Your brain may be tricking you. Suicide is absurd. Life is better than death. It is great to exist. If your brain tells you otherwise, most likely it is buggy. Get professional help. Please!
And a suicide is _awful_ for your friends and loved ones. Besides the expected sadness of losing a friend, they will be tormented by thoughts of "would he have decided otherwise if I had been a better friend?"
Besides, suicide can fail, and then you will add physical disability to your existing problems! I could share some pictures of failed suicides with you, but they are too shocking.
Also, the price of solar power is falling fast, and wind price is going down too. It is predicted that half the world will reach residential solar grid parity as early as *2015*; wind will reach grid parity by 2025. And there are even other options such as next-generation nuclear. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.
So, while the general public is being distracted my non-issues about GW like losing control of our government to the UN, higher taxes and other non-sense
Why do you think the issues above are "non-sense"?
Given that the economy is becoming knowledge based, and computer based, I think we can peacefully grow for at least many centuries to come.
There is an upper limit to the number of people who can work for service industries in our current capitalist/mercantilist system, which is part of what the GP was talking about.
Why? Manufacturing and agriculture become ever more mechanized. To me, it seems that by 2112 every uncreative job will be performed by robots - except the police, the military and the intelligence agencies, because we don't want robots running those (imagine what a computer worm could to an army of robots!).
And, by 2112, "uncreative" will be a _very_ broad term - with 2112-level AI, I think a very large proportion of today's jobs will be considered "uncreative".
Unlike many issues, it's meaningless whether we find a compromise that meets everyone's political preferences. We need a solution that meets the hard requirements of nature. Climate change won't negotiate with us.
But if you make loony predictions (such as "the end of civilization as we know it") and loony proposals (such as forcing twenty years of zero economic growth in "rich countries"), then nobody will listen to you.
On the other hand, if you make sound predictions and moderate proposals, then people can actually believe you.
So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.
So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.
Large, fast changes in climate don't matter much to life. It'll recover. We may not. Or we may, but our civilisation is a goner. Or maybe, if we are extra-lucky, we get to only have a major economic crisis. Something like the industrial revolution in reverse.
I have not read the 1972 book, but I think the main point was that economic growth has to stop at some point (because the planet won't support it) and we have to go for a steady-state economy.
Given that the economy is becoming knowledge based, and computer based, I think we can peacefully grow for at least many centuries to come.
By the time we reach the limits of Earth (if that day ever comes), we will long have colonized other planets.
There are many lunatic environmentalists that claim "civilization as we know it will be no more" because of global warming, unless we reduce global population by 90%, or mandate 20 years of zero economic growth for "rich countries", or something equally absurd. Some borderline sociopaths have even calculated the carbon footprint of African babies. Oh, and waging a campaign of hate against "deniers" does not help (see that infamous 10/10 video).
Now, let me make myself clear: AGW is probably real and it makes sense to work against it. Still, the end is NOT nigh, and there is no reason for authoritarian measures such as reducing human population or severely crippling the economy. The market is already moving in the right direction. If we want to accelerate it, then some slight subsidy for renewable coupled with some slight overtaxing of oil/coal is enough.
Big Oil has spent vast amounts of money on studies trying to find some support for their assertions, the same assertions you share. Only, now even Big Oil is admitting that AGW is a real thing. Now, they're only arguing that it is not as serious as it is made out to be. As a predictable next step, they will announce that no, we're actually all screwed
I agree with much of what you said (except with your rudeness), but I have two objections: 1.) There is no sinister, vast Big Oil conspiracy. Yes, they funded many studies. But people with an environmental bias have oodles of money too. Don't present the situation as "a vast powerful Big Oil conspiracy against powerless honest scientists". It is not. 2) We are not screwed. As TFA explains, we are in the right direction. The price of solar power is collapsing, and wind is going down too. It is predicted that half the world will reach residential solar grid parity as early as *2015*; wind will reach grid parity by 2025. And there are even other options such as next-generation nuclear.
If the government still thinks the market is moving too slowly, I can accept some gentle intervention (by slightly subsidizing renewables and slightly overtaxing oil and coal, for example). But the proposals to reduce human population, cripple the economy, or create an oppressive UN environmental agency to erode national sovereignty, are all unthinkable.
We cannot continue to reproduce like rats and rabbits.
This, I agree with.
First, it is dehumanizing to speak of human beings like that.
Second, the world fertility rate is at only 2.47 children per woman, and falling. [1] Our population will only increase to 9 billion by 2050, then crawl to 10 billion by 2100, then start falling.
There is absolutely _no reason_ to worry about alleged "overpopulation".
The Chinese had it right with their limit on family size
Shame on you. The forced abortions, forced sterilizations and other extremely authoritarian methods used by the Chinese government are crimes against humanity.
Plus, there is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.
The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1] Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]
The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]
Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].
And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away. And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.
Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]
African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.
Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.
Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.
The grandparent may have shot from the hip, but his main point stands.
There are many lunatic environmentalists that claim "civilization as we know it will be no more" because of global warming, unless we reduce global population by 90%, or mandate 20 years of zero economic growth for "rich countries", or something equally absurd. Some borderline sociopaths have even calculated the carbon footprint of African babies. Oh, and waging a campaign of hate against "deniers" does not help.
And as TFA explains, all this alarmism, lies and hatred are for nothing. The price of solar power is collapsing, and wind is going down too. It is predicted half the world will reach residential solar grid parity as early as *2015*; wind will reach grid parity by 2025. And there are even other options such as next-generation nuclear.
If the government still thinks the market is moving too slowly, I can accept some light intervention (by slightly subsidizing renewables and slightly overtaxing oil and coal, for example). But reducing human population, crippling the economy, or creating an oppressive UN environmental agency to erode national sovereignty, are all unthinkable.
No, there is no one coherent "Marxism." Even the authors you mentioned are all over the map in terms of their philosophy. Hell, even your favorite Catholic church has strong Marxist claims, or have you already forgotten the social justice encyclicals of JPII?
No. Defending the poor is absolutely different from being Marxist.
What makes these men dangerous to freedom is the cultural Marxism they have developed. See, for example, England sending people to jail for criticizing homosexualism.
That's false. You are referring to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The Waddington Amendment [wikipedia.org] specifically protects the right to do so. And what does that have to do with Marxism? You could just as easily chalk that up to overzealous Humanism.
Cultural Marxism explicitly supports the marginalization of conservative speech. See the Herbert Marcuse concept of "repressive tolerance". It is no coincidence that these so-called "hate speech" laws are overwhelmingly supported by Marxism-inspired parties.
And many countries which are growing quickly(like Germany).
Growing 0.45% a year in 2009-2011 is not "quickly". And, the average (-0.3%) is more significant than the extremes.
The US has grown an average 0.3% per year in 2009-2011; Europe has shrunk 0.3% per year.
Citation please. Not sure of the context.
The CIA world factbook lists the growth in 2009, 2010 and 2011. I simply averaged them via the straightfoward avg = (((1 + g1 / 100) * ( 1 + g2 / 100) * (1 + g3 / 100)) ** (1. / 3)) * 100 - 100
The European population is aging, because each European woman has only 1.6 children. Yet their strong Marxist unions will not allow increasing the retirement age. The situation is unsustainable; expect the current troubles to get worse.
Do you just ignore countries like Germany when it suits your narrative? Do you not know that they have in fact raised their retirement age to 67 and are in discussions about raising it to 69?
I am speaking of the European _average_. And Germany will have to increse the retirement age much more; it has 1.41 children per woman.
And, the excess government spending is of course caused by socialism.
Ah, yes, those darned socialists, their concern for their fellow citizens and their unwillingness to be worked to death. How dispicable.
A poll has shown that conservatives donate 30% more to charity than liberals. Also, ruining your country's finances is not very responsible.
Ah, if only we atheists really could take the credit. Alas, it is mostly due to the availability of contraception, the educational level of females in a society and financial mobility. Religion does seem to cause spikes, but then, that argues that your little churches will be outbred by Muslims in short order, so I suppose you are screwed either way.
Except that the Muslim fertility rate has been not only declining, but collapsing.
You mentioned Christianity as an authoritarian dictatorship, and that is from the Middle Ages.
Certainly, it wielded that power then. It attempts to do so now, and would certainly do so again if ever given the required political power. Something which I am very much opposed to.
False. Freedom of religion/conscience/speech has been written down at the Second Vatican Cou
Which is what the Catholics I linked to were doing - disagreeing with the decision, nothing more.
OK, maybe I shot from the hip. But (as I wrote in another post) that Catholic was blindingly trusting Reuters, which was in turn blindingly trusting the very abortionist who performed the abortion! The mass media (including Reuters) has never been accused of being accurate or paying attention to details. Trusting Reuters is naive; both sides have to be listened to. And I have seen a gynecologist woman offering an opposite opinion.
And I prefer to speak in English, so I can train it. But thank you for the offer.
PS: I apologize for my brutishness and for "shooting from the hip". I try to correct these defects of mine, but it is hard.
No. Marxism is larger than you think. Marxism is a philosophy of _everything_. It contains an economic theory (based on the labor theory of value), a philosophy of history, human nature and society (based on the "materialist conception of history") and even a philosophy of knowledge itself (based on the idea that truth is not absolute, but relative to class interests). The fact that the Chinese government has partially liberalized the economy (banking is still state-controlled, for example) does not mean it has displaced Marxism. Even Lenin opened the economy for a time.
The latest deveopments? From a series of authors who have been dead for decades? Care to elucidate what makes these particular dead men so dangerous to your worldview?
"Latest" in relation to the entire lifespan of Marxism.
What makes these men dangerous to freedom is the cultural Marxism they have developed. See, for example, England sending people to jail for criticizing homosexualism.
That's funny. I had enough philosophy for a minor, and I never once had a philosophy professor mention Marxism more than in passing.
Your professors never mentioned Karl Marx, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse or Theodor Adorno? That is an extremely atypical university.
Oh, you mean the debt based economic problems? How is that different from the US? How is it the fault of socialism?
The US is not even remotely close of defaulting; Europe has many countries close to defaulting. The US has grown an average 0.3% per year in 2009-2011; Europe has shrunk 0.3% per year. The European population is aging, because each European woman has only 1.6 children. Yet their strong Marxist unions will not allow increasing the retirement age. The situation is unsustainable; expect the current troubles to get worse. And, the excess government spending is of course caused by socialism. And the lack of fertility is caused by atheism. Religion has a well-known effect on fertility. It is no coincidence that Israel and the US have far greater fertility than other countries with similar income levels.
The Bible says "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" What happened in the Middle Ages was a perversion of Christianity. AND IT HAPPENED 400 YEARS AGO.
WTF are you talking about? I never said anything about the Dark Ages.
You mentioned Christianity as an authoritarian dictatorship, and that is from the Middle Ages.
If you think that bin Laden's actions were due to something other than his religion, then you are so wildly misinformed that I'm not sure where to start.
They were (partially) due to ISLAM, NOT CHRISTIANITY. I am precisely protesting against this ridiculous, intellectually dishonest practice of mixing Christianity and Islam in the same bag.
Holding an irrational belief as your core philosophy is always dangerous.
There is nothing irrational about Christianity. But there is a lot of irrationality (such as the denial of the very existence of Truth) in atheist Marxism. Still, Christians do not campaign against the human rights of Marxists.
No True Scotsman fallacy.
Gratuitously claiming "No True Scotsman fallacy" is itself a fallacy.
You don't find this kind of rhetoric in Catholic churches.
You are wrong
First, that is not an example of what you were claiming. You are gravely misrepresenting what he said. Saying that "Among the causes of homosexuality is a contagious demonic factor." is absolutely different from saying that "homosexuals are demonically posessed". Second, that is
If I'm not allowed to hate the belief in g/God, what about communism and nazism? All three of these made otherwise good people do bad things. Since I hate the latter two for that reason, why is the former one so special?
1.) If anti-theists would spend 10% of the energy they devote to attacking religion to attacking Marxism, I would have more respect for them. 2) Marxism has killed 100,000,000 people in the XX century, yet we respect the human rights of Marxists. But Richard Dawkins actively campaings against the human rights of religious people*, because of things that happened 400 YEARS AGO and were not nearly as bad as Marxism.
* The right to freedom of conscience and religion and the right to political participation are part of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
I love how dislike or even hating the Pope or the Catholic Church makes one anti-Christian in your view. By your own definition, Protestants are all anti-Christians.
Not at all. I know Protestants who tolerate the Catholic Church. "Disagreein with" and "hating" are very different.
"him" who? I didn't understand that.
The rapist.
So it seems you agree that the Church was right in not excommunicating him? (If I misunderstood you, remember that English is my second language).
Also, you can see that the poster in that blog has trusted the Reuters information; and Reuters, in turn, only relays the opinion of the very same abortionist who performed the act! That is not very trustworthy.
Second, the bishop did not excommunicate anyone; the abortionists were automatically(latae sententiae) excommunicated by their own action.
What would be "pure Marxism" then? Stalinism, Maoism and Troskysm all defend totalitarian dictatorships. Also, see below.
That is the _ultimate_ goal of Marxism, but the _means_ to reach it is the "dictatorship of the proletariat. Marx _explicitly_ defended the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Which is orthogonal to the existance of the State.
I have read a 19th-century text by Engels and he does support a strong dictatorial state.
Second, you seem to have missed the later developments in Marxism - Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno. These people developed a cultural Marxism that is quite strong in Western Countries. See, for example, European Countries which censor politically incorrect ideas.
Maybe so. I'd call that a far cry from Marxim, 'though, which is primarily an economic theory.
Hum, no. Marxism is a philosophy of _everything_. It includes an economic theory (based on the labor theory of value), a philosophy of history, human nature, society and culture (based on the "materialist conception of history"), and even a philosophy of knowledge itself (based on the idea that truth is not absolute, but relative to class interests). Cultural Marxism maintains all of this philosophy, and still wants a very powerful state; the only differences are: 1) They give up on establishing a one-party dictatorship via a violent revolution, and do their struggle via gradual, ostensibly democratic means 2) They broaden the focus of struggle to include not only poverty but also feminism, gender theory, reverse racism, immigration, etc.
See, for example, the English efforts to jail prople who criticize homosexualism.
Of course it's under dispute, that's a tantology. And I have no problem with Christians. I do have some problem with the Catholic Church "dome". But then again, so do many other Christians; you may remember that some actually rebelled against it and formed their own churches.
Possibly yes. Many of the worst anti-Christians are (nominally) inside the Catholic Church. See for example the famous Swiss priest Hans Küng. That man spends some eight hours per day meditating on how much he hates the Pope. Also, liberation(Marxist) theologians such as Leonardo Boff - they say that the "official Church" is the "church of the rich", that "it is part of the Capitalist system", etc. This is what Pope Benedict calls "the hatred of the apostate". Fortunately, these anti-Catholics have been rapidly losing their strength and credibility since the times of blessed John Paul II.
Cue No True Scotsman fallacy
Falsely claiming "No true Scotsman fallacy" is itself a fallacy.
The fact that there are people nominally inside the Church that _hate_ Church teaching is crystal-clear. See, for example, the "Catholics for Choice" group, which is funded by George Soros and the PlayBoy foundation.
Excommunication is not a punishment for civil offenses. There is no excommunication for dealing cocaine, for example, even though dealing cocaine is a very serious sin. Civil offenses are not punished by the Church precisely because of the separation of Church and State.
That's only a relevant justification for not excommunicating him.
Slashdot Mirror
Your brain may be tricking you. Suicide is absurd. Life is better than death. It is great to exist. If your brain tells you otherwise, most likely it is buggy. Get professional help. Please!
And a suicide is _awful_ for your friends and loved ones. Besides the expected sadness of losing a friend, they will be tormented by thoughts of "would he have decided otherwise if I had been a better friend?"
Besides, suicide can fail, and then you will add physical disability to your existing problems! I could share some pictures of failed suicides with you, but they are too shocking.
If you think people with hardships cannot be happy, check http://www.lifewithoutlimbs.org/
Courage!
See http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-102/
Except that the public opinion IS changing.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/
Also, the price of solar power is falling fast, and wind price is going down too. It is predicted that half the world will reach residential solar grid parity as early as *2015*; wind will reach grid parity by 2025. And there are even other options such as next-generation nuclear.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.
What reason do you have for accusing "skeptics" of being paid shills?
Why do you think the issues above are "non-sense"?
Unity is convenient, easy and fun to use. And it saves screen space.
Why? Manufacturing and agriculture become ever more mechanized. To me, it seems that by 2112 every uncreative job will be performed by robots - except the police, the military and the intelligence agencies, because we don't want robots running those (imagine what a computer worm could to an army of robots!).
And, by 2112, "uncreative" will be a _very_ broad term - with 2112-level AI, I think a very large proportion of today's jobs will be considered "uncreative".
Can you send a screencast?
At those settings, it must be better than real life.
But if you make loony predictions (such as "the end of civilization as we know it") and loony proposals (such as forcing twenty years of zero economic growth in "rich countries"), then nobody will listen to you.
On the other hand, if you make sound predictions and moderate proposals, then people can actually believe you.
Also, don't worry; see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3004663&cid=40771921.
Also, see:
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/
So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.
In short: the end is not nigh.
See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3004663&cid=40771921.
Also, see:
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/
So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.
In short: the end is not nigh.
The very *civilization* is at risk? Please. See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3004663&cid=40771921
Given that the economy is becoming knowledge based, and computer based, I think we can peacefully grow for at least many centuries to come.
By the time we reach the limits of Earth (if that day ever comes), we will long have colonized other planets.
There are many lunatic environmentalists that claim "civilization as we know it will be no more" because of global warming, unless we reduce global population by 90%, or mandate 20 years of zero economic growth for "rich countries", or something equally absurd. Some borderline sociopaths have even calculated the carbon footprint of African babies. Oh, and waging a campaign of hate against "deniers" does not help (see that infamous 10/10 video).
See
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html
2. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm (lots of examples of ridiculous alarmism)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
Now, let me make myself clear: AGW is probably real and it makes sense to work against it. Still, the end is NOT nigh, and there is no reason for authoritarian measures such as reducing human population or severely crippling the economy.
The market is already moving in the right direction. If we want to accelerate it, then some slight subsidy for renewable coupled with some slight overtaxing of oil/coal is enough.
I agree with much of what you said (except with your rudeness), but I have two objections:
1.) There is no sinister, vast Big Oil conspiracy. Yes, they funded many studies. But people with an environmental bias have oodles of money too. Don't present the situation as "a vast powerful Big Oil conspiracy against powerless honest scientists". It is not.
2) We are not screwed. As TFA explains, we are in the right direction. The price of solar power is collapsing, and wind is going down too. It is predicted that half the world will reach residential solar grid parity as early as *2015*; wind will reach grid parity by 2025. And there are even other options such as next-generation nuclear.
If the government still thinks the market is moving too slowly, I can accept some gentle intervention (by slightly subsidizing renewables and slightly overtaxing oil and coal, for example). But the proposals to reduce human population, cripple the economy, or create an oppressive UN environmental agency to erode national sovereignty, are all unthinkable.
See
1. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm (an example of the severe climate alarmism)
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
The end is NOT nigh.
First, it is dehumanizing to speak of human beings like that.
Second, the world fertility rate is at only 2.47 children per woman, and falling. [1] Our population will only increase to 9 billion by 2050, then crawl to 10 billion by 2100, then start falling.
There is absolutely _no reason_ to worry about alleged "overpopulation".
1. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html
Shame on you. The forced abortions, forced sterilizations and other extremely authoritarian methods used by the Chinese government are crimes against humanity.
Plus, there is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.
The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]
The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]
Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].
And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.
Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]
African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.
Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.
Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.
1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 :
The grandparent may have shot from the hip, but his main point stands.
There are many lunatic environmentalists that claim "civilization as we know it will be no more" because of global warming, unless we reduce global population by 90%, or mandate 20 years of zero economic growth for "rich countries", or something equally absurd. Some borderline sociopaths have even calculated the carbon footprint of African babies. Oh, and waging a campaign of hate against "deniers" does not help.
And as TFA explains, all this alarmism, lies and hatred are for nothing. The price of solar power is collapsing, and wind is going down too. It is predicted half the world will reach residential solar grid parity as early as *2015*; wind will reach grid parity by 2025. And there are even other options such as next-generation nuclear.
If the government still thinks the market is moving too slowly, I can accept some light intervention (by slightly subsidizing renewables and slightly overtaxing oil and coal, for example). But reducing human population, crippling the economy, or creating an oppressive UN environmental agency to erode national sovereignty, are all unthinkable.
See
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html
2. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
3. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058296/1010-who-are-you-going-to-kill-to-help-save-the-planet/
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity
Making a caricature of wealthy people as selfish sociopaths will only lead to worse problems.
Please debate the issue without resorting to stereoptypes and without sowing discord and hatred.
No. Defending the poor is absolutely different from being Marxist.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html
Cultural Marxism explicitly supports the marginalization of conservative speech. See the Herbert Marcuse concept of "repressive tolerance". It is no coincidence that these so-called "hate speech" laws are overwhelmingly supported by Marxism-inspired parties.
Growing 0.45% a year in 2009-2011 is not "quickly". And, the average (-0.3%) is more significant than the extremes.
The CIA world factbook lists the growth in 2009, 2010 and 2011. I simply averaged them via the straightfoward
avg = (((1 + g1 / 100) * ( 1 + g2 / 100) * (1 + g3 / 100)) ** (1. / 3)) * 100 - 100
I am speaking of the European _average_. And Germany will have to increse the retirement age much more; it has 1.41 children per woman.
A poll has shown that conservatives donate 30% more to charity than liberals.
Also, ruining your country's finances is not very responsible.
Except that the Muslim fertility rate has been not only declining, but collapsing.
False. Freedom of religion/conscience/speech has been written down at the Second Vatican Cou
OK, maybe I shot from the hip. But (as I wrote in another post) that Catholic was blindingly trusting Reuters, which was in turn blindingly trusting the very abortionist who performed the abortion! The mass media (including Reuters) has never been accused of being accurate or paying attention to details. Trusting Reuters is naive; both sides have to be listened to. And I have seen a gynecologist woman offering an opposite opinion.
And I prefer to speak in English, so I can train it. But thank you for the offer.
PS: I apologize for my brutishness and for "shooting from the hip". I try to correct these defects of mine, but it is hard.
No. Marxism is larger than you think. Marxism is a philosophy of _everything_. It contains an economic theory (based on the labor theory of value), a philosophy of history, human nature and society (based on the "materialist conception of history") and even a philosophy of knowledge itself (based on the idea that truth is not absolute, but relative to class interests). The fact that the Chinese government has partially liberalized the economy (banking is still state-controlled, for example) does not mean it has displaced Marxism. Even Lenin opened the economy for a time.
"Latest" in relation to the entire lifespan of Marxism.
What makes these men dangerous to freedom is the cultural Marxism they have developed. See, for example, England sending people to jail for criticizing homosexualism.
Your professors never mentioned Karl Marx, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse or Theodor Adorno?
That is an extremely atypical university.
The US is not even remotely close of defaulting; Europe has many countries close to defaulting.
The US has grown an average 0.3% per year in 2009-2011; Europe has shrunk 0.3% per year.
The European population is aging, because each European woman has only 1.6 children.
Yet their strong Marxist unions will not allow increasing the retirement age. The situation is unsustainable; expect the current troubles to get worse.
And, the excess government spending is of course caused by socialism.
And the lack of fertility is caused by atheism. Religion has a well-known effect on fertility. It is no coincidence that Israel and the US have far greater fertility than other countries with similar income levels.
You mentioned Christianity as an authoritarian dictatorship, and that is from the Middle Ages.
They were (partially) due to ISLAM, NOT CHRISTIANITY. I am precisely protesting against this ridiculous, intellectually dishonest practice of mixing Christianity and Islam in the same bag.
There is nothing irrational about Christianity. But there is a lot of irrationality (such as the denial of the very existence of Truth) in atheist Marxism.
Still, Christians do not campaign against the human rights of Marxists.
Gratuitously claiming "No True Scotsman fallacy" is itself a fallacy.
You don't find this kind of rhetoric in Catholic churches.
First, that is not an example of what you were claiming. You are gravely misrepresenting what he said.
Saying that "Among the causes of homosexuality is a contagious demonic factor." is absolutely different from saying that "homosexuals are demonically posessed".
Second, that is
1.) If anti-theists would spend 10% of the energy they devote to attacking religion to attacking Marxism, I would have more respect for them.
2) Marxism has killed 100,000,000 people in the XX century, yet we respect the human rights of Marxists. But Richard Dawkins actively campaings against the human rights of religious people*, because of things that happened 400 YEARS AGO and were not nearly as bad as Marxism.
* The right to freedom of conscience and religion and the right to political participation are part of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Not at all. I know Protestants who tolerate the Catholic Church. "Disagreein with" and "hating" are very different.
So it seems you agree that the Church was right in not excommunicating him? (If I misunderstood you, remember that English is my second language).
Also, you can see that the poster in that blog has trusted the Reuters information; and Reuters, in turn, only relays the opinion of the very same abortionist who performed the act! That is not very trustworthy.
Second, the bishop did not excommunicate anyone; the abortionists were automatically(latae sententiae) excommunicated by their own action.
What would be "pure Marxism" then? Stalinism, Maoism and Troskysm all defend totalitarian dictatorships. Also, see below.
I have read a 19th-century text by Engels and he does support a strong dictatorial state.
Hum, no. Marxism is a philosophy of _everything_. It includes an economic theory (based on the labor theory of value), a philosophy of history, human nature, society and culture (based on the "materialist conception of history"), and even a philosophy of knowledge itself (based on the idea that truth is not absolute, but relative to class interests). Cultural Marxism maintains all of this philosophy, and still wants a very powerful state; the only differences are:
1) They give up on establishing a one-party dictatorship via a violent revolution, and do their struggle via gradual, ostensibly democratic means
2) They broaden the focus of struggle to include not only poverty but also feminism, gender theory, reverse racism, immigration, etc.
See, for example, the English efforts to jail prople who criticize homosexualism.
Possibly yes. Many of the worst anti-Christians are (nominally) inside the Catholic Church. See for example the famous Swiss priest Hans Küng. That man spends some eight hours per day meditating on how much he hates the Pope. Also, liberation(Marxist) theologians such as Leonardo Boff - they say that the "official Church" is the "church of the rich", that "it is part of the Capitalist system", etc. This is what Pope Benedict calls "the hatred of the apostate". Fortunately, these anti-Catholics have been rapidly losing their strength and credibility since the times of blessed John Paul II.
Falsely claiming "No true Scotsman fallacy" is itself a fallacy.
The fact that there are people nominally inside the Church that _hate_ Church teaching is crystal-clear.
See, for example, the "Catholics for Choice" group, which is funded by George Soros and the PlayBoy foundation.
"him" who? I didn't understand that.