Forums

Garry Kasparov attends Bilderberg meeting

Sort:
Pre_VizsIa
Estragon wrote:
plutonia wrote:

 

What if I told you that in 1960 the world was more polluted, has less trees, and more people were starving?

 

The overpopulation "time bomb" is just a common misconception. There is no resource that will "collapse". Anybody having a basic understanding of how our capitalist world works knows that there will be absolutely no problem. Simply, technology improves and new ways of living are found. The amount of food that humanity can produce today is incredibly higher than it used to be, and factly, there's nobody on the planet that dies for material lack of food: starvation and famine derive from political causes (e.g. wars, dictatorships).

Nothing will run out. We will simply use other resources.

 

Remember this: the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. The coal age did not end because we ran out of coal. Similarly, the oil age will not end because we run out of oil.

 

Shhh!  You are not supposed to make sense on this thread.  It is for the ignorant doomsayers only.  Any realistic view of history, demographics, geography, or economics is strictly prohibited!

 

+1 to each of you.

ivandh
plutonia wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:

If half the people alive now dropped dead tomorrow, there would still be more people alive than when I was born (1960). It would only take about a decade or two off the final reckoning & resource collapse.

 

What if I told you that in 1960 the world was more polluted, has less trees, and more people were starving?

 

The overpopulation "time bomb" is just a common misconception. There is no resource that will "collapse". Anybody having a basic understanding of how our capitalist world works knows that there will be absolutely no problem. Simply, technology improves and new ways of living are found. The amount of food that humanity can produce today is incredibly higher than it used to be, and factly, there's nobody on the planet that dies for material lack of food: starvation and famine derive from political causes (e.g. wars, dictatorships).

Nothing will run out. We will simply use other resources.

 

Remember this: the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. The coal age did not end because we ran out of coal. Similarly, the oil age will not end because we run out of oil.

Yep, don't you bother cause us science-y folks will fix everything for you! With the help of Capitalism and Freedom of course. But you personally don't have to take any responsibility for anything whatever.

waffllemaster
DrSpudnik wrote:

If they are trying to get the world population down to 1 Billion, they aren't trying very hard.

 

lol

SJFG
Timothy_P wrote:
Estragon wrote:
plutonia wrote:

 

What if I told you that in 1960 the world was more polluted, has less trees, and more people were starving?

 

The overpopulation "time bomb" is just a common misconception. There is no resource that will "collapse". Anybody having a basic understanding of how our capitalist world works knows that there will be absolutely no problem. Simply, technology improves and new ways of living are found. The amount of food that humanity can produce today is incredibly higher than it used to be, and factly, there's nobody on the planet that dies for material lack of food: starvation and famine derive from political causes (e.g. wars, dictatorships).

Nothing will run out. We will simply use other resources.

 

Remember this: the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. The coal age did not end because we ran out of coal. Similarly, the oil age will not end because we run out of oil.

 

Shhh!  You are not supposed to make sense on this thread.  It is for the ignorant doomsayers only.  Any realistic view of history, demographics, geography, or economics is strictly prohibited!

 

+1 to each of you.

Ditto.

TheGreatOogieBoogie

You have to admit though that climate change, deforestation, overfishing, and peak oil aren't exactly problems that would be helped by overpopulation.  We are consuming 1.5 Earth's worth of resources at our current rate, and we can only hope that industrializing the third world will help their population problem. 

TheGreatOogieBoogie
ivandh wrote:
plutonia wrote:
DrSpudnik wrote:

If half the people alive now dropped dead tomorrow, there would still be more people alive than when I was born (1960). It would only take about a decade or two off the final reckoning & resource collapse.

 

What if I told you that in 1960 the world was more polluted, has less trees, and more people were starving?

 

The overpopulation "time bomb" is just a common misconception. There is no resource that will "collapse". Anybody having a basic understanding of how our capitalist world works knows that there will be absolutely no problem. Simply, technology improves and new ways of living are found. The amount of food that humanity can produce today is incredibly higher than it used to be, and factly, there's nobody on the planet that dies for material lack of food: starvation and famine derive from political causes (e.g. wars, dictatorships).

Nothing will run out. We will simply use other resources.

 

Remember this: the stone age did not end because we ran out of stones. The coal age did not end because we ran out of coal. Similarly, the oil age will not end because we run out of oil.

Yep, don't you bother cause us science-y folks will fix everything for you! With the help of Capitalism and Freedom of course. But you personally don't have to take any responsibility for anything whatever.

Ahh, nothing like having too many Wal-Marts and McDonald's to solve the worlds problems lol! 

waffllemaster

That's an odd expression... if we consume 1.5 of the earth's total resources in a year, then in 8 months the earth would have no resources.  I think those numbers need to be more specific.

bigpoison

"Hint:  the oil didn't just come into being in the last 40 years, Chomsky."

True, but man's ability to extract it has grown by leaps and bounds in just the last couple years.

Does something count as a resource if you can't get ahold of it?

Pre_VizsIa
bigpoison wrote:

"Hint:  the oil didn't just come into being in the last 40 years, Chomsky."

True, but man's ability to extract it has grown by leaps and bounds in just the last couple years.

Does something count as a resource if you can't get ahold of it?

And on a slight sidetrack, the doomsayers don't want to let us use our new ability to extract oil. I wonder why.

ivandh
waffllemaster wrote:

That's an odd expression... if we consume 1.5 of the earth's total resources in a year, then in 8 months the earth would have no resources.  I think those numbers need to be more specific.

I think the number he is randomly throwing around is the ratio of current population to calculated sustainable population - that is, we have 50% more people than the planet could permanently (well until something else explodes) sustain, based, I'm guessing, on current technology and average consumption of resources per capita, or maybe it's much more sophisticated than that. Such a number is a bit screwy as you can argue that it is too high or too low.

In fact that's the problem with all of this- too much guessing, storytelling, interpreting. Some people throw out a number, others throw out a case study, yet others a politically-based theory- none of which really tells us if we're going down the crapper or not.

I for one think we're probably chasing goldfish, but probably not as fast as the doomsayers predict. We will experience big changes but the final kablooie is beyond the horizon.

bigpoison
Timothy_P wrote:
bigpoison wrote:

"Hint:  the oil didn't just come into being in the last 40 years, Chomsky."

True, but man's ability to extract it has grown by leaps and bounds in just the last couple years.

Does something count as a resource if you can't get ahold of it?

And on a slight sidetrack, the doomsayers don't want to let us use our new ability to extract oil. I wonder why.

Because it's in its infancy, the long term effects of hydraulic fracturing are unknown. 

Unknown stuff is scary.

ivandh
bigpoison wrote:
Timothy_P wrote:
bigpoison wrote:

"Hint:  the oil didn't just come into being in the last 40 years, Chomsky."

True, but man's ability to extract it has grown by leaps and bounds in just the last couple years.

Does something count as a resource if you can't get ahold of it?

And on a slight sidetrack, the doomsayers don't want to let us use our new ability to extract oil. I wonder why.

Because it's in its infancy, the long term effects of hydraulic fracturing are unknown. 

Unknown stuff is scary.

Tell me about it. Sometimes this fear (or wariness) is justified, though it can also be a bad thing when the public doesn't understand something and are unduly afraid of it- e.g. atomic energy.

gaereagdag

OK. I suggest that this virus be released upon the planet to reduce the population:

Name: ambrosia virus

origin: Deus Ex and secret Unatco biolabs

Lethality: deadly stuff - you die from eye strain in 24 hours after saying mindless phrases for 24 hours like "Tracer Tong" and "kill switch".

Garry Kasparov and The Bilderbergers - Garry would be an ideal candidate to unite with the computer mind and run the planet in a post-apocalypse world?

I want to be J.C. Denton. All of those superman bionic implants..wowww.

ponz111

"there is nobody on this planet that dies for the material lack of food"

While most of your statement is fine this sentence is not really true. 

Conflagration_Planet
bigpoison wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:

Anyone who isn't completely insane wants to see the world's population reduced to 1 billion. The way we're headed isn't sustainable, everyone with any clue knows that.

There is really no hope for the future of the planet, not without some massive turnaround. To borrow an expression from Fischer "these people are living in a dreamworld". Sometimes I think it would be better if some virus came and destroyed a huge proportion of humanity.   

The planet will be fine and dandy. 

The planet yes, but maybe not humans.

Pre_VizsIa

@Conflagration_Planet: Only if we blow everything up, in which case the planet may not be fine and dandy either.

ivandh
Timothy_P wrote:

@Conflagration_Planet: Only if we blow everything up, in which case the planet may not be fine and dandy either.

Depends on how the planet feels about it, since we won't be around to judge whether it is fine and/or dandy. (Skip to 3:30 for the good stuff.)

Conflagration_Planet

Why not? We don't have enough nukes to blow the entire planet up.

jesterville

IMHO if the world's population continues to grow unchecked, and The Earth's Total Resouces remain finite, then at some point we will have a great problem on our hands. Remember, a growing population not only demands food, but also fresh water, energy, and housing etc. The more the population grows, the more productive land is used for housing, roads, etc., and the converse of this, is the less land is used for productive use. Even here in Ontario, Canada, winter high energy use is growing and we are odds to keep up with the demand.

TheGreatOogieBoogie
Conflagration_Planet wrote:

Why not? We don't have enough nukes to blow the entire planet up.

Then what was that being able to destroy the world 50 times over thing about during the Cold War?