User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 142

  1. #41
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Because I was skeptical I decided to take an AP environmental science course and came to realize the extensive nature of evidence in favor of the climate change theory.

    I find it intriguing that someone changed opinion because he went deeper into thing or look at it from a different angle.


    I wonder how many people will say that I you are brainwashed now.

  2. #42
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    I find it intriguing that someone changed opinion because he went deeper into thing or look at it from a different angle.


    I wonder how many people will say that I you are brainwashed now.
    My path was the exact opposite. Of course, you believe I'm brainwashed by oil companies or whatever.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  3. #43
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mibnelius View Post
    This is correct in the short term.
    It's true over the lifespan of any individual, which greatly reduces the individual desire to have children.

    That having been said, in the long term, having more children will lead to greater financial prosperity.
    In aggragate, in the future. This is not an incentive for individuals, unfortunately.

    Firstly, after the parent retires, they can find themselves in a situation where they need support from their family.
    I calculate the present cost to a retiree to have a kid to be about 1.5 million. This is a current income of nearly double the average income your child would make around retirement (ie: child being ~30-40).

    Children are an inferior support mechanism, unfortunately.

    Secondly, the increased population provides a larger workforce, stimulating the local economy.
    I'm not sure this applies to individuals. Sure, the economy grows, but the "unit" per person doesn't really change significantly. A thousand people consuming and a thousand producing tends to mirror ten thousand consuming and ten thousand producing.

    Yes, it is more complicated than that, but it's not a linear connection... The individual will never make it up in his lifetime.

    If these people feel they need birth control, they need to figure out for themselves whether the risk of additional offspring or a constant supply of condoms will be more costly.
    I think that's pretty obvious. However the incentive to have sex exceeds the rational approach. All this does it make it available, so that the choice is present.


    Anyway, these are the pressures on individuals and why they aren't having kids. It's a fairly "rational" choice, in the sense that the value calculation of children now have a definite negative financial component to it. That opportunity cost is growing - it's directly related to the wealth of the country.


    (I was conservative in the use of the numbers above, FWIW. The numbers I ran when I got married showed the cost - for me individually - to be significantly higher. It only gets worse as you delve deeper, such as into time costs, etc.)

  4. #44
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,690

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    My path was the exact opposite. Of course, you believe I'm brainwashed by oil companies or whatever.
    You will probably be suprised but I don't think that. I think that you are making quite logical decisions based of what data you have and you stick to your guns.


    Here is why I think that.


    I think that oil complanies have less to do with this then many people claim. They have fingers in this but not that much.
    I can't deny that people who claim to be an environmentalists have used totally wrong approach when it comes to this.
    Almost all of them wanted some other changes in society to make a full change in every aspect of the society. The thing is that they asked too much so people just refused the entire idea in all of its aspects.
    This phenomenon is very hard to even grasp and even harder to accept but if you link it to some poliical options and ways of thinking that are foreign to people it is simply too much to swallow for one bite.




    Global warming (or climate change) is a technical problem that does not have too much common with political ideologies but it is used as a part of them.
    For example global warming is usually used as an accusation against USA as country and culture.

    What means thay polititians in the US can't even disscus the topic or share the dilemas with general public since entire idea is in the category "antidemocratic propaganda" and leftist plot, what in a way is true.
    The oil companies just had to push idea that entire thing is a lie and idea crashed down when it comes to general public in the US.


    The fact that China, India, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia as the countries with the biggest population out there and strong economic growth did not do anything about this is not mentioed enough. Since those few countries are creating much bigger problem then the US. They are exhaust about 50% more gasses then the US but they are also destroying habitats and organisms that are apsorbing those gasses.


    Then someone says "But they/we have so much larger population".
    That is true but how many of them are trying to limit population growth?
    Only China did something big when it comes ot this. I am sorry but it is counter productive to have families with 5+ childern no matter what happens.




    So if the opponents will not do anything about it there is no point in sacrificing the economy. Also other countries could gain the advantage because of this and it will be quite hard to persuade US public to cooperate.


    Also there is a fact that trade of fossil fuel is linked to Dollar which is the main reserve curreny in the world. So if something happens to it the world will go bankrupt. This is probably the main reason why people in high places in the world don't want to talk about this. Since changes that are needed would change so many things that no one wants to even talk about it.




    If you can't keep your house warm during the winter you have a problem.
    In a way this is not that much different in basic principle since it is technical problem. But this one managed to find its place in politics.


    This would never become such a controversy in the case that entire thing does not have so big magnitude what means that it can be used as a tool. With time the entire thing came in the same category as all those prophecies about the end of the world since some people were thinking that is goes well with their convictions.
    So everybody else who were sane accepted the idea as a nonsense or hoax.


    Another problem is that the entire thing is counter-intuitive and all the names for this phenomenon are wrong is many ways. Plus entire thing changes its efect(s) over the years and during each sesson.
    Because of this people can't link the name with what they see and sense, so they reject the idea as a lie/nonsense.


    In the case that I am not geology student I would probably not be so determined when it comes to this. Maybe I would not even pay attention to it. But my knowledge makes free from the bombastic headlines in a way that I can start to think independently. When you spend years in studing the Earth and its history everything looks quite different and it makes much more sense.

  5. #45
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    People are assets, not costs. Only in a centrally planned economy are people seen as costs.

    Ordinarily, people produce more than they consume (i.e. they are investments). Although it may be counter-intuitive, an increasing population actually promotes economic prosperity, because people are a good investment--the best investment--that an economy can make. Nothing increases our future ability to consume more than the inventive and varied uses of ourselves.

    When an economy is centrally planned, human capital is put to inefficient uses. When humans become a drain on resources controlled by bereaucrats, they are cast into gulags, allowed no more than one child, or whatever else.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  6. #46
    Guerilla Urbanist Brendan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    People are assets, not costs. Only in a centrally planned economy are people seen as costs.
    Dude, people cost money and resources, regardless of who's in charge. It may seem cold to put it that way, but it's the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Ordinarily, people produce more than they consume (i.e. they are investments). Although it may be counter-intuitive, an increasing population actually promotes economic prosperity, because people are a good investment--the best investment--that an economy can make. Nothing increases our future ability to consume more than the inventive and varied uses of ourselves.
    Yes, but space and resources are limited, and if we keep increasing our population, sooner or later we'll outgrow it.
    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    When an economy is centrally planned, human capital is put to inefficient uses. When humans become a drain on resources controlled by bereaucrats, they are cast into gulags, allowed no more than one child, or whatever else.
    Can we all agree to stop predicting the end of the world as we know it as a result of Democratic control of Congress and the White House? It's no better than feeling inspired every time Obama smiles.
    There is no such thing as separation from God.

  7. #47
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    3,187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post

    Can we all agree to stop predicting the end of the world as we know it as a result of Democratic control of Congress and the White House? It's no better than feeling inspired every time Obama smiles.
    No. It's not about feelings, it's about knowing what democrats want to do and how bad that is for the country, a knowledge and perspective that is unfortunately absent in the minds of the sheeple and automatons that sit in front of their entertainment boxes all day being spoon fed a bunch of bull shit by a media that is in the hands of the left. Then world wont end with the democrats, but you're liberty will. Most people don't seem to know where they've been or where they're going, so I'm sure they'll be quite indifferent anyway.

    Rest assured, the republicans aren't exempt from making shitty decisions, but it's the ideology of the extreme left in Washington (and some among us in this forum) that is so dangerous, eugenicists and all. Thank God people like this don't represent the general public. At least the general sheeple aren't THAT far gone.

  8. #48
    Guerilla Urbanist Brendan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    No. It's not about feelings, it's about knowing what democrats want to do and how bad that is for the country, a knowledge and perspective that is unfortunately absent in the minds of the sheeple and automatons that sit in front of their entertainment boxes all day being spoon fed a bunch of bull shit by a media that is in the hands of the left. Then world wont end with the democrats, but you're liberty will.
    Well, Idk about you, but my liberty will most likely increase because of the new administration.

    Technically, so will yours, but I don't think you swing that way.
    There is no such thing as separation from God.

  9. #49
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brendan View Post
    Dude, people cost money and resources, regardless of who's in charge. It may seem cold to put it that way, but it's the truth.
    Ordinarily, people cost resources in the same way that factory equipment costs resources, because both create more than they cost in the long run.

    Yes, but space and resources are limited, and if we keep increasing our population, sooner or later we'll outgrow it.
    Much later. We are very far from running out of space.

    In any case, what is a resource? A couple of hundred years ago oil was waste--not a resource. If someone discovered oil on their land they might actually pay for someone else to remove it. Even 50 years ago, a barrel of oil was less of a resource than it is today, that is, more can be achieved today for the same amount of black gooey stuff than before (for example, more goods can be transported over longer distances). It is actually possible for the amount of oil to be decreasing while the amount of oil-resource is increasing. Efficiency through the division of labour and specialisation can further increase the amount of oil-resource available from the same quantity of black gooey stuff.

    People are a resource, and we can increase the availability of resources by increasing the the population.

    Can we all agree to stop predicting the end of the world as we know it as a result of Democratic control of Congress and the White House? It's no better than feeling inspired every time Obama smiles.
    I did not mention the Democrats or Congress. I merely pointed out that in centrally planned economies people cease to be assets, and are either worked until death or forbidden from being born. (If someone cannot make use of factory equipment profitably, then it makes sense to allow it to depreciate until it is inoperable).
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6?
    Posts
    2,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    As a species I think it's more beneficial to keep populating. We will soon be able to make technological advances that will drastically change the way we use resources. I'm quite convinced a TRUE alternative form of energy will be developed, perhaps having an almost "free" quality to it in regards to availability and cost to any other aspect of human civilization. If we do develop such a thing, obviously it'll support a much greater population of people on the planet. As of now, there is no need for such a program. I find it to be offensive, and wonder what mentality she possesses that would motivate her to support such a thing. Or perhaps she's just pandering to special interest groups as ALL politicians do. sigh.
    The earth cannot sustain us indefinitely at our rate of consumption (not only of fuel but of food and water), and I see no evidence that the miracle that you describe is showing up any time soon. It behooves us to behave RESPONSIBLY.

    Furthermore, evolutionarily speaking, we have removed ourselves (largely) from natural selection and are existing because of technological advances. It seems to me that the fittest aren't the only ones surviving... that is not good for our species.

    And ECONOMICALLY speaking, YOU are just the type to berate people for using welfare and WIC. Does it not stand to reason that fewer babies being born in poverty may close a bit of the gap between the haves and the have-nothings? Does it not stand to reason that mothers who are educated about and use birth control have a better shot at getting themselves out of poverty? It certainly can't be a solution all on its own, but it is part of a solution to be sure.

    Birth control is good, y'all.


    UGH, and the "eugenics" thing is the most ridiculously racially charged thing I've ever seen you spout. It's about family planning, not sterilization.
    INFJ

    "I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

Similar Threads

  1. SCOTUS ruling clears the way to free birth control for women with religious employers
    By Kheledon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 05-20-2016, 11:34 PM
  2. [NT] So.. if life's a bitch, then am I wrong for trying to enjoy the ride?
    By mysavior in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 07-03-2011, 06:59 PM
  3. Was it politically expedient for Obama to accept the Nobel Peace Prize
    By Vizconde in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 169
    Last Post: 10-13-2009, 05:28 PM
  4. Happy Birth-Day to the MacBaby!
    By Geoff in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 01-18-2009, 11:26 PM
  5. Who/What is to blame for McCain's decline in the polls?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 07:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO