- advertisement -

Opinions on the economy please....

Discussion in 'Other Hot Topics' started by Heather(CA), Jun 27, 2010.

  1. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    Yes, it's hard for me to believe, it should be hard for you to believe, too.

    I believe that you think you came up with it on your own, through common sense. But this is an old fish that's been thrown around since before the 1968 book The Population Bomb. Eugenics and other lovely philosophies have been around much longer. Star Trek used them both as themes. :p

    Is it plain old common sense that, say, there could very well be a point when the Earth can't sustain its population of, say, insects? Lots more of them than us. Bacteria? But I'm guessing those things never occurred to you. The theories you have in your head are not spontaneously generated, they are there because decades of pop culture and education have put them there.

    There are infants in China that are drowned because of this way of thinking. There are women in Peru who have been forced into sterilization on the U.S. dime because of it. These ideas have history, and they have consequences. Human beings are resources in themselves, not liabilities.

    Question authority, Swellman. :D
     
  2. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    I think Swellman was not so much saying that these ideas simply sprang into his consciousness without any outside influence (in fact, he cited Star Trek, if I'm not mistaken), but that they managed to <cough> evolve within his thought process over time without the benefit of having read Snicklefritz or Douchepickle or whoever Illinifan not-so-subtly accused him of swiping his ideas from.

    I believe they are or can be both.
     
  3. chammond

    chammond Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    Trying to stay out of this, but I think saying that there could be a point where the earth can no longer sustain our growing population is entirely different than condoning forced sterilization, killing children, or even abortion for that matter. Look at the Southwestern United States. We have been told for years that there aren't enough water resources to provide for the amount of population growth. I think it is basically the same thing for our earth on a much grander scale. I personally feel that no matter how you look at it, the earth has a finite number of resources, and the ability to produce an infinite number of people, and eventually the scale will tip. I do believe this, but that does not mean that in any way whatsoever I believe in governmental population control, or look at any life as a liability to this earth.
     
  4. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    Great ... now you accuse me of being brainwashed by pop culture and not even frigging knowing what I think or why I think it. You know, for a fact, that I question authority. The fact that this is one of your hot buttons doesn't change anything, however.

    Well of course bugs and bacteria have occurred to me but humans have placed themselves outside of the evolutionary pressures that control these populations. In fact, there have been instances of uncontrolled growth in other species when the evolutionary pressures are subdued. The fact is that deer are growing in areas to the point that they can't be sustained causing starvation and disease. This is not just put forward by hunters who want an excuse to kill them. I take it you do not believe there is a limit to our (Earth) resources?

    Perhaps want to believe that there is no limit at which a population exceeds the ability to sustain itself on the resources available but that would be head-in-the-sand-la-la-la-la-I'm-not-listening-to-you. I'm not responsible for what happens in China nor anywhere else nor do I approve with all that bad stuff you are so pissed at but ignoring the fact that our resources are not limitless and thinking that we can sustain 20 billion people or whatever the tipping point is just ignorant. Why you link eugenics to sustainability is beyond me. Maybe all of your hot buttons are linked.
     
  5. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    That might be the most intelligent thing that anyone has said in this thread so far. Including your efforts to stay out of the thread. ;)
     
  6. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    Every time you think that a child dies ion China .... :rolleyes: and thank you.
     
  7. Illinifan

    Illinifan Approved members

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,405
    Does anybody besides me see these quotes in Swellman's sig block to be ironic? Before you respond, refresh your knowledge of the word "irony" - incongruity between what is expected to be and what actually is, or a situation or result showing such incongruity

    Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson

    I swear upon the altar of God, eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson
     
  8. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    Does anybody but me suspect that Illinifan does not understand the meaning of these quotes? Before you respond, refresh your knowledge of the word "condescending."
     
  9. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    Maybe you have me confused with someone else... I never said (nor inferred) that Wal-Mart was the embodiment of evil people. :confused: In fact, I was there yesterday and I didn't see a single evil person... (that I know of anyway).

    The question is whether or not Wal-Mart is good for the middle class? (At least that's what I thought the question was but feel free to set me straight on that). It has been shown by numerous studies that, in fact, Wal-Mart is not good for the middle class. In fact, it's just the opposite. I would suggest that you read The Wal-Mart Effect by Charles Fishman if you are interested in the topic.
     
  10. Illinifan

    Illinifan Approved members

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,405
    Dang missing comma. Wal-Mart is not the embodiment of evil, people.

    Since this thread is now encompassing lessons on the English language, I was using hyperbole to make my point. I really didn't believe that you thought Wal-Mart was EVIL.

    Hmmm...I'm not sure you have a handle on what surreptitious means. I didn't accuse you of being sleathy or being clandestine. I did point out that your arguments are a direct reflection of both those authors' work. What I did do was say that you'd read them and then I implied that if you hadn't, that you'd been exposed to the concepts by other means. Re-read what I wrote. What I asked you to not be disingenuous about was the idea that population control could be acheived by any other means than government intervention.

    Hey! There's sarcasm right there! Thanks for your resume. How many Economics classes did your education entail? Don't look now, but you confirmed my point about Congress being full of lawyers who we expect to understand the economy.

    BTW, reproductive rights depends on whose point of view you take. I am confident that we can assume you are speaking from the mother's point of view and that her "rights" include being able to terminate the pregnancy at will. I see reproductive rights from the baby's point of view. Little Johnny or Suzy has a right to the rest of his/her life outside the womb.

    Condescending - "showing or implying a usually patronizing descent from dignity or superiority". I understand those quotes from Jefferson perfectly and I find Swellman's positions and opinions to stand in stark contrast to them. Apparently, you disagree with me. C'est la vie.
     
  11. Illinifan

    Illinifan Approved members

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Messages:
    1,405
    BTW, here are some of my favorite quotes from Jefferson...

    The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.

    Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383, to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse on June 26, 1822.

    The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

    Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.

    I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.

    Thomas Jefferson, Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, editor (Boston: Grey & Bowen, 1830), Vol. III, p. 506, to Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.

    I am a real Christian - that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

    Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XIV, p. 385, to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2010
  12. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    Thank you for your tone, it is very civil.

    I think if you look into it you may find the issue is different than you had understood it to be. Maybe not, but I find most people I discuss this with don't simply disagree with me, they can't imagine how I can even think this way. It would be like me saying fish fly and birds swim. Personally, I'm always happy to have a new perspective on one of my assumptions, you may feel the same way.
     
  13. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    Four. Micro, Macro, and Advanced Economic Theory in undergrad (business minor) and Law and Economics in law school. Don't look now, but you know what they say about assumptions.

    Oh, and while we're at it, here's my favorite relevant Jefferson quote:

    The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.

    Oooh. Here are some more fun ones:

    Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

    Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.

    Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

    The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

    Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2010
  14. chammond

    chammond Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    I don't understand. Do you mean that if I look into the issue, I will find that the earth will be able to sustain an infinite number of people? I understand that if we are discussing this religiously, it might be believed that God will provide for mankind no matter the situation. If this is what you are saying, I do understand, although our beliefs may differ. If you are saying that people who believe that the earth can reach a point of being unable to sustain our population inherently believe in the evils you mentioned before, I would also disagree. Sorry, I just don't understand what it is exactly I should look into? Not being snarky in any way, just confused!
     
  15. SueM

    SueM Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    380
    Well, at least that makes a *little* bit more sense... :)

    Not EVIL, but certainly not good for the middle class either.
     
  16. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    All children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room is made for them by the deaths of grown persons. We should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.

    Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, 1798

    Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents.

    Margaret Sanger

    It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant.

    -- Margaret Sanger

    It now remains for the U.S. government to set a sensible example to the world by offering a bonus or yearly pension to all obviously unfit parents who allow themselves to be sterilized by harmless and scientific means. In this way the moron and the diseased would have no posterity to inherit their unhappy condition. The number of the feeble-minded would decrease and a heavy burden would be lifted from the shoulders of the fit.

    -- Margaret Sanger

    The birth of a colored child, even to parents who can give it adequate support, is pathetic in view of the unchristian and undemocratic treatment likely to be accorded it at the hands of a predominantly white community, and the denial of choice in propagation to this unfortunate class is nothing less than barbarous .

    -- Walter Terpenning

    The minister?s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.

    -- Margaret Sanger

    The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer.

    ?Paul Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb (1968)


    Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity?in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion.

    ?Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

    Anyone who is unaware of the history of the overpopulation philosophy and the programs being run in its name, and of the reasonable arguments made in contradiction to it, may want to google. It's not taught in most schools, but I'm not making it up, and it does matter.

    To awkwardly return to the original subject, the solution to a worldwide economic depression is not to further devalue human lives -- past, present, or future. We won't appease this dragon by tying people to altars.
     
  17. Flutterby

    Flutterby Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    14,623
    ;) sometimes, ignore, its a wonderful thing..
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2010
  18. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    No, don't read any snark whatsoever. I meant my post to you and I'm sure you mean yours to me.

    I'll mention a couple things -- first, there is a field called "distribution economics", or some such. :eek: The idea is that we are not facing an end to resources, we are facing a time of very poor distribution. That the entire population of earth could fit in the Grand Canyon (not a comfortable image, surely, but a fact that surprised me when I first heard it), the problem is not too many people but too much greed and hording and too poor economic systems.

    Then there's the Green Revolution. Ehrlich and others wrote about the time they thought we were running out of food. The Green Revolution was an immense surge in productivity driven by a few human innovations. You can argue whether it was good or bad or misused, all that, but we have abundance now and there's no way of knowing what might turn up in the future that could have the same effect. For example, Peak Oil fears would disappear overnight if someone actually could come up with cold fusion (seems improbably to me) or something else no one has thought of yet.

    If you want to go broader, you can note that we do, yes, have finite resources on our planet (although there's no way to know if we could increase the efficiency of their use a million times), but the universe is either infinite or finite in a way that doesn't even touch on us at this point. I'm not sure why people think we are strapped to this rock, but all the Malthusian theories are predicated on the idea that we can never send out for any resources.

    Yes, I'm religious. And I'm Catholic, which will bring out the snickers about the woman with seven kids all named Rhythm. :eek::p But you'll see that no direct belief in any faith is necessary to consider any of the above.


    These philosophies both hold people accountable and consider people valuable. They lead people to innovate and to share. They are promoted by religious leaders and scientists who believe in improving the world. The "resources are limited and so population must be limited" philosophy differs, it is at its essence only about ending or preventing human lives, and no matter how you feel about the specific acts involved in that you can agree with me that this is a pretty dreary way of looking at the future of the world.

    In the end, if you look into it, you may find you come to the conclusion that there is finitude and we are approaching it. But you very well might not. In any case, most people are taught that this is an established fact, when it's not.
     
  19. Becky Stevens mom

    Becky Stevens mom Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,719
     
  20. chammond

    chammond Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    I will have to reread this a few times and think about it, but I think it comes down to a difference of philosophy, which we could discuss for a month, with neither changing position. Thanks for clarifying:)
     

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice