The latest Malthusian is none other than New York times Columnist : Thomas Friedman who recently wrote the article: “The Earth Is Full,’’ ( a play on his best seller — The World is Flat).
His quote: “we are currently growing at a rate that is using up the Earth’s resources far faster than they can be sustainably replenished.”
Read the column here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08friedman.html?_r=4&ref=columnists
As always, we must observe: If you think there are too many people - Mr. Ross, Mr. Attenborough - kindly eliminate yourselves. I guarantee you’re lifestyle is higher on the carbon-hog scale than my family of 12 is.
Great article bump
Those are the people who figure out how to do things that make life better for us all.
Convince the Muslims of that first, d-bag.
Depends on the kinds of people...
Yes, just think of how well our economy would be now if the 50,000,000+ babies that were slaughtered in abortuaries since 1973 were alive now and buying cars, clothes, cereal, homes, needing schools, factories, computers, and on and on and on. It’s just terrible what we’ve done to our previously very successful country. We should be grossly ashamed of ourselves.
That guy's brain is fried.
The Island of Manhattan is Full.... of liberal retards - I'd agree with that.
I believe that Malthusian theories would hold validity in a socialist society. There reaches a point where it becomes impossible to balance the distribution of resources in a planned society at certain levels of growth. For the sake of efficiency and “crop prices” one year you create incentives for farmers not to grow, and several years down the line you have shortages that prevent you from feeding everyone.
This is a primary reason as to why the battle for capitalism is so important. Where socialist planning fails, capitalist ingenuity allows growing societies to thrive. Sure, people don’t get equal slices of the pie but the overall pie is bigger. There’s plenty for everyone.
Socialism, on the other hand, sees natural human freedoms as inherently “irresponsible.” This is why a socialist society cannot help but be dystopic when fully realized.
Its not the gross number, its the percentages within:
More productive people = more prosperity
More parasitical people = less prosperity
So more illegals in drug gangs and more welfare recipients mean more prosperity??? Maybe for the Democrat party, but that’s all!!!!
The cure for “over-population” is more capitalism governed by the rule of law. Industrialized democracies have populations that are either declining (Japan, Western Europe) or remaining static (the US). The more affluent a country, the more people will delay having children. As always, the answer is more Liberty.
“Population boon. More People Means More Prosperity (An argument against the Malthusians out there)”
So....
How many folks does the United States really need?
300 million? We’re there now.
Would 700 million mean “more prosperity”?
Would 1.3 billion Americans mean “more prosperity?”
Would 3.5 billion Americans mean “more prosperity?”
Seems like the most conservative folks live in less-populated areas. And one thing they DO NOT want is for more people — especially liberals — to start movin’ in.
I can understand why they feel that way, and have no problems with such sentiments. They’re absolutely right.
It’s exactly for that reason I don’t believe when it comes to population, that “more means better”. In reality, “more” often means “more liberalism” and “more complications”.
The nation of the Founders worked — and grew (within reason and limits) — precisely because there was ample room for growth, and folks still by and large remained “spaced out”.
When people crowd (or are pushed) together, it’s like more atoms crowding together. Things “heat up”, particularly friction between competing groups (and we know how well “diversity” works, eh?). Almost like a chain reaction.
And what “keeps the lid on things”, so they don’t heat up to the point of combustion?
Why government control, of course!
I know most of those who consider themselves “conservatives” in this forum will disagree, perhaps vehemently, to what I’ve posted. So be it.
But “conservatism” per se springs from the word “conserve”:
“1. to prevent injury, decay, waste, or loss of:
2. to use or manage (natural resources) wisely: preserve: save”
(source, old Random House Webster’s College Dictionary)
We do not “conserve” a nation, a culture, a people by “more, more, more, more”. (Aside, aren’t we seeing the effects of “more, more, more” in _government_ right now?)
A “population boom” ends the same as any OTHER “boom” or “bubble” — eventually, with a crash. How many on FR bemoan the “Baby Boomers” (a “boom” if there ever was one) and the future drains they will impose upon the public treasury?
Growth is (usually) inevitable.
But save the “booms” for somewhere else.
I’ve had enough.
Just sayin’....