We will exploit out environment until it cannot sustain our numbers and then most of us will die off. There will be some who are better adapted to an environment devoid of resources, and these will be the ones to survive.
The rich and elite believe they are above this, but they too will find out that they do not necessarily have the correct adaptations for survival, just like everyone else.
It could happen in our lifetime. People have to accept that this cycle will complete itself regardless of what anyone does or wants.
I agree Les. I also am not pointing fingers, but it is something that could be brought to the table knowing what we know.
What Skousen doesn't mention about Rome's collapse, but Chris hints at, is that toward the end of Rome's reign their primary resource of energy was agriculture. It provided for 90 percent of the government's revenue. The financial collapse was really just the consequence of the entropic bill. The fertility of the soil was mined to the extent that it yielded less and less. They couldn't expand the empire out further because the cost of transporting food became too expensive to support their armies at such great distances. Farmers had to work the land even harder in the end which only further mined the soil. Once the farmer's land could not yield enough to pay for the farmer to support his family, he abandoned the land, took his family and went into the city to live off the dole. Without proper land maintanence this turned the farm into swamp land (and caused malaria). This only perpetuated the problem. As the military and government continued to grow, the energy source continued to dwindle. At the very end, the government had no choice but to force the farmer to stay, yoking him to the land…and behold we usher in the feudal system and the Dark Ages.
If we are discussing smaller government, maybe we should discuss and focus on cutting the military budget by fifty to seventy five percent? I mean, it is costing us almost as much as our social programs. And what is the net economic return of the militiary? What if we cut the military budget by the same percentage as whatever is proposed in cuts to social programs?
re: population overshoot… I may not have kids but derive little benefit from realizing I am not contributing to population growth. With all due respect to those, including myself, who see it is a huge problem, I still don't blame people for having a lot of kids. It is instinctive, good luck getting people to stop. Might as well ask them to stop eating. JMHO.
Regarding privacy, there are so many good posts here. My association: In medicine, when doctors do too many tests, and gather too much information, they have been known to feel an "obligation" to take action and overtreat. Had they not gotten the extra information they wouldn't feel the need to act. I suppose, when all the various powers have access to phone, email, health care, facial recognition data… http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/state-photo-id-databases-become-troves-for-police/2013/06/16/6f014bd4-ced5-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_1.html
…even if when motive is not malicious, the mid level and lower level "Powers" will feel obligated to "do something" because "now they know" something. As you said, the data collection and technology has surpassed the ability to cope with it.
Ready…now you are overlooking the family trees of the new families you have introduced with each pairing….if two 20 year olds pair w two other 20 year olds, there are four parents needed to produce those four 20 year olds, there are four grandparents responsible for four grandkids if every couple has two kids…each new generation is the same size as the previous generation if you count all the families involved.
To keep it simple, set aside incest and inbreeding and imagine that a couple has a boy and a girl who mate w each other who have a boy and a girl, etc…no population growth, only two people per generation.
If no one had more than 2 kids and some had one or none, the population would decline .
[quote=TechGuy]
I don't have any children and never will. There is going to be a collapse and there is no place to go to avoid it. I simply don't want to bring children into a world that is doomed.
[/quote]
Interesting mindset. I'm sorry you don't want to have children, cause you seem like the kind of world citizen we need. It could be argued that your unwillingness to continue your lineage will diminish the probability of a good global outcome.
If it helps you to understand, start with Adam and Eve. They have 2 children, a boy and a girl. Those children have 2 children together, and so on.This is simply a thought experiment. Forget about the taboo and go with it for a minute. Do you still think that after 1000 years there are just 2 people on the planet? If so, I really don't know how else to word it to help you understand.
It's not about keeping a steady population per generation, it is about keeping a steady population per lifetime. The only way to have zero population growth is to replace you and your wife with 2 offspring and then immediately die. Otherwise you just went from 2 to 4, doubling the population. Then your kids will do it again while you are still alive, and so on.
[quote] Do you still think that after 1000 years there are just 2 people on the planet?[/quote]Assuming Adam and Eve promptly die after giving birth to twins, and those children can successfully breed another set of twins, after which the second generation dies, etc., etc., then yes, in 1,000 years there will be two people. The failure of parents to die in a timely manner will add to the total population, just as it does in real life. The ages of parents having children changes the number of children they must have to simply replace themselves, because mortality figures into the equation.
Doug
[quote=Oliveoilguy]Interesting mindset. I'm sorry you don't want to have children, cause you seem like the kind of world citizen we need. It could be argued that your unwillingness to continue your lineage will diminish the probability of a good global outcome.
[/quote]
I don't see how having kids will have any impact on the future. The world is in deep population overshoot and most will die in the next 15 to 25 years. If the opportunity rises, I will adopt. There is more than ample supply of unwanted children.
Ready…keeping it simple, if we assume having two kids at 20 and dying at 60…there will be 4 people when A&E have kids at 20, 6 people when A&E are grandparents at 40, and 6 people when they die at 60 (assuming they die at the same time their great grands are born). The world population then stabilizes at 6 people til the end of time, two kids are born every 20 years, two old folks die every 20 years.
Each couple having two children after A&E die is Zero Population Growth, never more than 6 people on the planet.
Do you think that after 1000 years there are more than six people on the planet?
When propaganda at last becomes ineffective at controling the public, government monitoring, Homeland Security and the policestate is all setup and ready to take over.
When everything is a matter of national security, then of course nobody's watching. The congress is on a need to know basis and doesn't even know the budget for these privatized contractors. Just amazing how fast this complex of govt-privatized surveillance grew after 9/11. Just goes to show that when the government wants to do something it does it big-time and fast. Too bad they don't want to rebuild infrastructure here.
Small govt types want you to believe govt. can't do anything. This industry is about the only one flourishing today. Of course they have no problem when govt money when it goes to them or private entities.
Dana Priest did a great job on her reporting of "Top Secret America" see show on PBS Frontline. They did at least 3 segments in the last 2 years. Truly worth watching. When you see it, nothing that came out this past week will surprise you.
I couldn't agree more. The AT&T data was being collected for corporations before 9/11. It fits into the globalization of what was once national companies. There can't be a balance between the Stockmarket and main street in this system and I think it is a way of tracking worldwide consumers for what has become transnationals.
Not only is Las Vegas the most debauched place in the United States, it is also the most subsidized. The city could not exist were it not fully subsidized from the outside in terms of fuel, food and water. Without draining other areas of those things, it would literally dry up and blow away in the desert wind.And yet we have the libertarians of freedom fest coming together at that locale in order to celebrate their dedication to rugged individualism. (eyeroll)
I must admit that I turned off the podcast as soon as Skousen started talking about FF in LV. I normally am a big fan of the podcast material that Chris and Adam put out. This one, however, is not one that I will be returning to in the future. Way too ideological and way too little in the way of reasoned, self-introspective analysis. And for that I don't blame Chris and/or Adam at all – I think it's just this particular guest.
