1000 sq foot back yard, I think that I could have 120 people living here and each person would then have nearly 20 square feet to themselves. That's more than PLENTY to live in!!!! Roomy!!! They would even be able to do Zhan Zhuang in their space! If they take shifts in the bathrooms, they should be able to each have an 18 minute bathroom and shower slot per each 24 hours, the 1/2 bathroom would be available on a 'first come, first served' basis, with emergencies taking priority, of course. The showers would necessarily be with cold water, as the water heater is pretty small, and I could buy a several more refrigerators for the garage, so each person could have 0.75 cubic feet of refrigerator space for their food. Top 3 bunkbed slots throughout the property would go to the younger people, as they are more agile and wouldn't mind, the bottom 3 slots would go in order of age seniority for those creaky bones.

 

I calculate I would make out like a bandit by collecting $250 rent per month per person, I could keep maintaining the structure after paying my mortgage... AND put away about 12 LARGE a month!!I think this is a GREAT idea, I think this would be a terrific thing. I could even boot the termite colony out!!

 

Many thanks to A Seeker, Joeblast, and vortexxx!!!!

Edited July 23, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[thelerner]

I think this would be a terrific thing. I could even boot the termite colony out!!

 

 

ARE you CRAZY? The termites will provide food, fuel, even companionship.

I say keep'em

 

[ralis]

Let's panic!!!!11!!OMG!!!WTF!!!BBQ!!!eleventy-first!!! Or you could start cleaning water...

 

Here's what I don't get -- you make a statement like "Termites as well as any other species never outstrip their food supply. Nature always takes care of business by limiting populations." but then you exclude homo sapiens. Do you really believe that "nature" doesn't include that species, too?

 

Ever watch ants? They continually outstrip their food supplies, move to new locations, have wars with neighboring colonies, face disease, starvation, predation, mean kids with magnifying glasses, etc. That is all part of the natural dynamic system. Just because each species has a different set of behavioral characteristics doesn't mean that any of them somehow fall outside the parameters of that dynamic system.

 

 

Ants may outstrip supplies locally, but not planet wide. Otherwise, ants would seek to exist.

 

Take for example the Ips species which is a type of beetle that has caused extensive damage here in NM and Colorado. If you read the chart, you will find very specific criteria for this beetles habitat. What I have observed is the beetle will not destroy an entire forest. The beetle is selective as to the species of tree it needs to complete it's cycle. I have seen forests devastated up to a point and the infestation stops. The beetle returns to a basic population until the conditions are right for the next cycle. Therefor, the food supply is not outstripped. If it were the beetle would cease to exist.

 

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05558.html

 

ralis

[Brian]

..

[Brian]

..

[de_paradise]

Anthony Robbins warns of economic collapse!!! Who wouldve guessed.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_rShZA_IjE

[gendao]

Wow, based on 'A Seeker', vortexxx, and Joeblast

Lol, you mean some cartoonish imaginary strawman named "vortexxx" who is in favor of unbridled population growth?

 

A self-indulgent Baby Boomer finally comes clean & fesses up:

My generation has wrecked the country, claims Nick Clegg

By James Chapman

Last updated at 11:40 AM on 10th September 2010

 

Nick Clegg has issued an extraordinary denunciation of the last two generations, accusing them of wrecking Britain by embracing a culture of 'instant gratification'.

 

The Deputy Prime Minister said his parents' generation and his own had 'run up debts, despoiled the planet and allowed our institutions to wither'.

 

Mr Clegg said that in all walks of life - including the political, commercial and personal - people had become focused only on the short-term.

 

Companies concerned themselves with chasing immediate profits, politicians were obsessed with the next day's headlines, while individuals 'eat doughnuts and decide not to go for a run', the 43-year-old said.

 

Families were 'splurging today' rather than saving responsibly for their retirement, while many employees were 'sucked into overwork' instead of taking time to be with their children.

 

'I think it was a Hollywood actress who said that nowadays, even instant gratification isn't quick enough for some people,' he added.

 

In a speech in London at the Institute for Government, Mr Clegg said responsible societies considered the consequences of their actions over 'at least two generations'.

 

He said: 'This has not been the ethos that has guided us in recent decades. The Prime Minister and I are from the same generation.

 

'And frankly, we know that both our generation and the one before us got it wrong. We have run up debts, despoiled the planet and allowed too many of our institutions to wither.

 

'For us, the longer-term view we are adopting in government will help to wipe the slate clean, and ensure that future generations can thrive, without being burdened with the dead weight of our debt, and our failings.

 

'We are absolutely determined that we will be able to look our children and grandchildren in the eye and say we did the best we could for them, even if this means taking some difficult, unpopular decisions today.'

 

Mr Clegg said British society had retained some institutions and habits that focused on long-term interests. He singled out marriage and civil partnerships as 'profoundly important commitment devices - a way of pledging to work at a relationship through thick and thin'.

 

The Deputy Prime Minister said companies and financial markets needed to resist the 'temptation for short-term profits' when the result was undermining long-term prosperity.

 

'When remuneration packages are tied into the performance of shares over a very short timespan, the long-term result is often a weaker corporate sector,' he added.

 

He insisted that the coalition was determined to 'govern for the long-term' and break out of the 'myopia' of the last Labour government.

 

Ministers would not 'confuse successful headlines with successful reform', Mr Clegg claimed.

 

He promised to address long-term problems even if the short-term solutions were 'uncomfortable'.

Of course, this is all cheap lip service that won't actually be acted upon...but at least he is willing to admit it! Real change won't come until the Baby Boomers leave office and die off and get replaced by the next few generations.. Old dogs just don't learn new tricks. Edited September 10, 2010 by vortex

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Just streamed the movie 'Collapse' on Netflix. Thought I'd bump this thread.