This last week the Pope seemed to finally get it that world overpopulation is a serious problem when he said “being a good Catholic did not mean people should breed like rabbits.” For a fleeting moment I thought “Yes – the Pope finally gets it!” But then he took it back. So much for the infallibility of the Pope.
The Catholic Church, with it’s stand on breeding like rabbits is an environmental catastrophe in the making. Poverty, war, global warming are driven by too many people going after a finite amount of dwindling resources. While large families might have made sense in ancient times when the child mortality rate was 50%, in modern times with a global population of 7.2 billion, the problem of overpopulation is one of humanity’s biggest challenges. The Pope could help solve it, but he chooses to turn his back on reality. What a shame.
………..and thats why Mother Teresa is worthy of disdain……. and her entire “philosophy.”
Yea, verily!
[…Mother Teresa is worthy of disdain…]
(… and I get the “her entire “philosophy”” part)
Yea, tho thou walkest through the valley of the shadow of death, thou will fear no evil: for thou art with thyself; thy rod and thy staff they comfort thee even after never going to sleep last night.
It’s a good that exuding effluvium is OK here otherwise you’d be in violation of your double secret probation.
Yea, verily!
Well…..she and her ilk and leader did threaten all others with the effluvium of eternal damnation if they tried to do anything to avoid the very cause of their poverty and resulting need for good christian charity.
Never given a hard interview. It would be interesting to find out just how backward she was. I didn’t read Hitchens book on her as I was already of the same mind.
You know what a mind is…..the opposite of faith?
You do know that the current long term prediction is one of population decline?
There’s a chance we won’t even see a population of ten billion.
On top of that, it is the lack of breeding that is turning Europe into a Muslim continent.
What do you think the carrying capacity of the Earth is to the nearest billion with an average lifestyle of those at the poverty level experienced in the USA?
I’d say 2 billion is a good number to shoot for.
Its a fun issue to google with hard numbers, even ranges difficult to find. As typical, the assumptions used to even opine are vaguely stated at best.
Dwindling/insufficient resources used to be talked about much more than it is now. My notion: its all about ENERGY, because with energy, you can turn lead into Gold, or any other substance you want.
……….and ENERGY…… is all about GREEN.
Yea, verily!
You know……….just thinking about 2 Billion, or any number less than 11 Billion, makes me wonder which will come first?
A==a recognition that AGW is going to kill us all and instigate a population collapse well below whatever the carrying capacity actually is,………..or…..
B==overpopulation as in too many people and steps taken to reduce the number.
Fun to compare the pros and cons of what essentially is resolved by nearly the same issues…all a matter of framing.
IOW—are people more accepting of AGW or reduced populations?…. and the social changes necessary to accomplish either?
That is a likely long term number, as population will grow and then slowly decline.
Everything you post is completely vacuous made up BS. Do you think the same way, or adopt a persona when posting?
Feel free to look up the UN population estimates. There is a peak expected later this century.
NFW–yes, I was unfair. I just completely dismissed your limited context: the UN estimates.
Yes, growing from 7 Billion to 11 Billion is a Decline because you mean a decline from projections using todays growth rate.
Does the UN study actually predict a “slow decline” and if so by just circularly hooking that to mere birth rates alone?
………….BECAUSE…….. the point of this thread really has become the recognition that there is going to be a COLLAPSE of human numbers at some time in the future…NOT a slow decline. I think AGW will do it, but so does “any” model of carrying capacity. CC comes from population studies of other species that “famously” show a steady state population of X, then something changes (usually hoomans killing off all natural preditors), that population booming to a multiple of X and then weirdly a population collapse to a new stable population below X. Never a slow decline, never a return to X.
Relevant vs Irrelevant. See the difference? Its like responding to Peedo.
I wasn’t comparing growth rates, just that the population is going to peak in a few generations, so an eventual growth rate of <0.
I have no idea what rate you mean by collapse. The majority of people alive now will probably be dead in 50 years, certainly in most European countries.
Let’s say 500 million for the US, then account for total land area about 15 times as much if you exclude Antarctica, and you are at about 7.5 billion.
Real harm the Pope is doing is by calling for action against global warming.
http://drroyspencer.com/2015/01/to-the-gop-and-the-pope-forcing-higher-energy-prices-on-the-poor-is-immoral/
Nothing but made up agruments: “I’m referring to those who believe that wind and solar really do provide reasonably priced, large scale alternatives to fossil fuels.” /// who says THAT?????
Well if no one says that, then you are back to his statement about higher energy prices.
Yes….a true statement. Always good to stick with the truth…………..Ahem: that is the starting block……..not the finish line.
By the way, the Catholic Church does support birth control.
Well, if you call abstinence, the rhythm method and condoms birth control. As far as I know, they don’t approve of “the pill”.
In any event, the way to decreased breeding like rabbits is either education and economic growth or totalitarianism as in China. I prefer the former.
They don’t approve of condoms.
That figures.
Protestantism and French Ticklers
https://youtube.com/watch?v=SwFncfrA8pY
Perhaps the objection to ‘the pill’ is that the inventor was a racist who was trying to reduce the number of minorities. Even held meetings with the KKK about it.
I’m talking about birth control that works.
I gotta say that’s a big yawn.
Anyone who actually “believes” the crap from any clergy of ridiculously dressed leaders who still pine for the stone ages probably isn’t listening anyway. That is, unless these leaders are appealing to the animal side of things.
Personally, I don’t know anyone who says they want to fuck less. I don’t know anyone who says they want less money either. EVEN THE POPE!
(Do I really need to bring up the sex scandals these church/mosque leaders have been involved in and are STILL involved in — or their money?)
One of the best articles I have read in a long time:
https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-paradoxes-that-threaten-to-tear-modern-cosmology-apart-d334a7fcfdb6
Only one page. Easy to read. True paradoxes going to the heart of our existence.
I don’t have a clue. Does kind of tug at me to become a hedonist….which is closer to devo than Man of Science. The ebb and flow of being human.
Pretty wild bobbo, sure makes me feel small, us humans on this little planet circling this little star in this vast universe…
Speaking of religious topics, a mom in Tennessee outraged about a Satanic symbol on a school bus!!!!
http://wmcactionnews5.com/story/27802693/controversy-over-possible-pentagram-symbol-on-mid-south-bus
Probably the same people who wouldn’t have a license plate on their car with “666” on it.
These are the kind of people we’re working with trying to be adults and having a government of, by, and for the people…
But as someone once said, if you took all the idiots out of the legislature, it wouldn’t be a representative body.
Is this the real reason Mark Perkel protested Nancy Pelosi, that she is a mother of five?
It is the same one.
You need to have Catholics breeding more to make up for the liberals’ death spiral. To balance Sex and the City cast someone else would have to bear 7 children just to keep population stable.
Makes sense for Japan, but somehow even Catholic Italy is losing population.
Civilization has a problem. Big families used to be required: lots of hands for working the farm, and some spare kids because a few always died young. But now, in civilized countries, kids are expensive luxury items. And check this out: the debate on whether poor people have the right to have children:
http://prospect.org/article/do-poor-women-have-right-bear-children
In “civilized” countries with lots of social services, this question might become a serious issue. Is having as many children as you want a fundamental right? But this raises another question: as blue-collar jobs are vanishing to robots and outsourcing, is the average 100-IQ person even employable?
I think the Muslims and Africans coming to the more “civilized” countries will, after a generation or two, come to the same realization that children are expensive and stop have so many. It’s an obvious fact that richer countries have lower birthrates.
Coupled with that, we have the Capitalist system, which depends on growth growth growth, grow or die, with exponential interest rates baked directly into the system. What happens when the population stops growing and we don’t constantly have more and more people to buy the sh*t we produce?
Civilization is headed for a fall, or at least a huge change.
Google “stop having children you can’t afford” and “discourage poor people from having children” and you’ll get some interesting results.
Yes, we know liberals like to control the lives of poor people.
This is exactly why missionaries are all over third world countries handing out bibles and rice when they should be handing out rice and condoms.
Just consider for a moment how skewed the global income inequality numbers look with the world’s poorest breeding like rabbits and all the first world nations having less kids each generation.
More mouths to feed and more glory to the invisible disapproving sky-father!
The security state & its corporate war profiteers thrive on their black-ops labor market, into which they hemorrhage unaccountable billion$ of our taxes along with phony-baloney cyberdollars, “printed” out of thin air.
All those up-to-no-goodnik jobs that should never have been created in the first place, carried out by people that didn’t need to be born. But just keep crankin’ ’em out, folks. Laissez les bontemps rouler.
Malthusian theory refuted by man himself
Three young local national wiman were in the living room eating chocolate, us foreigner around the beer fridge discuss how to get more. The red headed frenchman and the irish con-man slipped down the backstair. My job was to explain kitchen silence.
‘of course they bree’d like ratz’ The frenchmans lady fell silent:
The choclolate eating ladies explained to me, that they had been discussing merit of raising children in current local language or !
My arguement is: mother/child is kind of prime-mover
by the time my catholic veil was see through and pop-corn flying , kitchen beer fridge was restocked and the bank-rob plan could continue.
P.S hostess is from copenhagen-class whoms’ family sell second-hand childrens cloths tax-freee at market
PPs host did four yrs for bank rob and also same dublin-class
ppps the french connection in Odence denark is untenable
pppps : my local national biblebelt woman and i had less than 2.1 immediate offspring
Pope. Rhymes with Hope and Nope.
Given the last three things he has said in public…… did you intentionally skip over: dope? ……. and not the good kind!
Piss Poor No Hope Dope
Cries for the Poor, Dressed in Gold
Only the Nope Pope.
((Now….the Limerick on meeting that mute and blind young woman…………THAT is a poem)
How else are we supposed to outbreed those darn Muslims?
Maybe with superior ideas. Religion isn’t genetic.
NewFormatSux says:
1/25/2015 at 12:09 pm
I wasn’t comparing growth rates, just that the population is going to peak in a few generations, so an eventual growth rate of <0. /// Ummm….just in this sentence "an eventual growth rate of <0. How is that not comparing growth rates?????
I have no idea what rate you mean by collapse. /// Collapse: intransitive verb. 1 : to fall or shrink together abruptly and completely. Using your orientation–a very negative precipitous "growth" (sic) rate.
The majority of people alive now will probably be dead in 50 years, /// my gut is in agreement, but its an easy google:
Average Age Worldwide Today: 28.4
Life Expectancy in China and India for a 30 yo is less than 50 years. Close and the methodology is a total wag, but yeah probably most people alive today will be dead in 50 years.
Now….why especially Europe? Adding in some special events? Why won't immigration of Muslims make Europe one of the most populated regions 50 years from now?
Your thoughts?
certainly in most European countries.
Because Europe has less youth and more old people, just like Japan. That’s why there is no collapse of population, because it takes time for all the old people to die, even while there is no youth to replace.
you are the one talking about increase from 7 to 11 mill, I am pointing out that at some point the growth rate goes to <0, thus no problem of overpopulation.
Your logic is impecable. (sarc/off)
Do you know what carrying capacity is?
Do you think it is exactly 11 Billion or higher or lower?
I think the smart money is on lower. At least Perkel and I agree.
Actually==if you just look at current technology/consumption, we are WAY PAST our carrying capacity right now which is why we are using up sequestered carbon/ancient water or ground water reserves and so forth. All that has to change asap and that doesn’t even take into account AGW and other obvious probably/certain ipacts to the carrying capacity.
You got some reading to do NFS.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/worldgr.png
What notion do you think that graph supports?
Evidently, you are firmly resolute in not understanding what carrying capacity/population collapse/the threat of AGW actually even MEANS, before you dog bark against it.
Hmmmm….start with understanding what a “projection” is. Such items exactly represented by your link, are based on ASSUMPTIONS. Now, guess what happens if any of those assumptions are wrong?
http://drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/worldgr.png
It’s obvious why the Eurinal population is crashing. They think it’s OK to not have a 3 car garage and a SUV. Nothing to live for…
P.S. I like bread.
Where did everybody go?
New name for this site: Dvorak Unplugged
How about a new article on Dvorak about how the Koch brothers and their fellow Republican plutocrats are planning to spend almost a BILLION dollars on the 2016 elections?
http://politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goal-114604.html
This spending is as big as the official R & D parties, making them essentially a third party… let’s call them the Plutocrat Party, and any Republican that gets elected with their help must put a (P) after their name instead of an (R). 🙂
And of course, the identities of the megarich donors are carefully hidden. Gee, I wonder why?
A couple of fun quotes from the article:
Of course, the Democrats have their own dark money groups… check out this article:
http://politico.com/story/2014/04/big-donor-secrecy-campaigns-fundraising-democrats-106186.html
Yup, dark money Democrats have come up with 30 million, just a bit less than the Koch’s 889 million.
But hey, look at the freedom in America, where anyone with a billion dollars can buy a president! Can’t get much more free than that! 🙄
Tom Steyer alone spent 74 million, so you need to get a better source.
Yup, he did, though we’re talking about anonymous donors, not public donors. At least he had the balls to admit who he was and said what he wanted up front, as opposed to all those rich Republican cowards hiding behind the Koches.
And that makes it OK that anonymous Republicans want to spend close to a billion in 2016? You and your fellow “conservatives” are good with that?
So it’s not the Koch bros buying the election, but a group of other people who are sending their money to the Koch bros.
Obama spent that much in the last election. Why are you OK with that?
The D’s and R’s both spent a ton of money trying to get their guy elected. What we have here is a third party group taking advantage of the right-wing Supreme Court 5 gutting campaign financing rules, spending as much as the D’s and the R’s.
Again I’ll ask, are “conservatives” OK with a small group of plutocrats trying to buy the election? You see anything wrong with that? Why are you avoiding the question?
Actually, we have no idea how many plutocrats are working with the Koches to buy the election, because the Koches have worked very hard to hide the names of people who have given them money. Now why would they do that? Sounds kind of shady, doesn’t it?
So you billion vs 30 million is obviously wrong. Get some real numbers.
http://washingtonpost.com/politics/liberal-donors-eye-new-long-term-investments-in-states-and-new-voters-to-boost-democrats/2014/05/04/0433e53a-d20f-11e3-9e25-188ebe1fa93b_story.html
From the following article:
http://washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html
Why are these rich Republicans hiding? What’s wrong with openly professing their support for Republicans and trying to buy^H^H^H win elections?
You “conservatives” are OK with this subterfuge? Really?
Fine with me, given how Obama is sending the IRS after Republican donors.
Oh dear, Fox “news” strikes again. That was discredited long ago out here in the real world. The IRS went after all kinds of “non-profit” groups, not exclusively conservative ones.
But even if it was true, that makes it OK in your mind for shady plutocrats to try to buy the presidency.
Wow, the Fox is strong with this one… 🙄
So who leaked the Kochs tax returns to Austin Goolsbee?
Come on, explain it to this dumb librul how letting the Koch brothers and their shadowy accomplices buy elections will be so much better for the average American.
I’m all ears.
Phydeau—you obviously don’t understand dog whistle politics. There is NO question and answer, no dialogue, no analysis, no….dare I say….thinking on any issue. There is only the Dog Whistle. You blow the whistle: “Obama….whatever.” and you get the bark in reply. There are many whistles, you are blowing one now but only one response.
Imagine how much more complicated it would be for Republican dogs if Obama had not been born in Kenya?
So it goes. I will give it to NFS. As mongrel as the lot, but at least a full throated bark. Not like so many others of their ilk.
Sad, because “better policies” are reached through a good healthy exchange of ideas. Instead we have congress. I see that picture of Dogs playing poker, but its our legislature barking.
fun to watch Huckleberry blow up right out of the gate. Looks like it is Jeb to me. He could even win what with Hillary so buttoned up she can’t say shit until its group tested.
america.