Not sure if you've noticed, but the most prosperous, capitalistic societies tend to have the smallest organic population growth -- as opposed to growth due to immigration. Perhaps prosperity (and capitalism!) is a check on population growth?

I've seen all kinds of highs & lows in my life personally, and been to a lot of countries and observed other cultures. One thing I've noticed personally, on my level, is that when I have money, I have no time, and when I have time, I have no money. I've always thought that it sure would be nice to have to time and money concurrently, so I can have a good time spending it. One thing I have noticed in other countries, where they are more laid back, and take life less seriously, they seem happier but are rarely successful and live in what most Americans would consider squalor. In other countries where they are more like us (capitalist) they have a better quality of life, but like us, too securely fastened to the hamster wheel.

I also observed that this laid-back and time-killing attitude seems to coincide with reproduction. I had my kids during those "slow" times in life where I had time but no money. They have more kids in those "laid back" countries, even though they have less food to feed them. And in the Hamster wheel countries, they don't. I was in Rotterdam (the working city of the Netherlands) for a week and maybe saw 10 children the whole time I was there. All I saw everywhere I looked were business people, workers, adults, all on the wheel, and I couldn't help but feel I was looking at the last of a dying breed. Where is their hope to continue their legacy? Nobody wants to reproduce because it is at odds with leading a productive life?

The new population control.

Well I guess that was my long-winded way of agreeing with you.

 

I've seen all kinds of highs & lows in my life personally, and been to a lot of countries and observed other cultures. One thing I've noticed personally, on my level, is that when I have money, I have no time, and when I have time, I have no money. I've always thought that it sure would be nice to have to time and money concurrently, so I can have a good time spending it. One thing I have noticed in other countries, where they are more laid back, and take life less seriously, they seem happier but are rarely successful and live in what most Americans would consider squalor. In other countries where they are more like us (capitalist) they have a better quality of life, but like us, too securely fastened to the hamster wheel.

I also observed that this laid-back and time-killing attitude seems to coincide with reproduction. I had my kids during those "slow" times in life where I had time but no money. They have more kids in those "laid back" countries, even though they have less food to feed them. And in the Hamster wheel countries, they don't. I was in Rotterdam (the working city of the Netherlands) for a week and maybe saw 10 children the whole time I was there. All I saw everywhere I looked were business people, workers, adults, all on the wheel, and I couldn't help but feel I was looking at the last of a dying breed. Where is their hope to continue their legacy? Nobody wants to reproduce because it is at odds with leading a productive life?

The new population control.

Well I guess that was my long-winded way of agreeing with you.

Historically, societies with low wealth and limited freedom also have high child mortality rates. The surviving children tend to be the family "workers", providing the primary sustenance for the family. The more children a family has, the more likely it is that the adults get a meal on the table. Thus, making as many children as possible is a benefit to the family in general.

 

How do you foresee this oblivion playing out?

I've noticed that nuclear weapons are slowly -but surely- proliferating from beyond the traditional super powers. The September edition of the Epic Times had an article that said that North Korea is getting help with it's nuclear bomb project from China, Iran, and Pakistan. Despite Trump's hard line rhetoric, there is no quick and easy fix to North Korea's nuclear program and the U.S. will probably have no choice but to tolerate it.

As for the effect of a modest size nuclear attack on a major city, a Hiroshima sized explosion over New York would destroy most of the light construction and a lot of the high rises would burn and implode like the WTC complex. As for the human aftermath of a nuclear attack, the result would be a huge population living in Third World conditions like the homeless now living in tents on the streets.

The federal government spent close to a $Trillion to mitigate just the 9-11 attacks and it doesn't have the financial or tactical resources to deal with a nuclear attack. The U.S. is already in debt head over heels and it's borrowing big $$$ from China -who ironically is a supporter of North Korea!!!

By the way, I used to work in a building that was a community fallout shelter for the downtown Los Angeles area and it had one of those signs (the ones with the yellow triangles in a blue circle) over the entrance that said it had a capacity of 35 people. However, I can't imagine how 35 people would survive being confined in the basement of an 8 story concrete building for very long.

 

I think you need to cite evidence for this statement.

Here are photos of what's providing the fuel load and it's definitely homes - not trees and brush.

Also note that most of the trees were not burned.

 

Here are photos of what's providing the fuel load and it's definitely homes - not trees and brush.

Also note that most of the trees were not burned.

View attachment 137141

Hmm. 170,000 acres is a lot smaller than I thought.

 

open ended population growth and development is paving the path toward oblivion.

[...]nuclear weapons [...] North Korea [...] a Hiroshima sized explosion over New York [...] the result would be a huge population living in Third World conditions like the homeless now living in tents on the streets.

I asked you about oblivion and you replied about a North Korean nuclear attack on New York.
Maybe we have different ideas on what "oblivion" means.
You talk about open ended population growth; that is a world-wide affair, not localized in New York. So the implication you made is about the global human population being wiped off the face of the earth (that's what "oblivion" means to me) as a result of uncontrolled population growth.
If that's what you genuinely meant, Then please explain how uncontrolled population growth leads to the end of mankind.

 

Historically, societies with low wealth and limited freedom also have high child mortality rates. The surviving children tend to be the family "workers", providing the primary sustenance for the family. The more children a family has, the more likely it is that the adults get a meal on the table. Thus, making as many children as possible is a benefit to the family in general.

There is also the lack of birth control in the mix.

 

There is also the lack of birth control in the mix.

With the number of woman in the US clamoring for free contraceptives, it appears there's a lack here, too.

Yet the current birth rate has fallen to a historic low. Perhaps we should outlaw contraception so as to avoid oblivion.

 

With the number of woman in the US clamoring for free contraceptives, it appears there's a lack here, too.

Yet the current birth rate has fallen to a historic low. Perhaps we should outlaw contraception so as to avoid oblivion.

Which apparently isn't too good for the market since it needs a new idiot born everyday to function.

However my grandmother was one of 12 siblings and nobody of them worked at the farm after 16 years of age.

Not that it has anything to do with forest fires.

 

However my grandmother was one of 12 siblings and nobody of them worked at the farm after 16 years of age.

Correct. They had kids young so they could work on the farm instead.

 

...since it needs a new idiot born everyday to function.

Boy, you really do hate the human race, don't you? I assume you are one of the few humans that haven't been beat with the idiot stick.

What gets you up in the morning? I'm not sure I could survive with such a pessimistic outlook on...everything.

 

Boy, you really do hate the human race, don't you? I assume you are one of the few humans that haven't been beat with the idiot stick.

What gets you up in the morning? I'm not sure I could survive with such a pessimistic outlook on...everything.

It is what it is. The great part is that we have some control over what happens next.

"Over to you Tom with the weather and/or some news of forest fires".

 

Joey I know that I give you a lot of headache so here is something nice. You know you earned it.

 

Hmm. 170,000 acres is a lot smaller than I thought.

That's just one photo of what happened to the entire 170,000 acres of homes and buildings. Aerial photos will show the actual extent of the fire damaged landscape with 100s of blocks of incinerated neighborhoods.

Many of those homes and buildings were wood frame with a stucco exterior and a sheet rock interior and they are rated for just 1 hour in a normal structural (and isolated) fire. However when a bunch of them go up, it literally creates a blast furnace and the 2000 degree heat quickly breaches the fire protective cladding and exposes the wood framing.

When the buildings are closely spaced, they ignite in a chain reaction and with such extensive development, the enormous fuel load creates a fire storm.

 

I asked you about oblivion and you replied about a North Korean nuclear attack on New York.
Maybe we have different ideas on what "oblivion" means.
You talk about open ended population growth; that is a world-wide affair, not localized in New York. So the implication you made is about the global human population being wiped off the face of the earth (that's what "oblivion" means to me) as a result of uncontrolled population growth.
If that's what you genuinely meant, Then please explain how uncontrolled population growth leads to the end of mankind.

The dinosaurs are prime example of oblivion.

There aren't many descendants of the dinosaurs living today. The theory of extinction is that these creatures were so dominant and consumed a high proportion of the available resources. However, something disrupted their food supply to the point they could not survive on such meager resources.

Humans are also in a similar position for extinction with a high dependence on resources like cars and gasoline. Cities would get hit the hardest because they merely consume resources without any independent means of production. However those who live in the farming regions of the country would have a much greater chance for long term survival.

Over a century ago, many people lived on farms and lived off the land. From my personal experience (living in Yellville, Arkansas in the 1950s), I know I could survive much better in the country than living in a big city after a major disaster.

 

Boy, you really do hate the human race, don't you? I assume you are one of the few humans that haven't been beat with the idiot stick.

What gets you up in the morning? I'm not sure I could survive with such a pessimistic outlook on...everything.

He doesn't hate the human race, he's just critical of the way many humans think and act.

It's the "growth, growth, growth, jobs, jobs, jobs" attitude that's alarming. The concern about open ended population growth is the difference between growing normal skin cells and the having uncontrolled growth of cancer cells.

 

The dinosaurs are prime example of oblivion.

There aren't many descendants of the dinosaurs living today. The theory of extinction is that these creatures were so dominant and consumed a high proportion of the available resources. However, something disrupted their food supply to the point they could not survive on such meager resources.

Humans are also in a similar position for extinction with a high dependence on resources like cars and gasoline. Cities would get hit the hardest because they merely consume resources without any independent means of production. However those who live in the farming regions of the country would have a much greater chance for long term survival.

Over a century ago, many people lived on farms and lived off the land. From my personal experience (living in Yellville, Arkansas in the 1950s), I know I could survive better than living in a big city.

I don't disagree there will be food shortages and I don't disagree that people in cities will be less prepared. I even entertain scenarios where many of them die. But we are not reptiles. We have thumbs, which I think will be instrumental in recovering from any disaster. And advanced brains, too; that should be helpful as well.

 

Edward Jenner, in 177?, took us out of the ecosystem. The real change started there.

 

I don't disagree there will be food shortages and I don't disagree that people in cities will be less prepared. I even entertain scenarios where many of them die. But we are not reptiles. We have thumbs, which I think will be instrumental in recovering from any disaster. And advanced brains, too; that should be helpful as well.

However, must people don't have the ingenuity to withstand (much less recover) from a megadisaster (like a nuclear holocaust or an asteroid) and it will be survival of the fittest.

Considering that it took 100s of 1000s of years for humans to evolve from apes to the current species, we're not going to see people putting up streets, cars, and buildings for a long time after WW3.

 

I've seen all kinds of highs & lows in my life personally, and been to a lot of countries and observed other cultures. One thing I've noticed personally, on my level, is that when I have money, I have no time, and when I have time, I have no money. I've always thought that it sure would be nice to have to time and money concurrently, so I can have a good time spending it. One thing I have noticed in other countries, where they are more laid back, and take life less seriously, they seem happier but are rarely successful and live in what most Americans would consider squalor. In other countries where they are more like us (capitalist) they have a better quality of life, but like us, too securely fastened to the hamster wheel.

I also observed that this laid-back and time-killing attitude seems to coincide with reproduction. I had my kids during those "slow" times in life where I had time but no money. They have more kids in those "laid back" countries, even though they have less food to feed them. And in the Hamster wheel countries, they don't. I was in Rotterdam (the working city of the Netherlands) for a week and maybe saw 10 children the whole time I was there. All I saw everywhere I looked were business people, workers, adults, all on the wheel, and I couldn't help but feel I was looking at the last of a dying breed. Where is their hope to continue their legacy? Nobody wants to reproduce because it is at odds with leading a productive life?

The new population control.

Well I guess that was my long-winded way of agreeing with you.

Just wondering of you've visited Metro Manila, Philippines?

It's one of the most populous cities in the world and most of the inhabitants (over 12 million of them) live in Third World conditions -IE- a highly contaminated water supply and virtually nonexistent sewage disposal. In fact, most homes and apartment buildings in Metro Manila rely on septic tanks for sewage disposal and they are pumped out by a franchise called "Malabanan Pozo Negro" service. Because sewage treatment is very lacking, Malabanan just dumps the effluent they've collected in Manila Bay or the Pasig River. As a result, the ground water and river water is polluted with raw sewage.

Metro Manila also has many orphanages that are bursting at the seams with children who's parents can't support them. And yet, the people of the Philippines pride themselves on having even more children.