Population Research Institute

1. 66

   Make Moneyposted 14 years ago

   Myth
   For more than 100 years, alarmist scientists have been perpetrating a myth - the myth is the world is overpopulated.  This myth is based on faulty math, and flawed science and reasoning.  It has never been true.
   Read POP 101. http://www.pop.org/
   
   Obama Supports Kidnapping in China
   To the tune of $50 million
   
   Blocks
   
   The UNFPA Exposed in Four Videos

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Lita - I was in bed!
      
      Where do we start.
      
      The entire site is written by a pro-life group, creating an initial bias in the work. Just like expecting Exxon or Greenpeace to produce unbiased work about global warming. The research is not independent therefore needs to be evaluated accordingly.
      
      I had a look at some of the 'research' papers - The one about 'World Population Implosion' has no references, a basic flaw in any academic paper. In fact, there are no references in any of the work that I looked at, therefore it cannot be taken seriously. It is pseudoscience - if they are convinced that their research is valuable, they will reference it and open it up to peer review.
      
      I have no opinion either way on population growth, but before making statements such as 'myth' and 'faulty math,' you need to look at proper research rather than what amount to op-eds.
      
      Unless you bring something concrete to the table, then I am not convinced.

      replyreport
      1. 66

         Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe you didn't look at POP 101 Sufi.  To the contrary;
         
         Part 1. The White Pestilence sights 12 outside sources.
         
         Part 2. The Malthusian Delusion and the Origins of Population Control sights 29 outside sources.
         
         Part 3. The Chinese Model sights 7 outside sources plus 3 PRI Reviews.
         
         Part 4: Out of Africa: The Case of Nigeria sights 10 outside sources plus 2 PRI Reviews.
         
         Part 5. Human Rights and Reproductive Wrongs sights 4 outside sources plus 12 PRI Reviews.
         
         With more to come.  We can't forget the Reproductive Rights and Wrongs.  Quotes;
         
         
         True the Population Research Institute was founded by Father Paul Marx in 1989 who is in retirement but remains active as the chairman of PRI’s board.  The President of PRI is Steven W. Mosher who in 1979, was the first American social scientist to visit mainland China.  Mr. Mosher was a pro-choice atheist at the time, but witnessing these traumatic abortions led him to reconsider his convictions and to eventually become a practicing, pro-life Roman Catholic.
         
         Those in denial may need double Ouzos cause this is not going away.
         
         To the contrary Mark, tksensei has made constructive comments.  He among many have pointed out your one track senile repeat rants.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            Mike - you are missing the crux of what I said. Your original argument was that overpopulation was a myth and that the math was flawed. There is nothing on that website to back that up, and the research that you showed me gives very weak sources, from non-peer reviewed work or from very old research. (1919 and 1921 are a little old) There are no papers from scientifically published journals, so is little more than opinion.
            
            That was my point of issue - the onus is on you to convince me that you are correct by providing good research to back up your claims.
            
            I am not partisan in this - If somebody advocating population control started a thread using equally weak evidence, my response would be exactly the same. No double ouzo needed for denial, Mike, because there is nothing worth denying.
            
            Most of the  research on there is about denying human rights - that is a completely different issue. Every single quote that you just gave me revolves around forced sterilization or forced abortion. That is a political and social issue, and certainly worth looking at.
            
            You see where I am coming from - you should have started your post stating that it was a human rights issue, not a population issue.

            replyreport
            1. 66

               Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               I didn't put these words in your mouth.
               
               

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  The Whole Post:
                  
                  Mike - you are missing the crux of what I said. Your original argument was that overpopulation was a myth and that the math was flawed. There is nothing on that website to back that up, and the research that you showed me gives very weak sources, from non-peer reviewed work or from very old research. (1919 and 1921 are a little old) There are no papers from scientifically published journals, so is little more than opinion.
                  
                  That was my point of issue - the onus is on you to convince me that you are correct by providing good research to back up your claims.
                  
                  I am not partisan in this - If somebody advocating population control started a thread using equally weak evidence, my response would be exactly the same. No double ouzo needed for denial, Mike, because there is nothing worth denying.
                  
                  Most of the  research on there is about denying human rights - that is a completely different issue. Every single quote that you just gave me revolves around forced sterilization or forced abortion. That is a political and social issue, and certainly worth looking at.
                  
                  You see where I am coming from - you should have started your post stating that it was a human rights issue, not a population issue.
                  
                  Somehow, you managed to get from that to saying that I am an advocate of population control. I stated that I have no opinion either way, yet you choose to take words out of context.
                  
                  
                  
                  I think that you will find that I said nothing of the sort - these forum posts are here for all to read - anybody can see that you are putting words in my mouth and making slanderous assumptions about my position.
                  
                  I will say it one last time:
                  
                  I have no opinion either way on population growth. Is that clear enough, or do you want to continue twisting things?

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     This is standard practice I'm afraid Sufi. They learn it in special schools.
                     
                     Mike is particularly good at it. I say "I favor a woman's right to choose an abortion," they hear "I want to kill babies."
                     
                     As for the dolphin-hating - welcome to the club, your membership details are in the post.

                     replyreport
   2. 66

      Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      No matter what some are trying to say this thread was not originally meant to try to over turn Roe v Wade in the U.S., about religious beliefs or attempting to change someone's mind if they choose to have an abortion.
      
      This thread was originally meant to show the myth that the world is overpopulated and the evils of eugenics and social engineering.
      
      No matter what some think, the Population Research Institute does give information to support their claim that it is a myth that the world is overpopulated.  On the previous page I posted a Population Research Institute quote concerning the U.N. Population Division.
      
      If you don't believe what the Population Research Institute is saying regarding the U.N. Population Division then go to the U.N Population Division web site yourself.  If you choose Population or Population Density for a country from this web site you will find that the numbers are either stabilizing, stabilized or in some cases on the way to decreasing.
      
      I would definitely agree with Dunn about population congestion for the reasons he gives.
      
      For the others, please stay on topic.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Their mission - from their website:
         
         "Expose the relentless promotion of abortion, abortifacient contraception, and chemical and surgical sterilization in misleadingly labeled “population stabilization,” “family planning,” and “reproductive health” programs. "
         
         Sheesh make money - at least make the lies a little more believable. We don't go for the talking snake around here. It is not the middle ages anymore.

         replyreport
2. 59

   tksenseiposted 14 years ago

   Good point, good post.

   replyreport
3. 81

   SweetiePieposted 14 years ago

   Japan is already experiencing a down ward population trend in the coming years as many working women are putting off marriage and having children.
   
   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 03194.html

   replyreport
4. 59

   tksenseiposted 14 years ago

   Not "going to," it's already happening.

   replyreport
5. 0

   Leta Sposted 14 years ago

   Darn those alarmist scientists!  Sufi, are you out there to take care of this one?
   
   

   replyreport
6. 66

   apekshaposted 14 years ago

   India is on 2nd position...
   I am not happy...
   Why people dont understand the fact...
   some people are aware n some are not yet...
   thanks ...for awareness

   replyreport
7. 80

   ngurecoposted 14 years ago

   Mr. Make Money, that is not a myth but the plain truth. Unfortunately no sane politician will dare dispute it because they do not want to commit political suicide. The majority of the people want to be told it’s a myth. The media knows it and their business is making money through sales. "Mr. Make Money, you are very right that 1 + 1 = 3"
   
   
   
   There are only two people who can fit on the above sofa set (planet earth). If you put five they won't fit but you will get conflict.
   
   Did you know that more than 90% of all human conflicts have something to do with weather, resources and overpopulation? It may be a country fighting another country over oil, it might be people fighting over who is an illegal alien (polite diplomacy: undocumented worker), people fighting over water, people fighting over grazing land, people fighting over firewood, people fighting over toilets, etc., etc.
   
   The bitter truth is: overpopulation is the mother of all poverty.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      flread45posted 14 years agoin reply to this

      replyreport
8. 62

   BristolBoyposted 14 years ago

   Also all environmental problems are caused by too high a population.  At the present level of consumption 3 earths would be needed to sustain the present population.  In addition to Japanese birth rates falling, a lot of Europe and former soviet countries are seeing a falling population, or population only being sustained by immigration.  Whilst people moan about over-population, it is good to see that countries such as China, Iran and Brazil are doing something about it (even if one is appalled by the methods).

   replyreport
9. 58

   Mark Knowlesposted 14 years ago

   It is quite frightening the lengths certain people will go to to promote their anti-abortion agenda. Seeing as part of their mission statement is to:
   
   "Expose the relentless promotion of abortion, abortifacient contraception, and chemical and surgical sterilization in misleadingly labeled “population stabilization,” “family planning,” and “reproductive health” programs. "
   
   Yet another reason to despise religionists. Nicely camouflaged though. Not as good as the "Creation Research Institute" but pretty funny nonetheless.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks, Mark.

      replyreport
   2. 64

      Kelsey Tallisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      I also noticed the "institute" was founded by a Catholic priest...

      replyreport
   3. 59

      tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

      Does EVERYTHING have to reduce to your fear of religion? Have you no idea of some of the things that have gone on in China under its population control policies?

      replyreport
      1. 64

         Kelsey Tallisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         Umm, fear and disdain are not the same thing... and anyone who thinks people should breed as much as they want to is not being either practical or environmentally responsible, imo.

         replyreport
      2. 58

         Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

         And you think a christian website devoted to preventing abortion in the USA is going to change something in China?
         
         But nicely diverted away from the real issue - lying religionists.
         
         I have yet to see you make any constructive comment whatsoever. I get that you do not like me - and will just rag on me at every opportunity, but seriously - if you don't have something to say - then don't say anything.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

            That was not the "real issue" until you brought it up again because you are as predictable in your one-note bigotry as your mirror-twin.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Hmmm. So - a religionist starts a post in the politics forum linking to another religionist website which lies to "prove" a point. And I am the one with the problem for pointing this out?
               
               What is the "real issue" in that case?

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                  I thought the issue the person who started this thread raised was whether or not 'population bomb' fears, en vogue for decades, were ever true and/or are today in light of declining birth rates in developed countries.
                  
                  
                  
                  Then you went into hysterics because you thought you spotted the Boogey Man of religion in your closet.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                     Guess you did not look at the site he linked to - or the words he copied from that site then?
                     
                     Because if you had done - you would have discovered that this is a bogus research site, started and run by a catholic priest and a group of religious pro-lifers.
                     
                     But don't let that get in the way of you distracting from the "real issue."
                     
                     Which seems to be dropping one line attacks on me.
                     

                     replyreport
10. 0

    Leta Sposted 14 years ago

    Thanks, Sufi...yeah, I guess sometimes you gotta sleep, .  Just looking at the links it didn't ring right to me, but somebody with a science background is more convincing and probably has more tools at his disposal to evaluate this kind of thing-- Those darn alarmists!!

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Hi Lita - You are a researcher, so your gut instincts are always worth listening to!
       
       Here is a link for you, the great Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. Good for separating science from pseudoscience - the above website fails them all!
       
       http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html
       
       I have signed up for the Hupfer challenge - this may make up a few articles.

       replyreport
       1. 64

          Kelsey Tallisposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Ooooh, I like that link, thanks!
          
          Good luck with challenge btw. Frankly, it gives me a headache just thinking about it... O_o.

          replyreport
          1. 79

             Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Carl Sagan - sorely missed.
             
             I have only signed up for 30 articles - I want to write a few about Greece, but thinking of 30 may be tough! This will give me another 10!

             replyreport
11. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 14 years ago

    It is rather interesting how often religious beliefs make people lie. This website is basically lying and fabricating BS "research" to fit a religious belief.
    
    I have to say this is one of the many reasons I do not believe in either a god - or religion.
    
    Make Money, of course, ran with their ball because he feels he should have an opinion on what a woman does with her body.
    
    And will lie to promote the idea.
    
    Thank you once again Mike for reminding me why I hold certain beliefs dear.
    
    I thought bearing false witness was a sin. Silly me...........

    replyreport
    1. 60

       JYOTI KOTHARIposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       "I thought bearing false witness was a sin. Silly me..........."
       Mark, I am agreed. However you have admitted that there is something that is sin.
       
       And as you thought bearing false witness is sin, I thought abortion is a sin.
       
       Do you agree?
       
       Thanks,
       Jyoti Kothari

       replyreport
       1. 58

          Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Not in the slightest. I do not believe in god therefore I am sinless. Personally - I do not like liars. I prefer - on the whole - to tell the truth.
          
          Abortion is a decision not made lightly, and there will be inevitable consequences whatever the choice made. I do feel strongly that the only one able to make that decision is the woman concerned. I also feel strongly that she should be allowed to make that decision.

          replyreport
          1. 86

             Everyday Miraclesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Exceptionally well stated, Mark.

             replyreport
          2. 60

             JYOTI KOTHARIposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Why do you think that only the women can take the decision? Are men not involved? How can you ignore the right of the child to be born?
             What do you think if a murderer speaks truth he is sinless?
             Thanks,
             Jyoti Kothari

             replyreport
             1. 58

                Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                A sin is an offense against god. I do not believe in god, therefore I am sin free.
                
                It is not a child. It is a cluster of cells. And there are laws in most countries against late term abortions of viable fetuses.
                
                It is the woman's choice because she is the one that grows it for 9 months - and realistically - she is the one who will look after it for the next 16 years.
                
                Sure - if you are married and living a life together - the man should have some input. But I would never force my wife to have a baby she did not want.

                replyreport
12. 0

    Leta Sposted 14 years ago

    Not to take over the thread discussing the hub challenge--  But I was attempting to do 1 hub a day for a week or so there, so something is in the air. But!  I got to doing something I'm interested in and want to research and it has taken 3 days--thus far--and I'm not done yet!
    
    Which may have convinced me already of the folly of my ways...Dunno, I'm >thinking< about doing the challenge.  I have a few hours to decide, yet.  :p

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Well, as I mentioned to Sufi earlier. I am sticking with 400 word adsense magnets - probably on topics I am familiar with. I certainly do not have time to research 100 topics in 30 days.

       replyreport
13. 60

    trooper22posted 14 years ago

    Humans are large omnivores.  Other than our ability to communicate and record findings, we are no better than any other creature on the planet.  We must eat; therefore we must either forage or hunt to find our food.  Since the vast majority of the planet has EVOLVED into an intensive agricultural society, we are able to produce food in great quantity.  The problem with intensive agriculture is that it requires large tracks of land to accomplish this.  In earlier periods of Human EVOLUTION intensive agriculture also required an extremely large labor pool.  This leads to big families out of necessity.  Now people born into an intensive agriculture society may not wish to work on the farm for a patriarch, so they may attempt to branch out.  This is discouraged via tradition, religion, fear, and violence.  The exception to this rule is when the people become too many and are forced to expand, or exile un-wanted or un-useful people. 
       Intensive Agricultural (IG), Horticultural(H), and occasionally Pastoralists(P) are the most damaging, and aggressive peoples on the planet, while those that have remained in the Hunter/Gatherer(H&G) state of being live within their environments without damaging it and rarely make war on their neighbors.  Peoples the world over that have evolved from intensive agricultural, horticultural, and pastoral societies never seem to stop killing one another while denying the very fundamentals of biological existence.  The World is not flat, there are too many people, babies do not come from storks, and Nuclear Weapons were produced by Intensive Agricultural People.
    So one has to wonder, who is really closer to "god" the IA, H, P’s or the H&G’s?

    replyreport
14. 66

    Make Moneyposted 14 years ago

    Well no Sufi, just Part 2, about the Origins of Population Control sights old research which is obvious if you want to trace the origin of Population Control.
    
    All the other sources are not outdated at all.  For instance these are the sources for Part 1.
    
    
    There's nothing outdated there.

    replyreport
15. 66

    Make Moneyposted 14 years ago

    Mark the problem is in a lot of cases around the world it is not the woman/mother that is making the decision for either abortion or sterilization.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       I have no argument with that. I do not think anyone should be forced to have an abortion.
       
       But - look at this site and you will see that their goal is to make abortion illegal in the USA. And they can not nor will they ever have any influence in places where that is the case.
       
       Using these examples is merely - politics. Otherwise known as lying.
       
       

       replyreport
       1. 66

          Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          No Mark this 1 minute video clearly shows what the Population Research Institute is all about.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obwms_A9UZY

          replyreport
16. 79

    Sufidreamerposted 14 years ago

    That particular piece is atrocious, Mike
    
    The guy has decided upon his position before writing the piece and has sifted the evidence to suit. That is not scientifically acceptable, and it does not convince me in the slightest. I am not saying that you are wrong, only that you have to convince me with better evidence than that. You made the statement that population growth is not happening, so you need to bring facts and statistics to the table, not opinion.
    
    Put it this way - if I wrote an academic paper that was that flawed, I would not be paid. It is biased. I noticed Al Gore's name in there - would you trust a paper about global warming written by Al Gore? No, because he has ulterior motives, just as that site does - It is poor quality science.
    
    As for the rest of it, I wholly agree that any forced abortions or sterilizations are wrong - that is a different area completely. That is certainly worth looking at.

    replyreport
    1. 66

       Make Moneyposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Al Gore is saying the same as you Sufi, "Look up the speeches of former Vice President Al Gore, who warned of an “environmental holocaust without precedent”--a “black hole” in his words--that will engulf us if we do not stop having babies."
       
       Sorry Sufi but your personal opinion or Al Gore's means nothing compared to the U.N. Population Division reports sighted.
       
       It seems the United Nations Fund for Population Activities that Obama has started to fund again runs counter to the U.N. Population Division.
       
       

       replyreport
       1. 79

          Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Mike - Stop putting words into my mouth. When did I mention anything remotely like that?  You are setting up a strawman for all to see.
          
          My words:
          
          "I noticed Al Gore's name in there - would you trust a paper about global warming written by Al Gore? No, because he has ulterior motives, just as that site does"
          
          That makes it pretty clear that I have no time for Al Gore either, but somehow you have managed to twist that completely around. I cannot stand the man.
          
          My words:
          
          "I have no opinion either way on population growth,"
          
          "I am not saying that you are wrong, only that you have to convince me with better evidence than that."
          
          Yet you have managed to twist that into a 'personal opinion' that suits your argument - build up a strawman just so that you can burn it down.
          
          I am actually pretty open-minded about the whole thing, as I already made clear, but that site does not provide anything that will convince me. Simple, and no amount of manipulating what I say will change that

          replyreport
17. 64

    Mishaposted 14 years ago

    You are a godless communist child molesting dolphin hater Sufi, and that's enough

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Sufidreamerposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Forgot about that - how can I live with myself.

       replyreport
18. 60

    Dunn Egginkposted 14 years ago

    Sorry if I'm a little too idealistic, but it looks to me that destructive industrial development is what is causing the both population congestion and the environmental crisis.
    
    It's not the people who are the problem, but the trends, which are basically a magnification of middle age European cities defacating and throwing it in the streets. This can be blamed on a lot of monopolizing selfishly motivated corporations.
    
    I will simply say that since the prohibition of hemp, and accompanying "drug war" Americans and in turn the world have been fed a continuous and rapidly growing stream of toxic synthetics, petrochemical products, destructive wood paper industry, damaging pharmaceuticals and now, a whole lot of unhealthy practically fake food to eat. So it's no wonder that the masses have continued to ignore how bad their world is becoming. Who would want to face the music and try and sing a different toon, when you can bang your head against the wall in harmony with the materialistic, junk food free for all. The mainstream media ofcourse has been the headliner act laying the soundtrack. Yeah it's time for a change. Whether we think we're overpopulated or not we are about to be seriously thinned out. Is it necissary? Only because "we the people" haven't looked in a mirror since the 1700s.

    replyreport
19. 79

    Uninvited Writerposted 14 years ago

    Didn't you know...it's all a conspiracy...you can't trust anyone...you might as well put on your tin hat and build a bomb shelter...

    replyreport
20. 66

    Make Moneyposted 14 years ago

    Yeah exactly Mark, deceptive eugenics and social engineering practices around the world.
    
    What does that have to do with you and your snake.

    replyreport
21. 59

    tksenseiposted 14 years ago

    EVERY thread, no matter what the actual topic, is about that guy's terrible fear of religion as far as he is concerned.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       You >may< be right to some extent, TK.  However, some posters may have had experience with some others to kind of know where they are coming from, if you know what I'm saying.

       replyreport
22. 60

    Dunn Egginkposted 14 years ago

    We just have to use both sides of the brain. Then we can make sense of the conflicting messages. Polution and exploitation of resources is a direct result of industrial development. Yes, the population of consumers helps to feed the monstrocity, but I don't think the general public was naturally moving towards railroad tracks and automobiles, regardless of population growth. The same goes for cities and factories. They are not built by people having babies. They are built by entrepreneurs who invest in land near a trade route intersection, build new businesses and sell or rent to other real estate developers who then sell the dream of a booming economy and plenty of jobs for anyone looking to make a reliable income. The rest is history. My grandfather, Bernardus Eggink, founded Denver City, Texas and Wasson Texas oil field towns from nothing but an oil field. They're not big cities, but the business made the city, not the people. As far as I know, before the industrial revolution population density was not an issue. Correct me if I'm wrong.
    
    I am very interested in theories about why the population boomed so much in the last 200 years, especially in third world countries. It seams to me that exessive war and stress, combined with the excitement of the rapidly changing world causes people to spend more time having sex. Maybe it's to avoid depression and boredom, and in some cases emotional drama leading to passionate fealings of attachment and desire. It is a known fact that during a war pregnancy rates usually spike. So maybe we can blame the warmongers for the population and the morbid conspiracy to depopulate the flock. Sorry for the Orwellian comment, but I think it's apropriate since everyone here is into population issues. What are we a bunch of Rothschilds and Jesuits? Just kidding.
    
    I think overpopulation is a side effect of over-development and can deffinitely be dangerous to the people, but how do you fix it Mark? My pet solution is flourishing green economies that give people inspiration and satisfaction with their lives and less of a desire to either rapidly reproduce or party out their youthful years causing unplanned pregancies. I think the only way for that to happen is for real creativity to become as popular as the garbage that our TV and radio is selling right now. But it looks like the current pop culture is soon going to burn itself out anyway so it's just a matter of time before a major paradigm shift.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Unfortunately - we need to completely rethink and redo our approach. Which means a complete change of values. I have written several times about it and there is a good group here with some ideas.
       
       http://www.storyofstuff.com/
       
       The first step needs to be changing our consumption habits. That is not about to happen any time soon. Just look st the lengths the Government Inc is going to to restart the system and get "growth," again.
       
       Any fool can see that this is an unsustainable model we have right now, but the powers that be are trying desperately hard to keep it up.
       
       Also - people like the person who started this thread to promote nonexistent science that backs up his religious conviction that abortion is wrong are not helping the situation.
       
       Semi-fortunately,  the "credit crisis," is far far worse than anyone is admitting to and I think some time within the next 2-7 years we will be forced to look at a new system. Hopefully without any major wars.
       
       We shall see.

       replyreport
       1. 59

          tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Religious conviction! AAAAaaaaah!!! Run away! Scary, scary religion!!!

          replyreport
       2. 59

          tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah ok, let's check back in ten years and see if you were right.
          
          ...

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

               Can't really let that slide...  You know sometimes it is a fallacy that what you see as objectionable as far as logic in another is actually connected to their reasoning in other areas. (I cannot remember the exact logic term in Latin for this, lol--maybe later.) Making it not actually THEIR problem...
             
             Similar stories have played out over history with cultures over the eons.  This isn't exactly hard science I'm presenting--and I do have some theories there, but since I cannot back them up with stats and references, I'll give a historical analogy:
             
             Phoenix, AZ.  Almost to over-capacity as we speak.  This agreed upon by scientists living here.  Not sustainable, except for the vast amount of water being piped to it every day.  A city that was oddly enough, built almost directly upon that of the Hohokam civilization's former structures--even using the very aqua ducts they used to transport water to the desert.  A civilization that was wiped out due to lack of sustainability.
             
             Interesting comparison study.
             
             And for hard numbers...I do find it very interesting that Warren Buffet also supports population control--sees over population as the largest problem we confront today and put a lot of money behind it.

             replyreport
             1. 59

                tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                What about that do you find very interesting?

                replyreport
                1. 0

                   Leta Sposted 14 years agoin reply to this

                   A few things!  But gotta go to work right now.  You know, $$.  Makes the world go round. 

                   replyreport
       3. 60

          Dunn Egginkposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah. I tend to go with the Peter Schiff view of the economic structure and I believe he has the best understanding of what really makes the money world go around.
          
          http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … &hl=en
          
          I see local green economies as being the only real solution to the slide toward an increase in poverty and eventualy widespread piracy. Hemp seams to be the perfect feedstock to keep the green economies well fed.
          
          http://www.nycamp.org/hip

          replyreport
          1. 58

             Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             Well it is certainly one component that should be taken into consideration. I must say I don't know enough about that to be sure. I do know this BS about "green" being uneconomical is a joke. If you take into consideration the billions of tax breaks and subsidies given to the "grey" industries - it doesn't pan out the same way.

             replyreport
23. 58

    Mark Knowlesposted 14 years ago

    
    
    Go for it. I have found that particular troll to be not worth responding to. I have yet to see her say anything that was not downright antagonistic.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Thus sayeth the pot.

       replyreport
       1. 58

          Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          Oh goody - another one with nothing worth saying.

          replyreport
          1. 60

             nicompposted 14 years agoin reply to this

             I made my point. Nothing more needed to be said.

             replyreport
24. 0

    Leta Sposted 14 years ago

    He's a He, Mark...  I think an ESL teacher or something from MA.  And yeah, not given to long paragraphs.  Also admits to being 'sleazy,' in another forum post.  Probably a slippery libertarian, lol.

    replyreport
    1. 58

       Mark Knowlesposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       LOL
       
       I couldn't tell from the photo and the forum posts I have seen did not induce me to look at his profile page
       
       I am a libertarian though so maybe we have something in common.

       replyreport
25. 59

    Pete Maidaposted 14 years ago

    I guess the thousands of studies that clearly prove the by 2050 we will need the resources of two Earths to support the population are all wrong.  I find that hard to believe.  The industrialized countries have seemed comfortable so far but that is about to change.  The emerging economies of India and China are strong and they want their share of the good life.  Went those large population center crank up their consumption the resources are will be stretched quite thin.

    replyreport
    1. 59

       tksenseiposted 14 years agoin reply to this

       Do you have a link to one of them?

       replyreport
       1. 64

          Mishaposted 14 years agoin reply to this

          LOL I wanted to ask the same question, yet decided it is too much trouble

          replyreport
26. 66

    Make Moneyposted 14 years ago

    Yeah inquiring minds want to know Pete.

    replyreport