|
Posted by Matt Barrow on August 18, 2007, 1:37 am
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Nature has a way of limiting population growth of most any species.
>>> Mankind has, temporarily, gone beyond that bounds.
>>
>> Hardly.
>>
>> Humankind has been more propsperous and healthy than at anytime in
>> history.
>>
>>> One way or another, it will catch up with him. Either slowly in forms
>>> of famine and shrinking of resources; or a major calamity.
>>
>> Yeah, right. Paul Erlich pronouned the same thing and wound up looking
>> like an idiot.
>>
>>> Nature will fix the aftermath.
>>>
>>> Economically, you can't stagnate or shrink the population size and
>>> expect economic growth.
>>
>> Population demographics has very little to do with it. A small
>> free-market nation will always outproduce a large (or small) fascistic
>> one.
>>
>>> You can't make enough people care enough to contribute to such a manual
>>> fix to overpopulation (limiting birthrate to 2 per couple over many,
>>> many generations). It will have to happen on its own.
>>
>> It already is in a sense. Mark Styen has note that, outside the Muslim
>> segments, all populations are heading for rapid decrease. This is only a
>> factor if the next generations are expected to bail out older generations
>> and their profligit welfare/nanny states.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Capitalism is based on more. Of the more, more consumers is part of the
> equation to continue its growth.
Ummm...no.
It is based on expanding production; the number of participants is damn near
irrelevant. (Think: rising boat, not # of boats).
> It is also the basis for Social Security. If there's not more, the
> consumer contribution must increase both for consumer goods and Social
> Security. Its the same thing.
??? you talking about?
>
> To reduce such a needed contribution in a stagnant or reducing population,
> total purchase of consumer goods in dollars must decrease as well as
> Social Security benefits.
>
> Economics 101.
Econ 101 according to whom (or rather, what school?)
|