Or at least distract it … 
Perhaps I can offer some sanity into the discussion of population here.( Boy are we in trouble if I am the one to inject some sanity into any discussion)
There have been many discussions here on population and its affects and possible remedies. In my experience it does not call for immoral or draconian measures to accomplish and it would actually lead to what I consider to be a better world.
The answer is simple. EDUCATION. Specifically education of women. In countries where women are educated the birthrate is 2 or less in countries where they are not it is 6 plus. Education does many things, not the least of which is finding new ways of doing things. Educating women gives them control over their reproductive systems.
It might be worthwhile to restart a rational discussion of population in regards to the three E’s that would be helpful and solution oriented.
V
PS I hope this does not derail this thread. It was not my intention Idoctor perhaps instead of a drive by you could tell me just exactly the bigger picture is.
[quote=idoctor]
The continued reference to these people as morons is not only absurd but it is distracting from possible solutions. People like Summers, Bernanke, Geithner , Bush, Cheney , Obama etc. are not stupid by any stretch of the imagination. We here talk about preparations for what is likely to transpire. We talk about permaculture, communities, gold, and guns etc. These people talk about how to extract more time , energy and wealth from us. Who is stupid?This is exactly why they are stupid....they are missing the bigger picture of prosperity & sustainability. Where they are taking us is going to be destructive for all.
[/quote]+1. Utter and absolute $%*##%& MORONS!
Sociopaths are the byproducts corporatocracy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTcL6Xc_eMM&feature=player_embedded
Documentary: The Corporation (all about corporatocracy.)
These issues do not have to be approached in an all-or-none fashion. Population control does not necessarily mean implementation of abortion, imprisonment, killing, or any other form of brutality and inhumanity. It can simply mean education, encouragement, temperance, implementation of self discipline and self control, etc… I don’t think anyone here is advocating population control that would involve human pain and suffering or the absence of children. No one, by any stretch of the imagination, is advocating the termination of children and the young. One can simply make the decision to simply reproduce and replace themselves in society but no more. Taken to an extreme, if the entire human race started reproducing with wild abandon, sooner or later, there would be “population control” of sorts through famine, war, pestilence, etc. There is after all a limited carrying capacity on this planet. I, for one, would rather not bump up against it and see what happens. I’d rather do it as a family under safe and controlled circumstances than have nature or politics thrust it upon me in a harsh and violent fashion.
Just for the record, I am not ashamed to say that I am not a supporter of Planned Parenthood and I am against abortion but I also recognize the realities, practicalities, and limitations of indefinitely unrestricted population growth.
I’ve said it before and I’ve said it again, whether the issue is debt, sovereign money, or population control, the solution(s) will ultimately be spiritual not political. A person who does not think primarily of themselves but thinks about their children, future generations, other human beings, the universe that sustains us, and most of all, the One who made us, will consider that they have an obligation to continue the human race but not to run it and the planet it lives on into the ground. Love for one’s fellow man and wisdom in one’s actions will save the day. Foolishness will lead to destruction.
BTW, I really appreciate the clarity of your thinking, Chris. Thank you for openly expressing and sharing what can be controversial thoughts and putting yourself at risk for potential criticism. Your wisdom and courage are evident.
[quote=V]
Logans Run
I wish more people would take your comments seriously.[/quote]
Some of us do, having received our education from George Carlin who in the great tradition of court jesters was able to speak the truth about the King. But what is to be done about it? Perhaps the states will wake up and start to issue their own IOUs that will circulate as currency.
Yes, “Bankers own the Earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again…” - – Sir Josiah Stamp Director Bank of England 1928-1941.
How about when Chris said: “gain more bang for our buck if we expended our efforts towards creating a stable population.” If this isn’t hinting (the word I used) at population control, what is it? How else can a stable population be “created”? This is not a statement of fact, but a proposed course of action.
With all due respect, Chris, you cannot suggest a course of action and treat it as a cold, hard fact. Moveover, you make value judgments on the fact that population has changed (“bad”) and therefore it has to be stable (“action”). You cannot deny that you use your beliefs when judging the value of facts or which course of actions to take in response to them.
Facts do not come imbued with a face value or with instructions in case of emergency. They are the objects of subjects, so your analysis is objective only to the point of describing the facts. When if comes to proposing routes of action, your analysis is subjective, if not necessarily, as a matter of fact.
I disagree. Hostility towards future generations brings about a societal malaise that’s better described by German hotels not accepting guests with children but accepting guests with pets. This is the kind of “soft” inhumanity that such hostility raises.
I really don’t want to turn this into a platform for your religious and/or parnoid views. Linking to a pro-life website as a preferred soruce for your “information” was way out of line for this site, and you’ve been warned.
To continue in this line of fact-free, speculation-only inquiry is to invite simply being banned. Since you seem unable to envision any possible ways that humans could willfully and carefully control their popualtion without delving into the darkest tendencies and corners of human behavior indicates to me that you lack the necessary world view to add anything useful to the conversation.
I am banning you from further conversation on this topic. Feel free to otherwise engage, but this one is off-limits.
Augustine-
Where did Chris say anything about ‘population control’? All that I found was him drawing a connection between population growth and economic growth, and that the latter relied on the former. He’s making a statement of fact. Whatever is making you uncomfortable lies predominantly in your own mind, not in his words. Are we not even allowed to mention the problems and consequences that result from growing or shrinking populations? These kind of slippery-slope accusations don’t help or accomplish anything.
- Nick
Nick,
My problem is Chris’s claim that, “We can trace an enormous number of the problems or predicaments we face to over-population or to the strain that results from accomodating the needs of a growing population.” I don’t think you can assert that as fact. Give me the evidence to support that claim.
Bruce
Augustine: i don’t presume to know who you are or what you believe, but you are doing a fine job of muddying the waters for those who might have similar concerns but who are more than willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the creator and host of this site. Your concern for the lives of the people who have invested their time and effort in the search for truth through this forum is evident in your approach. If your attitude is the byproduct of your beliefs, then I have no interest in your information.
[quote=James Wandler]Chris,
It sounds like the only way out of the predicament is a new monetary system to replace the current debt based system in place now - a new system that favors prosperity over growth.
By the way, I especially enjoyed the Q&A following the presentation of the short version of the Crash Course at Yahoo! One comment - you mention that the only way to pay off the difference between total debt ($87? trillion) and total money ($14? trillion) is to borrow the equivalent. While true, isn’t it also possible for the debts to be extinguished with assets to be exchanged for the debt? I’m not suggesting this as a course of action - just an observation of the current system. I believe the whole system is a Ponzi scheme, and therefore a fraud, so foreclosing on collective assets is illegitimate.
While I’m comfortable that expanding awareness is the order of the day (followed by understanding and then solutions) it really would be great if we could have our sights set on some sort of solution (i.e. how a new monetary system could work to usher in a world of prosperity). I know that there are lots of really smart people that could devise something once they set their minds to it (right now they are just busy working on other projects in the work/personal lives unaware of the challenge facing us). However should hyperinflation come to pass there will be so much firefighting that getting a new system up and running will be overwhelming to say the least. I suppose getting to work on complementary currencies now is something to ease the transition.
Perhaps we’ll just look to Europe who are seeing issues with the Euro, choosing austerity, will likely see this not work out too well, and bring along a new monetary system that the rest of the world can adopt as and when the time comes.
Cheers,
James
[/quote]
Hey James,
You’re understanding the big picture pretty accurately for the most part. The monetary system MUST change if we are to see any benefical and meaningful changes. Check out SwarmUSA.com to see what a bright group of people have come up with for changing our monetary system and for handling the transition.
In regards to your comments on paying off debt with assets…
Most loan agreements specify the manner and method of repayment. ie, must be paid in US dollars, etc. Ellen brown has thoroughly explained the next step in “Web of Debt.” This next step is where the debts are renegotiated, usually by the IMF, in the form of a “bailout” where the repayment must be made in terms of natural resources. That’s the ultimate goal of this debt based money. That is to be “legally entitled” to extract the natural resources of others. Debt based money is doomed to fail because of the math. It’s convoluted just enough that the average citizen doesn’t understand the larger picture.
Glad to see another person waking up to the fact that the monetary system is the crux of our problems. Keep learning.
Dan
James Wandler - Toucan
There may be a possible solution to our current economic problems/situation and that would be the implementation of a State owned and operated Banking System. N Dakota established one in the early 1900’s right after the Federal Reserve was established for obvious reasons and it is still in operation in good standings today.
Farid Khavari economist [PhD] and currently running for Governor of Florida recently announced plans to, if elected, establish a State Bank for the State of Florida.
“The Khavari Economic Plan is targeted to make the state of Florida “recession-proof by creating over one-million well-paid, private sector jobs in the state Florida without subsidies. The cornerstone of the Khavari Economic Plan is to create a state chartered bank, The Bank of the State of Florida (BSF). He first mentioned this concept in his publication, Zero-Cost Economy written in November 2008. Since then, many states across the country are now picking up on the idea, including—California, Connecticut, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont and Virginia. Recently the office of the speaker of the senate of New Mexico contacted Dr. Khavari to consult on how to implement and create its own charter for the state owned bank of New Mexico. Khavari Economic Plan has also received great reception in Germany, Russia, Finland, India and The Netherlands.”
For detailed look at the plan check out Khavari’s Zero Cost Economy website - http://www.zerocosteconomy.com/
There is a 96page economic blueprint pdf that can be downloaded - http://www.zerocosteconomy.com/download.php
Also for additional information the Khavari for of Governor site - http://www.khavariforgovernor.com/about/
It seems to me that if State Banks were set up on a nationwide basis on the state and federal level a total financial meltdown of the US economy could be averted. It would also put our economy back in the hands of the people instead of Wall Street, The Federal Reserve, IMF, and the financially elite.
Chris if you have some spare the on your hands could you have a look at this as a possible valid economic solution.
Thanks jhart5
On the touchy subject of curbing exponential population growth, I have to agree with V that the key to making progress is education. About ten years ago I was first introduced to the facts concerning the finite size of our planet and the exponential growth story of human beings. This formed my opinion concerning how many children I would consider having. It was always very awkward explaining to family, well there are already too many people running around and the Earth is only so big. Additionally the concept of growth vs. prosperity was at work knowing that only having one child would ensure a secure future for my daughter instead of throwing her out to fend for herself in this less than perfect world. When I get a comment these days about more kids, I just ask for the estimated 250K to raise a kid… up front.
One should really think about the (long term) historic relationship of humans with the rest of the planet’s inhabitants. After that, it should be fairly simple to see that fossil fuel powered modern agriculture has in many ways broken the cyclic link between us and the remaining species on “the” not “our” planet. Human population at some point will overshoot without an epiphany concerning true sustainability from the human race. The growth vs. prosperity story from the Crash Course is based in fact rather than opinion. Thank you for another article that ties present news to your work Dr. M. As you stated, the change must come from the outside-in.
Cheers, TJ
You darn well know many people saw this coming for a long time . They trained up midwives, had home births , opt out of the *social * security system, did not claim the children on their taxes, and now many have businesses that deal in cash only . It will take a lot of social workers to smoke them all out . They are not the ones consuming all the oil …do not hop on planes , buy things from Timbuktu , take vacations ,… BUT , Davos, you are so right the PC will come as one of the freedoms we give up.
FM
Don’t have a lot of time as the kids are in a mode but…Thank you! I appreciate the kind words and trust.
I pray that people decide to awaken, but I don’t have much faith. When I have time later or early in the morning I’ll chat a bit on this subject, but right now…the kids call!
Thank you again, and any time you want to head up here, the door is always open. Ask my neighbors…ugh
I don’t travel as much as I used to (Thank Goodness!), but if I get down south any time in the future, I’ll let you know. It may actually happen sooner rather than later as I’m anxious to see what’s happening down there with the spill.
Best!
Logans Run
I wish more people would take your comments seriously. If you are to be believed ( which I do) you have dealt with these people closely for a number of years. It is no mystery to you how people like Summers and Geithner get to play god.
PS Logans Run I for one would love to sit over a cup of coffee sometime and here some of the stuff that does not get posted here.
[/quote]
The people at Swarm USA have a pretty straightforward, simple plan for transitioning away from the debt-backed money system:
1. End the practice of debt backed money at the federal level, returning the power of money creation to the people via Congress as the U.S. Constitution dictates. 2. Clear out excessive debt and derivatives from the entire financial system, thus repairing balance sheets and producing workable debt to income ratios. The following will be accomplished:http://www.swarmusa.com/vb4/a. People's balance sheets will be repaired by returning tax dollars to the people to be used to directly pay down existing debt.3. Ensure the quantity of money remains under control in the long term by:b. All banks and financial businesses are run through a special bankruptcy procedure to cleanse away unserviceable debt and derivatives. All banks will survive this process and will exit with 10 to 1 fractional reserve ability, a level of leverage that is safe and will be capped by law.
c. State balance sheets will be repaired and all states will create State Chartered Banks based on the successful model of the Bank of North Dakota. Additionally, these banks will assume the roles and functions formerly held by the 12 “Federal” Reserve banks, thus decentralizing control but in a coordinated manner where all states are benefitting equally.
a. Ensuring accurate and unbiased economic measurements and reporting. This is easily achieved with 100% transparency in all data gathering and statistical methods, allowing the market to 'police' the government.b. Create controls that tie overall money quantity to PRICE of ALL asset classes. Target ZERO price inflation and adjust quantity of money spent into existence without debt. Interest rates are set by the free market. This means no more long term inflation or deflation.
c. Separate special interest money from politics. This targeted political reform is necessary to keep the political system functioning for those who it is supposed to serve. Without this piece history proves that the other pieces will not last long, as those with large reservoirs of money will eventually co-opt the system for themselves.
Although, I’m not sure it would be as smooth a process as they make it out to be and of course it does not directly address the problem of peak cheap energy/resources, but it definitely seems like a good start to me. If only we hadn’t waited so long and let the current system become so entrenched before we pushed for ideas such as this one.
Jack Hanna’s perspective on over population implies it may already be too late. But he remains an optimist.
http://www.smartplanet.com/people/blog/pure-genius/jack-hanna-on-the-one-word-in-global-warming-that-everyones-avoiding/3629/
[quote=Jack Hanna]
The biggest problem is one word no one wants to talk about, for religious regions or political reasons: overpopulation. As a person who has traveled the world, every continent, many times, I see that it’s overpopulation. We can come up with green stuff, replant trees, create windmills, but we’ll never solve the problem and we’ll never catch up. It’s many steps ahead of us now. The world keeps overpopulating. You have countries that have 6 million people that can only take care of 3 or 4 million. In Rwanda they’re educating people about birth control. It has 8 million people and is the size of Vermont, which has 750,000. You can’t sustain that kind of life.
Why do we have global warming? We have too many people with too many cars. Who creates the problems? It’s the human beings, not the animals. Is it not obvious or what? I tell people what happens to our resources—water, air, trees– will eventually happen to animal life and will eventually happen to human life. I’ve seen this in country after country.
Yet you’re optimistic.
I’m optimistic. I’m not Mr. Doom and Gloom—that doesn’t win anything in the world. We know what the problem is; if you don’t, you’ve had your head in a cave. But if you’re a young person watching the TV news every night, it’s like coming out for a football game being 0-12 for the season and the coach saying, “OK, let’s go out and play. We’re gonna lose.” So I’m real positive. I don’t tell kids everything’s going to pot. I want to leave them with some hope and tell them what we can do.[/quote]
Interesting first post ‘brosswurm.’
Actually, the burden is not on us to verify anything that is based on a super-basic level of knowledge. I truly wish we had the time to start at square zero with everybody who demands it of us, but it’s not possible.
So let me turn it around. How about instead that it’s up to you to provide any facts you can to support your implied claim that climbing population levels have not created any problems or predicaments? Perhaps in the interest of simplicity you could start with:
- Energy use (in aggregate, across oil and coal just to keep it simple). How is it that you think that more people do not use more energy? Given peak oil, how is this not a predicament? Please be specific and use actual data.
- Fresh water use and availability. Again, to keep it simple, how about we constrain this conversation to the American southwest and the use of aquifers? Pick Phoenix and project their issues for the next two decades just for fun.
- The impact of populations on local resource utilization including water, water treatment, road congestion, school crowding, land use and parking space availability, etc.,etc.,etc. If you manage to find a way that increasing population does not create additional strains on local resources please PM me immediately as I know of 12,543 local planning boards that need to consult with you pronto.
Even more honestly I cannot fathom how somebody could move through life without noting the exceptional levels of dedicated hard work that growth requires and imposes.
At any rate, our style here is not to place our burdens on others (this site has a strong undercurrent of personal responsibility) so I would ask that anybody seeking to challenge something do so in the form of presenting countervailing evidence, not open-ended questions easily addressed on their own time.
Thanks in advance.
Chris M.
Mr. Martenson,
You list only 2 methods of deficit reduction;
One path to getting the deficit to 3% from its current 10% of GDP is to cut spending.But of course, there's another method, raising taxes.…
The other path consists of elevated government borrowing and spending done with the hope that eventually GDP climbs up over time thereby reducing the deficit to GDP ratio.
Given that total personal income in the U.S. was $12 trillion last year, it would only require about a 12% increase in personal taxes, or an equivalent (VAT?) to eliminate the deficit. Simply returning to 1960’s tax rates would quickly achieve this goal. An increase in taxes combined with across the board (including social security and Medicare) austerity could bring the budget into balance with minimal pain. I won’t accept raising taxes will slow growth when the government will simply be spending the money instead of individuals.
Also, I would favor deficit spending if it is invested in getting us quickly to ALT-E and off fossil fuels. But if it’s wasted, like the 1st stimulus, then we should go down the raising taxes and austerity path.
$.02