The dirty little secret of ALL politics

[urbanguerrilla]

the whole world can't live like the advanced capitalist U.S., Canada, and EU countries. It's environmentally and resourcefully unfeasible. We're going to have to find another planet to colonize if we hope for true world peace. Hopefully, if that happens, the Christofascists and Islamofascists will volunteer for a one-way trip.

[jpgray]

1. Ask Sweden if they make their own clothes

It's not just capitalist countries--the entire so-called first world thrives on the desperation and poverty of the rest of the planet.

[Maple]

2. Whatever gave you that idea?

Of course they can.

[jpgray]

3. Whatever gave you that idea?

Some on this planet will be kept down so the rest can be kept up. That's the way it's always been, that's the way it will continue to be. To an objective observer, I imagine the belief that we can attain a truly equitable system would seem ridiculous. Like ants thinking they will someday overthrow the monarchy.

Even though we'll never make it, it should still always be our goal.

[Maple]

4. What an amazing assumption

but I'd love to have a nickel for everytime someone in history said 'that's the way it's always been, that's the way it will continue to be'

I'd be fabulously wealthy.

The world has changed enormously, both socially and technologically and it will continue to do so. Stop depressing yourself with such untrue proverbs.

[jpgray]

5. Okay. Point out where a true equitable system has existed

On a nation-size scale. Wherein a first-world quality of life has been attained without the abuse and subjugation of other peoples. I won't hold my breath. Some things never change, and this is one--the ambitious and greedy will put down the less ambitious to bring themselves up every time they get the chance. The systems of government may change, the lines on a map may change, the words used to describe this imbalance may change, but that much has always stayed the same.

[Old and In the Way]

6. China 1964 vs. China 2004

Like 2 different worlds.

True, it is effecting OUR standard of living....but they've come a long way and they have no interest in going back to the good old days.

[Maple]

7. In much of the history

the western world ignores. Pre Roman and Greek history, because the world didn't start there in spite of our textbooks.

First, second and third world are recent concepts, as are nations.

Somehow you figure the world is supposed to be Nirvana...all wonderful with no struggle.

All of history has shown us that change is the one thing you can count on.

Romans thought the world would never change. The dark and middle ages must have seemed like they'd go on forever. At one time the British ruled the earth. No more.

Today, the average working man with a lunchpail lives better than the kings of history. He even has a vote, something never conceived of as short a time ago as Victorian England.

Child labor laws, equality for women, even marches against war are all new in western history.

Not Nirvana overnight, no. But real progress.

Why give up now? Especially when we are so close.

[jpgray]

11. That's not what you were arguing

In the original post: "the whole world can't live like the advanced capitalist U.S., Canada, and EU countries."

You: "Of course they can."

As for your pre-Greco-Roman history, show me a large population, agriculturally-based society and I will show you subjugation, violence and obscene inequality used to sustain it. From Sumer on, it has existed and will continue to exist. Unless you are arguing we go back to subsistence farming and disconnected tiny communities, there will be this inequality. And your argument wasn't to sustain some fantastical ancient societies around the world, yours was to sustain our standard of living around the world. I can see a hunter-gatherer society being somewhat equitable, but not our modern mold.

"Child labor laws, equality for women, even marches against war are all new in western history."

Ask a woman in Nigeria who gets stoned for adultery how that equality is working out. Ask the kids laboring away to make Wal-Mart goods or Nike shoes how great our child labor laws are. It's easy to push out your own nastiness when you foist it off on someone else.

[Maple]

12. Yes, it's exactly the same

the whole world can live the same way as the 'advanced capitalist' societies in the world. You were the one who asked about totally equal societies, and they have existed and will again. We are closer to them than we have been for thousands of years.

Good gawd no...why would anyone want to go back to some dreary agrarian society?

Try the technological advances of the 21st century.

I don't recall saying the whole world will arrive at the same point at the same time...but we are all moving towards that point. Again you are expecting Nirvana on some world wide time scale.

Wasn't that long ago, the 'western world' was burning people at the stake. Some US states still fry people, even retarded ones, or very young ones.

What is with this 'instant gratification' stuff? Progress is uneven, has setbacks, and takes time. But it always happens nonetheless.

It will never do so if you give up at the slightest sign it isn't the Garden of Eden though.

[jpgray]

15. No, you're still trying to get away from this

"Some on this planet will be kept down so the rest can be kept up. That's the way it's always been, that's the way it will continue to be."

I still fail to see how anything you've said provides evidence to debunk this point. If we don't all arrive together, then how can the above be false? Some are kept down so others can be kept up. So did you really disagree with me, or did I misunderstand you when you said this was an untrue proverb? Your last post actually indicates that you believe it to be true yourself. And as for the magical Nirvana land, I believe the definition of that would be a world where the above proverb is not true, and that's your argument, not mine.

[Maple]

17. Actually the topic here is

about other societies living the same way as the western world does...and yes indeed they can. Quite easily.

You brought in the inequality bit...and rather than 'running' from it, I answered it first thing.

We didn't all arrive at the level of democracy or even television together...but that doesn't prevent anyone else from gaining it. Whyever would it?

We'll all get to the same point...it just looks uneven at various times in various cultures.

China had printing presses long before the west. You caught up though.

Globalization, and the world wide organizations that creates, along with modern communications, are evening out the process.

[jpgray]

22. It seems to me you're dancing around the point again

Let's accept your definition of the argument:

"Actually the topic here is about other societies living the same way as the western world does...and yes indeed they can."

Okay. Let's start from the beginning. How is it that a person in the US can live as he/she does? If you ignore the fact that even the costs for setting up a factory and buying supplies in the US could be undercut by for-profit costs of completed goods in poorer countries, I believe you ignore the primary reason we can live as we do. We are up because we use those who are down to be up. Our society is not self-contained or self-sustaining. The idea that we have a lifestyle "without" barbaric gender inequality or child labor is a lie, because we still leech off the benefits of those inequitable systems--the subjugated nations and peoples that help sustain our way of life contain those nasty things, so to say we have somehow exorcised them is naive and betrays a limited viewpoint.

Now, you argue all other societies in the world can live in the same manner as the western world. To live in "the same" manner as the western world, they too would need this system of depraved subjugation and inequality--you can't divorce the benefits of our system from the horrible problems it creates elsewhere. That's where I see the holes in your argument--you're acting as though one side of the balance doesn't exist.

[Maple]

23. I answered the original point

and all the other points that got dragged into it.

You are still thinking in terms of the industrial age...'factories are life'

Well they aren't. They are only one stage in a long process, and at the moment China is the world's factory. That means you will have to move on to something else. Each country slingshots the others ahead or behind as things change.

The western world isn't fully equal, but it's a lot more equal than it has been just in my own lifetime...which is a drop in the historical bucket.

Other countries are changing rapidly, and will reach that goal as well.

Most societies, over the next half century, will also come to have nuclear families, homes of their own, transportation, education, and a belief in peace and freedom worldwide.

Just in my lifetime China went from an Emperor and stagnant mediaeval society, to the depths of mass murder under Mao, to selling computers to the world, and having a presence in space. And I'm not even 60 yet.

Time is telescoping like never before...yet you choose now of all times to rain gloom and doom on everyone.

Life is better than it has ever been. You are in your own negative zone for some reason.

[jpgray]

24. "The whole world can't live like the west"

That's the original point. You say yes it can, I say no it can't, because our system is based on inequality. You say it isn't, I ask you to show how it isn't, and then you dance around responding to those parts of my posts that you wish to and discarding the rest.

Here are some questions for you: are fewer people living in abject poverty, starvation and desperation now than a few decades ago? How about a few hundred years ago? Do fewer people die from war, disease and famine now than did in the past? Here's a better one: has the gap between the poorest societies on the planet and the richest increased, or decreased? Answer these questions, and then tell me we're moving toward the whole world having the same system as western capitalist countries. How can the rest of the world world use the engine that their subjugation is the fuel for?

[Maple]

25. Sure it can

and the rapidly disappearing industrial age, an advance in it's time, but based on class and inequality according to new standards, is changing to the information age.

It returns us to some good things from the agrarian age...concern for the environment, equality, but then adds technology.

Please stop attacking me personally, and discuss the topic itself.

Yes, fewer people are living in poverty proportionately than before. Yes, fewer people proportionately die in wars and of disease and poverty than ever before. Yes, people all over the world are narrowing the gap between rich and poor.

You are still stuck in the 'us against them' of the early union movements, and the world has long since moved past that.

[jpgray]

26. Thanks--now I understand you haven't looked at this carefully

I thought your arguments were coming from a base of knowledge that apparently you don't possess.

"Between 1960 and 1995, the disparity in GDP per capita between the 20 richest and 20 poorest nations more than doubled. And in the last two decades, inequality within countries has also increased, making the gap between those at the top and those at the bottom of the economic pyramid even more pronounced.

The economic divide has widened not only in poor countries and those struggling in transition from communist to capitalist economic systems, but also in many industrial nations. And its impact on essentials such as health and education lends even more urgency to reducing the gap between the world's 'haves' and 'have nots' wherever they live."

http://www.worldwatch.org/live/discussion/76/

[Maple]

27. I work in it every day

and have all the latest figures, and instead of attacking me, or inhaling propaganda and passing it on, you might try finding out the truth of the matter.

Please stop posting silliness, and discuss the topic.

You are only holding yourself down when you cling to this outmoded socialist model from a century ago.

The US is living under a dome. The rest of the world is not.

Guess who's going to win this one?

[jpgray]

28. Once you post some evidence of knowledge, I'll admit you have it

I asked you if the gap between the rich and poor societies was increasing or decreasing, and your answer was wrong, both on the micro and macro levels. Do you think you may want to start looking at the possibility that your own ideas may be flawed? I focus on that possibility for my own as much as possible. If you could produce evidence that the gap is shrinking, I'd be happy to look at it and declare myself wrong.

[Maple]

29. My answer was current data

not some elderly hippie chat site.

Sorry, I make a very good living knowing current data, not some pot philosophy from half a century ago.

The gap is even changing as we speak.

Watch the headlines.

[jpgray]

30. Then I'll ask you again to please provide it (nt)

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

33. I don't know what I expected, but "Google it" wasn't what I hoped for

Again, if you ever come upon a link with this information, please PM me or post it here. I can't find what you are talking about--could you at least tell me which group published the report, or the names of one or two contributors?

[Maple]

35. 191 countries

pdf it yourself.

Tons of economic data...I sure ain't posting it on this site. LOL

[jpgray]

36. I found this UN report that supports my claim

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/incomgap.htm

I'll keep looking for more. Was it a UN report?

[Maple]

38. From 1996???

NO!

[jpgray]

39. How about February, 2004?

"Monday's morning session focused on a report by a U.N. commission that said the income gap between the richest and poorest countries has widened in the past four decades and the vast majority of the world's population could fail to see the benefits of globalization.

The World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization, which was established in 2002 by the International Labor Organization, urged policy-makers in the February report to set fairer rules for trade and immigration so that millions can benefit — not suffer — from globalization."

http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/1522

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpgray]

41. How's the BBC for you?

A new report has called for radical changes in the direction of world economic policy to overcome the negative effects of globalisation.

Major changes in trade and immigration policy are needed if the world's poor are to share in the benefits of globalisation, according to the UN-sponsored report of the World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalisation.

"There a deep-seated and persistent imbalances in the current workings of the world economy, which are ethically unacceptable and politically unsustainable," the report said.

The report says that only a dozen developing countries have benefited from the increasing integration of the world economy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3516197.stm

Can we stop the games? Can you admit you have never researched this, nor do you care to?

[Swamp Rat]

42. Yeah, you goddamn HIPPIE!

Quit smoking weed and join the Space Age!

[jpgray]

49. LOL (nt)

[Maple]

79. It was the space age

when hippies were rolling in the mud at Woodstock.

Not my problem you missed it.

[Maple]

43. Can you stop playing games?

And stop pretending some column on the BBC report by "The World Commission on the Social Dimension of Globalization's report, Fair Globalization: Creating opportunities for all, published by the International Labour Organisation in Geneva." is any kind of accurate data rather than another elderly hippie report?

It's how I make my living..a very good living I might add...by being au current with reality...not some fantasy socialistic two centuries ago peace and love nonsense.

[jpgray]

45. That's a United Nations commission.

Are you saying the UN is an elderly, hippie group? I'm surprised the BBC takes this report so seriously, then.

[Maple]

47. Try the latest UN report

and not the hippie interpretation thereof.

QUITE different.

[jpgray]

48. Which was published when? By which commission?

I fear we are back to where we started. Am I going to have to "Google" this as well?

[Maple]

50. I fear you are being silly

Latest UN figures show the world population stabilizing at 9 billion before falling.

Declining fertility rates and all that.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/05/population_041105.html

Although it will occur much sooner than reports have it. :D

I know you want Armageddon in our time..but it ain't gonna happen.

On edit...and btw I am posting stats here, while you are posting chatsites. Please. I mean, really.

[jpgray]

51. Now you've lost me

How does that contradict the Feb '04 report on the effects of globalization and the expanding gap between rich and poor? Did you reply to the wrong post?

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

65. "... your generation's biggest problem" - Tell me, what generation am I.

"You're still smoking something to alter your perception of reality." - How do you know if I smoke? How do you know my perception of reality is altered?

Please define reality.

"The rest of us are not." - The rest of who? Do you belong to some elite group?

"Enjoy the home." - I lost my home early this year. My job went over three years ago. My family is dodging bullets in Iraq... are you comfy? I sleep on the floor since I have no bed.

"It too will pass in a haze of smoke and fantasy." - The haze of smoke and fantasy might describe YOUR life, but not mine.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

80. You have not rationally answered any questions I have posed

Instead, you are attacking me and others... and quite cruelly I might add.

"And you aren't in this reality...so yours must be smoke induced." - Ad hominem. You didn't define reality.

"The rest of us... means the rest of the world. The ones NOT floating in the ether." - Ad hominem.

"lease...no nonsense. Light somewhere." - What do you mean by this?

"And if you can't afford a bed, sell your damn computer." - This is not my computer. I no longer own a computer. Will you buy me one?

"Topic please...no philosophical tangents or we'll be into elves next" - Yes, let's stay on topic. No more ad hominem please.

[jpgray]

58. Well, people may read our posts and decide for themselves who is lost

Incidentally, I'm twenty-one. So feel free to break out the "callow youth" pejoratives next time.

:hi:

[Swamp Rat]

61. Hell no! You are really sharp for your age.

I was too busy playing with myself when I was your age.:silly:

[Maple]

63. Ahhh ...21...the wisdom of the ages

when you can be high without pot, and just as unrealistic.

Chronological age has nothing to do with wisdom, grasshopper.

Some can be wise at 18, and others,children at 80

The boomers will still be children at 80 I fear. They never grew up.

I was hoping your generation would do better.

But...the most difficult thing in life to do is escaping the programming.

I wish you luck in your struggle

[Swamp Rat]

67. Yes, but for 21, he is very mature and intellectually sharp.

"Chronological age has nothing to do with wisdom, grasshopper." - This applies to your generation, whatever that is, Grasshopper.

"I was hoping your generation would do better." - What generation are you embarrassing at this moment?

"I wish you luck in your struggle" - Do you?

[Maple]

71. He is as lost as every 21 year old is

Nostalgia for your own lost meanderings aside.

Stop mollycoddling him...a bucket of cold water now will be much kinder in the long run.

[Swamp Rat]

76. Why do you attack us?

I choose to EMBRACE his generation.

I choose to LISTEN to his generation.

How are we to learn anything if we attack and blame?

"Nostalgia for your own lost meanderings aside." - "Judge not lest ye be judged"

"... a bucket of cold water now will be much kinder in the long run." - Really? I do not believe he would appreciate your definition of kindness. Would Jesus throw a bucket of water on him for the position he has maintained in this thread?

[Maple]

78. I haven't attacked anyone

I simply provided some optimism to a gloomy thread. However I see you prefer your dark clouds and fetal position.

And don't give me the mushie Jesus stuff...it's called 'tough love.'

Every 21 year old needs a good stiff dose of it.

It would have done wonders for the boomers.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maple]

83. I haven't 'attacked' anyone

and I'm not into compassionate conservatism, nor am I a freeper, which is what you are trying to say.

A favorite accusation on here whenever someone disagrees with your world.

Just once I wish people on here could stick to a topic without wandering off into paranoia, and accusations.

And the topic, btw is the standard of living.

Nothing else. Standard of living.

[Swamp Rat]

85. Really?

"I'm not into compassionate conservatism, nor am I a freeper, which is what you are trying to say." - No, I was describing your statements, not judging YOU. Freepers can't spell anyway and their poor grammar is a dead giveaway.

"A favorite accusation on here whenever someone disagrees with your world." - Truism.

"Just once I wish people on here could stick to a topic without wandering off into paranoia, and accusations." - OK, give me your treatise on Malthus.

I am waiting.

[Maple]

87. Yup, really

The topic here...I repeat...the topic here...is the current standard of living in the world.

Poor, gloomy, dead, ...and deadwrong, Malthus, is your problem, not mine.

He's always been wrong...notify me if he's ever ONCE right.

Say in oh...3040 or so.

[Swamp Rat]

89. You win. You are smarter than me.

I can't debate with you. You win. :)

Inté veado!

[Maple]

90. I know

and now, so do you.

Ciao.

[L.A.dweller]

96. Tough love BS

[L.A.dweller]

94. You underestimate our generation

There are lots of smart and intelligent young people out there.
It seems to me as if you have not met any of them.
Or is it that they just stay away from you.

[Maple]

95. Actually it would appear

that I overestimated you.

I expected soooo much better than recycled hippie slogans.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

102. Where is this data?

[Bouncy Ball]

8. I've known this for years.

You're right when you say "dirty little secret."

Anyone know how much more land and resources we need to eat meat as opposed to a grain-based diet?

That one ALONE is a biggie.

[Maple]

9. I've been in politics

and there is no such 'secret'

Everyone on the planet could live in Texas, and have lots of room.

And for the first time in history, the world has SURPLUS food...more than we can eat. Tons of it.

This is an era for rejoicing, not gloom and doom.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Maple]

13. Sorry, never smoke anything

Or ingest it either.

Yes indeed. Do the math. Everyone on the planet could live there easily. It's a big world, and 6 billion people aren't that many I'm afraid.

The point is, that there is no 'dirty little secret' in politics about resources or capitalism or anything else.

[Bouncy Ball]

14. So you took his post to be only about overpopulation eh?

[Maple]

16. No I did not

but this whole conversation is some Malthusian rant, and he was wrong from the get-go.

I believe it was you who dragged in the cows, and how much space they take up.

Relax. We have the room.

[Bouncy Ball]

18. I wasn't just referring to the space.

And please don't tell me to relax, I am perfectly relaxed.

It's a fact that raising the food necessary for a meat-based diet uses far more land and resources than the food necessary for a grain-based diet. Most people in industrialized, "first world" nations eat a meat-based diet. You are delusional if you think that doesn't effect the rest of the world.

[Maple]

19. People all over the world eat meat

and always have. And we have plenty of room.

If you wish to be a vegetarian, fine. But the rest of the world is unlikely to become so any time soon.

But that's hardly necessary in order to progress.

[Bouncy Ball]

20. Actually I am not a vegetarian.

Do a little reading on this, seriously.

[Maple]

21. Neither am I

nor are most other people.

And I am fully genned up on the subject thanks.

We have plenty of room.

[bhikkhu]

32. References? Links?

This is an interesting thread, but on Maple's point there seem to be assurances with no backing, and contrary to sense. No personal criticism intended, but if you have a shred of independent information you might recommend one to read, perhaps you could share it.

[Maple]

37. Had you thought of searching?

The reference to Texas is very well known.

Available by googling easily.

"All of the world's current population fits in the state of Texas. Yup, all 6 billion people. And each gets about 500 square feet (50 square meters approximately) as his/her own chunk." "If all those people start getting in line, each one occupying only one foot, the queue would be very, very long, too. The humanity line would be a little more than a million miles! - approximately 42 tours around the globe!!!"
Just in case you were interested the current world population is: 5,595,373,985"

And that's just one quote.

[bhikkhu]

44. Thats a far cry from debunking Malthus

I have been reading the Cornell University study on human population, which estimates that the resources of the planet can sustainably support 2 billion, perhaps. They also estimate that the longer the population remains over two billion, the more degraded the natural resource base becomes, and the lower resulting sustainable figure becomes. There are several constraints, fresh water being one of them. It seems the human species utilizes 50% of the planet's fresh water resources (thats from a UN report last year).

I have also been reading ASPO on peak oil quite a bit, which blows even the Cornell study out of the water. The human population growth curve mirrors the energy production curve, and the abundance of fossil fuel production has provides the resources to sustain the current population. The best guesses for the beginning of a net decline in fossil fuel production are this decade. Lacking a cheap, abundant and reliable source of energy, the human population may collapse in this century. From previous models of resource depletion (the middle east 1400 to 400 b.c., for instance) intercultural warfare generally results in depopulation as resources diminish.

I am not immune to your argument, having recently completed several college course on social stratification, the philosophy of worldviews and environmental values, cultural anthropology, etc. But for the most part I suspect they are unhinged from the realities of our time. There are not enough resources to go around. Everybody can't live in an 1800 sf house with central heat and air. Everybody can't drive a luxury automobile. Whether the arguments I started with here are valid or not I am undecided. I would like to see more facts. But I think it is very clear that if the footprint on the earth made by the small population of the US were mimicked worldwide (and I don't think it is possible in any case, based on resource availability), the result would be disastrous.

[Maple]

46. Malthus was debunked years ago

And had you read the recent UN report you'd know that we will go higher than this before the population evens out...and it's quite doable.

Yes indeed, we can all live a very comfy life.

Central heat and air, and all the bells and whistles.

Although why you seem to think only the US has this stuff I don't know. Perhaps it's a failure of your educational system?

[Swamp Rat]

52. "Malthus was debunked years ago"

Would you like to back up this statement with scientific data? Do you have any references to peer reviewed journals? Social scientists would like to know if you have developed non-Malthusian theories of population density and growth.

[Maple]

57. Ahem...none of it ever happened !

Nor will it given new tech and advances.

But don't believe the evidence of your own eyes...heavens no.

Malthus has been dead for...how long now?

When are you going to give up on all the dead guys anyhow??

Marx, Lenin, Malthus, Adam Smith...dead for centuries now.

Please note: We are now in the 21st century. All the foregoing people are past worm food and into dust! Give it up already!

[bhikkhu]

72. I don't have a text handy, but...

Malthus's central prediction was that populations naturally increased faster than their means of subsistence. He was an inpiration to Darwin, who read his text and considered that such a condition would lead to either warfare (in the case of humanity) or starvation in other animals - both of which would favor the survival of the fittest". As far as that goes, Malthus has not been debunked. His recommendation of population control by self-restraint or birth control is as sound now as it was then.

He also wrote (around 1798) a fairly grim opinion on the future of the human race, predicting that the capacity to produce food would soon be insufficient to feed the growing population. In that he is considered debunked. He didn't foresee the industrial revolution, cheap fossil fuel energy, and the efficiencies possible in modern industrial agriculture. But again, if you take fossil fuels out of the picture, the whole debunking collapses. If peak oil occurs without a replacement energy source, we are all in trouble.

[Maple]

77. Malthus AND Darwin are BOTH dead

"If we are to be governed in all things by the men of the eighteenth century, and the twentieth by the nineteenth, and so on, the world will be always governed by dead men."

ELIZABETH CADY STANTON
1872 before the Judiciary Committee" Senate of the United States, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, January, 1872

OH SHURELY YOU ARE MORE ADVANCED THAN 1872!

[bhikkhu]

55. A big comfy world would be nice...

and I know Malthus has long been considered debunked - the industrial revolution, the increases in productivity allowed by fossil fuel energy, the introduction of new fertilizers and genetically engineered crops all have pushed his predictions past any expectation. But the math still stands. If you take fossil fuels out of the picture, as the peak oil problem does in this century, everything we have enjoyed gets much more difficult for everybody.

And I'm well aware that the US is not the only country with luxuries. It is generally presented however as the largest per capita consumer of energy (equivalent in this sense as products, services, etc) in the world. If the argument is that the world could enjoy the same level of consumption, then there must be a source of energy capable of bringing the world to our level of consumption. Do you believe there is?

[Swamp Rat]

59. I am still waiting for Malthus to be debunked.

Any sociologists here on this thread?

[JVS]

64. One of the problems with Malthus' claims are that they are unfalsifiable

Here are some similar claims

"The workers will rise up and create a Socialist soceity." Hasn't worked out yet, but there is no proof that it won't happen in the future

"Repent, for the end is coming" Hasn't happened yet, but there is no proof that it won't happen in the future

[Maple]

66. Malthus is dead

and so are his doomsday predictions. Love them though you may.

We haven't all become Eloi either, although there is no proof we won't.

However...what are the odds?

Fantasy...no reality...just fantasy. :D

Saturday night foolishness.

[Swamp Rat]

68. Evidence for your theories?

You have provided nothing to back up your statements and ad hominems.

[JVS]

69. "We haven't all become Eloi either"

EXACTLY, which is why open ended predictions are lame. I could predict that Japan will conquer the world someday and unless Japan or the world cease to exist, I'm still not wrong

[Maple]

73. Why no, no one is ever wrong

and everything is wonderful.

Inhale deeply. Soma is peace.

Really.

[Swamp Rat]

74. Yeah, I am familiar

but I was hoping another poster would provide solid data to defend the accusations and ad hominem.

I'm not ready to jettison everything Malthus said. Many of my colleagues have revisited his theories on population growth to support newer theories in quantitative analysis.

[Maple]

75. 'Revisit' all you want

But Malthus is still dead.

As is Marx and Adam Smith.

This is stuff from centuries ago. Ancient history.

Interesting that some people are into the classical era, instead of the modern age.

[Swamp Rat]

84. You would get an 'F' in my class based on these statements alone.

"But Malthus is still dead. As is Marx and Adam Smith. - Not their work.

"This is stuff from centuries ago. Ancient history." - "Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." - Do you know who said that?

"Interesting that some people are into the classical era, instead of the modern age." - Fallacious reasoning: one does not preclude the other. Too bad you cannot enjoy Sophocles, Shakespeare, Emmanuel Kant, Emile Zola... ad infinitum.

[Maple]

86. Then you run a very poor class

because while the past is nice, and should be studied, people can't live there.

And today is as different from the industrial age, as the industrial age was from the agricultural one.

Do you know who said that? An American in fact.

All those dead people... are still dead...this is the 21st century and your 'future shock' is your problem.

Do you know who said that? Yup, same American.

But for some reason...you weren't paying attention.

I don't need your marks...save em for history students.

[Swamp Rat]

88. LOL!

I guess you think I must be American. Es possible que yo soy de Guanacaste, aber ich habe Familie aus Deutschland und ich studierte in Österreich, mas meu coração está no Ceará. Você é cara de pau.

"I don't need your marks...save em for history students." - OK, you win. Sorte com sua vida!

[Maple]

91. I'm not American either

But I assumed you'd be aware of world literature.

Apparently not.

Too bad eh?

[Swamp Rat]

97. Algo pra você, um poema pra você porque acha que é sou burro mas

é aparente quem é perdida.

Vai ele a trote, pelo chão da serra,
Com a vista espantada e penetrante,
E ninguém nota em seu marchar volante,
A estupidez que este animal encerra.
 
Muitas vezes, manhoso, ele se emperra,
Sem dar uma passada para diante,
Outras vezes, pinota, revoltante,
E sacode o seu dono sobre a terra.
 
Mas contudo! Este bruto sem noção,
Que é capaz de fazer uma traição,
A quem quer que lhe venha na defesa,
 
É mais manso e tem mais inteligência
Do que o sábio que trata de ciência
E não crê no Senhor da Natureza.

[OxQQme]

53. I remember

about 25 years ago, hearing that the entire world population could stand in Helena county, Montana, and each would have three square feet of space. The speaker was making the point that the threat of overpopulation is being made by 'those' who want control of the 'sheeple'. Too many cause problems that the sheep dogs can't handle.
There's a bazillion square miles of this earth that's un-populated, much of which could be better used for the benefit of all.
We could use a world leader that wasn't afraid to sweep off the moneylenders tables.

[bhikkhu]

62. Water is the main problem

You can do without electricity, houses, cars, etc. But people have to have fresh water, to drink, to wash, and to grow food with. I have read that 50% of the world's fresh water is already being put to use by the human species. Even if we were to decide that no other species really needed the other 50%, there is not a great deal of water to support population increases. This isn't something invented for political purposes. For the most part, where there is water there are people. Where there is not water, there are not people.

[Maple]

81. Water we have lots of

70% of the planet is water.

And if you can't be bothered to de-salt it, we have plenty of the fresh stuff as well.

Water is the least of our problems.

[immoderate]

100. Desalinization takes energy.

Leads to pollution, including thermal. Fresh water must be transported, more energy. Most of it needs to go for growing crops for increased population.

Irrigation leads to salinization of the soil. Ultimately it will be useless except for pickle weed, not edible like pickles are.

How much are you taking entropy into consideration?

--IMM

[immoderate]

92. Where do we put their garbage?

--IMM

[Maple]

93. We recycle it

and mulch it, and make methane.

[immoderate]

98. Methane is a greenhouse gas.

Burn it and you get CO2, another green house gas. Recycling is expensive and energy intensive. You will ultimately have to deal with the laws of thermodynamics. Too many people will rob the biomass of diversity. It will upset the ecology.

I don't think you can be persuaded that there can be too many people though.

--IMM

[L.A.dweller]

99. If 6 billion lived with 50 sq mt

we would live like rats. Killing each other for food and other resources. Yes, we could all live in a state the size of TX but would we really be able to?

[rman]

101. "SURPLUS food" - then why are so many people starving to death?

Doesn't that have anything to do with the fact that most of the wealth associated with resources ends up in the pockets of a small filty rich minority that is the ruling class? And is this hoarding of recources not primarily enabled by the fact that the ruling class already has most of the wealth (and thus most power/influence)?

Is this always-try-to-make-more-profit-capitalism not a winner-takes-all game? And with one (or very few) winner(s), does that not leave a whole lot of losers? Losers not because they don't want to work, but simply because the winner took all.

[blm]

103. That's why the Bush "prolifers" have wars planned and "forgot" to prepare

for a severe flu pandemic.

That is their way of getting rid of at least 10% of the world's population.

Prolife, my ass.

[Selwynn]

104. I don't agree with your fundamental claim

There is more than enough to go around. The "advanced capitalist" countries live in extreme excess, hoarding up. If, hypothetically, wealth, resources, and materials were equally distributed, no one would live in poverty. The reason this doesn't happen is because of the other truth: no would would live in extreme massive, over-abundant wealth, and there's a lot of resistance to that idea from the people who stand to lose. But I disagree that it is simply not possible to take care of the people on the planet.