I would be very surprised if there will be more than 3 billion people living in 2050.
That's quite an exaggeration. I would be surprised if there will be less than 8 billion. After doing extensive world traveling in 2007, I think non-travelers forget exactly how absolutely huge the earth is. Of course there will be some individual nations (like China, to name just one) that start to give us a window into what happens to an overpopulated land area, but I don't believe it will become a global problem before it's too late.
And it doesn't matter what kind of government you have. China is having ground water problems. They're currently working on a huge river project to redirect one of their major rivers to go north. They're cutting through mountains to make it happen.
http://www.icivilengineer.com/Big_Project_Watch/China_River_Diversion/
In a socialist government, they can say, "hmmm, this is a problem. Everyone stop what you're doing and fix it." Much like what Brazil did to restructure their use of fuel. Now they're using E10, and now they're oil independent.
In a capitalist government, can't predict when it would happen... but SOME day people will say, "WAIT A SECOND! People don't LIKE the effects of overpopulation! If we think of a way to solve that... I bet we could make some money!"
In any case, predictions that there will be a global problem anywhere near 2050 are entirely premature; and people that don't think mankind will find a way to survive (if survival is threatened) are naive.
That line of thinking just doesn't work in a Democracy. The reason you vote for the lesser of two evils is because candidates that are representing tens or hundreds of thousands of people are going to have to have some policies that you don't like. So, pick what policies are important to you and vote accordingly.
It's nothing like being tied to a chair and it's not saying you approve their policies. Your analogy is a personal one rather than having to do with the masses or the future of an entire people. Sounds kind of selfish to me.
A working Democracy needs participation in order to function. Vote. If you choose a candidate and don't like some of their policies? Write a letter or send an e-mail! It's not rocket science, it has influence, and you will be heard.
Excellent point. I think the counterpoints that were made are also valid.
The acclaimed causes of Global Warming are far from being facts. It's true, the reason there is opposition to the claim of the dominant cause of Global Warming is because of the private funding. That doesn't mean the research isn't valid.
I took an online Biology class that changed my outlook on this whole debate. We started talking about the ecosystem and soon the subtopic of Global Warming arose. One of the options for an assignment was to research this topic on our own, which I did. I was quite surprised to learn that there are a lot of holes in all of this Global Warming hype, and there is a lot of evidence against these major theories.
We don't hear much about that evidence. Is that because the evidence is lacking? Or because people don't want to dismiss what they've already made conclusions on? In reality - there's no way we can conclude Global Warming isn't a natural process in the Earth's cycle.
Larry
It all sounds good. I completely agree, save one point. You forgot - in order to ensure that the branches continue keeping each other in check... the people need to continue bunching up their panties.
Bunch away!
~chris
Slashdot Mirror
I would be very surprised if there will be more than 3 billion people living in 2050.
That's quite an exaggeration. I would be surprised if there will be less than 8 billion. After doing extensive world traveling in 2007, I think non-travelers forget exactly how absolutely huge the earth is. Of course there will be some individual nations (like China, to name just one) that start to give us a window into what happens to an overpopulated land area, but I don't believe it will become a global problem before it's too late.
And it doesn't matter what kind of government you have. China is having ground water problems. They're currently working on a huge river project to redirect one of their major rivers to go north. They're cutting through mountains to make it happen. http://www.icivilengineer.com/Big_Project_Watch/China_River_Diversion/
In a socialist government, they can say, "hmmm, this is a problem. Everyone stop what you're doing and fix it." Much like what Brazil did to restructure their use of fuel. Now they're using E10, and now they're oil independent.
In a capitalist government, can't predict when it would happen... but SOME day people will say, "WAIT A SECOND! People don't LIKE the effects of overpopulation! If we think of a way to solve that... I bet we could make some money!"
In any case, predictions that there will be a global problem anywhere near 2050 are entirely premature; and people that don't think mankind will find a way to survive (if survival is threatened) are naive.
That line of thinking just doesn't work in a Democracy. The reason you vote for the lesser of two evils is because candidates that are representing tens or hundreds of thousands of people are going to have to have some policies that you don't like. So, pick what policies are important to you and vote accordingly. It's nothing like being tied to a chair and it's not saying you approve their policies. Your analogy is a personal one rather than having to do with the masses or the future of an entire people. Sounds kind of selfish to me. A working Democracy needs participation in order to function. Vote. If you choose a candidate and don't like some of their policies? Write a letter or send an e-mail! It's not rocket science, it has influence, and you will be heard.
Excellent point. I think the counterpoints that were made are also valid. The acclaimed causes of Global Warming are far from being facts. It's true, the reason there is opposition to the claim of the dominant cause of Global Warming is because of the private funding. That doesn't mean the research isn't valid. I took an online Biology class that changed my outlook on this whole debate. We started talking about the ecosystem and soon the subtopic of Global Warming arose. One of the options for an assignment was to research this topic on our own, which I did. I was quite surprised to learn that there are a lot of holes in all of this Global Warming hype, and there is a lot of evidence against these major theories. We don't hear much about that evidence. Is that because the evidence is lacking? Or because people don't want to dismiss what they've already made conclusions on? In reality - there's no way we can conclude Global Warming isn't a natural process in the Earth's cycle.
This post is a far cry from a level 5 rating.
Larry It all sounds good. I completely agree, save one point. You forgot - in order to ensure that the branches continue keeping each other in check... the people need to continue bunching up their panties. Bunch away! ~chris