DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on November 07, 2008, 04:55:33 PM
-
Labor Dept: 240,000 jobs lost in Oct. Unemployment jumps to 6.5 percent.
-
Labor Dept: 240,000 jobs lost in Oct. Unemployment jumps to 6.5 percent.
What goes down must come back up.
Let's all hope for that, at least. Perhaps the next 8 years will show signs of growth and prosperity.
-
I hate to say this, but don't expect it in the 1st 4 years........outside of course an increase in Government jobs
-
I hate to say this, but don't expect it in the 1st 4 years........outside of course an increase in Government jobs
That's why I mentioned 8 years. I can't see anything but tightened belts for a lonnnnggg time.
-
Chances are, the electorate's not going to allow it to worsen over 8 Miss Cynthia, which is why Carter was only a 1 termer, with Reagan winning in a landslide, along with GOP executive control for another 12 years
-
Chances are, the electorate's not going to allow it to worsen over 8 Miss Cynthia, which is why Carter was only a 1 termer, with Reagan winning in a landslide, along with GOP executive control for another 12 years
No, you have that backwards in this case. Obama has had to clean up the mess from the previous administration. Obama IS the Reagan of the past in terms of trust, and reform. Let's just hope he can pull that off. EVERYONE loves him. They will not be so quick to just keep him in for four years...mark my words..he's in for 8!
-
naaaaa, I've seen the agenda, I've heard the rhetoric. It's Carter all over again, both in domestic & foreign policy. 1 term, misery index getting close to 20 is my prediction, with unemployment #'s in the double digits FOLLOWING Obama's efforts to "fix" the economy
-
Chances are, the electorate's not going to allow it to worsen over 8 Miss Cynthia, which is why Carter was only a 1 termer, with Reagan winning in a landslide, along with GOP executive control for another 12 years
No, you have that backwards in this case. Obama has had to clean up the mess from the previous administration. Obama IS the Reagan of the past in terms of trust, and reform. Let's just hope he can pull that off. EVERYONE loves him. They will not be so quick to just keep him in for four years...mark my words..he's in for 8!
I don't think that is a prediction any of us can make. Look at JFK, he was to be our political savior and he was gone in a blink of an eye. One has to wonder if he would still be held in such reverence had he survived his term in office?
Obama is about to face something that no other President has and that is conditions that could be compared to the perfect storm. It is going to be very difficult for him to keep that many balls in the air without severely pissing off some people. Americans thrive on instant gratification and he has already warned us that there would be none of that.
-
Oh no !
Unemployment has not reached these levels sinse Clinton was president.
-
Oh no !
Unemployment has not reached these levels sinse Clinton was president.
Manufacturing, Manufacturing, Manufacturing. When it when south... so did our economy. I was listening to the news today and I heard for every lost job at the big 3, 10 more in satellite companies would go with it.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008323790_automakers29.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008323790_automakers29.html)"If Ford or GM goes down, you take a 2 million-job hit" that also would dump hundreds of thousands of retirees on the federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., said David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research.
Chrysler and GM will be responsible for an estimated $90 billion in pension and health-insurance benefits by 2017."
Regarding the 90 billion in pensions and health insurance benefits.... before all of you heartless liberals get on your high horses... let's not forget that these people held up their contractual obligations for the car companies. It was agreed upon as part of their package.
-
I blame the auto industry's failure to make cars that get 100 miles to the gallon on its demise.
There's this guy on Morning Joe all the time (they call him "money party") and he was on MSNBC later and he was really ranting about how the government has somehow incentivized the auto industry to making cars that have lower gas mileage. Something about how SUV's are excluded from the mpg standards.
If my friend's Prius gets over 40, surely AMERICAN companies in all their powerful genius and ingenuity can make something that works better! RIGHT?!?!
-
If my friend's Prius gets over 40, surely AMERICAN companies in all their powerful genius and ingenuity can make something that works better! RIGHT?!?!
GM makes and sells a car in Europe that gets nearly 80mph. They cannot import it into the US because it violates EPA standards.
-
You're telling me that there is a law against cars having higher gas mileage?
:-\
-
You're telling me that there is a law against cars having higher gas mileage?
No, there is a law against having single cylinder diesel engines.
-
So Europe and the countries therein have more lax environmental laws than the US?
And we wonder why manufacturing jobs are sent overseas.
-
You're telling me that there is a law against cars having higher gas mileage?
No, there is a law against having single cylinder diesel engines.
To what purpose?
-
To what purpose?
Err, EPA.
Environmental Protection Agency.
I would say it has something to do with the environment.
-
Brass applies his fuzzy logic when he utters,"I blame the auto industry's failure to make cars that get 100 miles to the gallon on its demise."
I cannot believe that you are so naive. People power what the car manufacturers produce. When we decide that we don't want to drive gas hogs... they stop producing them. We when decide that we want to drive big cars, the build them. Why you insist on blaming manufacturers for building items that are demanded by consumers.
Please don't give me the crap about foreign manufacturers being better either.
Every foreign manufacturer went out of their way to produce a car that would satisfy us as consumers. You have the opportunity to purchase any car that you can afford that fits within the realm of your criteria.
The Thrifty 50
Model Base MSRP Mileage (city/highway) Strong Points Weak Points
ECONOMY CARS
Honda Fit $13,950 28/34 Versatile seating; good standard features; fun to drive Subpar seat comfort and support
Kia Rio $10,890 27/32 Six air bags; good gas mileage; perky engine Spartan interior; spotty crash-test results
Toyota Yaris $11,300 29/36 Cute design; decent storage; spacious front seats Slushy pickup; poor crash-test results without optional curtain air bags
Hyundai Accent $10,775 27/32 Good entry-level value; strong set of safety features; long warranty Weak acceleration; dull design; cramped rear seat
Nissan Versa $12,630 26/31 Seats five comfortably; decent cargo space; cool six-speed manual Wimpy engine; noisy; worse mileage than competitors
Honda Civic $15,010 26/34 Stable, comfortable, and quiet ride; chipper interior; good handling Minimal storage space
Hyundai Elantra $13,525 24/33 Fun to drive; comfy seats; lots of safety features; strong crash-test results Iffy handling; tricky manual transmission; bland interior
Mazda3 $13,895 24/32 Peppy pickup; sporty handling; bold design Cramped interior; weak crash-test results without curtain air bags
Saturn Ion $12,300 23/32 Better power than some competitors; dent-resistant polymer body Bland interior with low-quality materials
MIDSIZE CARS
Nissan Altima $18,230 23/32 Sporty; good 4- and 6-cylinder engines; stylish interior Antilock brakes not standard; cramped back seat; complex options
Mazda6 $18,990 21/29 Sporty, zippy acceleration; good handling Cramped interior compared with competitors
Hyundai Sonata $17,670 21/31 Spacious; good standard features and safety features; long warranty Spongy handling; weak base engine; generic design
Honda Accord $20,360 22/31 Roomy; stylish; superb engine choices Limited trunk space; no folding rear seat
Chevrolet Malibu $19,345 22/30 Bold, sporty styling; spacious rear seat; tasteful interior Outdated 4-speed transmission
Kia Optima $16,995 21/31 Good mileage; spacious; cheaper than competitors Sluggish on highway; key safety features optional instead of standard
Ford Fusion $17,770 20/29 Pleasant Euro-handling; classy interior; large trunk Fine-print instrumentation; no standout qualities
Saturn Aura $19,745 22/30 Pleasant road manners; good power for the price Plasticky interior parts
LARGE CARS
Hyundai Azera $24,535 18/26 Luxury feel; loads of features; good engine choices Squishy handling; no navigation or Bluetooth options; not a Bimmer
Dodge Charger $21,675 18/26 Bossy styling; spacious cabin; decent handling Weak base engine; some cheap materials; poor rear visibility
Chevrolet Impala $21,310 18/29 Can seat six; thoughtful interior; good engine options Blasé design; ho-hum handling; old 4-speed transmission
Chrysler 300-Series $24,595 15/22 Vast interior; dramatic styling; tasteful interior Lethargic base engine; some key safety features not standard
UPSCALE CARS
Audi A4 $28,900 20/31 Great handling and acceleration; classy cabin Gets pricey with options; requires premium fuel
Lexus ES $33,720 19/27 Quiet ride; luxurious cabin; top safety features Bland styling; uninspiring handling
BMW 3-Series $32,400 18/28 World-class performance; great safety features Complex electronics; gets very pricey with options
SPORTY CARS
Mazda MX-5 Miata $20,585 22/27 Primo handling; easy-to-manage convertible roof; high fun-per-dollar ratio Cramped (duh); weak base stereo
Hyundai Tiburon $16,875 20/28 Good power and handling; sleek design; good value Small rear seats; key safety features not standard
Volkswagen GTI $22,730 21/29 Powerful; great handling; strong standard features; convenient hatchback Economy-car design; requires premium fuel
WAGONS
Toyota Matrix $15,510 26/33 Versatile seating; good mileage; higher seating than other wagons Noisy engine; inscrutable gauges
Kia Rio5 $12,915 27/32 Six air bags; good mileage; funky design Spartan interior; options quickly inflate price
Scion xB $15,650 22/28 Good safety features; spacious cabin; cheap, oddball design Noisy, underpowered engine; oddball design
Subaru Outback $21,995 19/26 Powerful engines; right height; smooth carlike handling Tight rear seat
Volkswagen Passat-Wagon $25,115 21/29 Fun to drive; friendly cabin; strong safety features Pricier than competitors; spongy brakes; spotty reliability history
COMPACT SUVs
Ford Escape $18,770 22/28 Muscular styling; quiet interior; comfortable seats Stale driving dynamics
Honda CR-V $20,700 20/27 Lots of space and storage; sleek design; smooth ride Lacks third-row seat option; no V-6 available
Hyundai Tucson $16,995 20/25 Cheaper than CR-V or RAV4; decent features; long warranty Sluggish engine; cheap materials; road noise
Jeep Patriot $15,475 23/28 Boxy Jeep styling; versatile and roomy interior; simple controls Cheap interior materials; uncomfortable rear seat
Toyota RAV4 $21,100 21/27 Great handling; feisty 4-cylinder engine; optional (if cramped) third row Hinged rear door can be awkward; no navigation option
Honda Element $18,980 20/25 Cargo space; easy-to-clean interior; low ownership costs Awkward "suicide" doors in rear; uncomfortable rear seats
Kia Sportage $16,050 19/25 Sound handling; stylish, classy interior; roomier than most small SUVs Weak base engine
MIDSIZE SUVs
Hyundai Santa Fe $20,945 17/24 Good standard features; strong crash-test results; long warranty Subpar handling and braking
Toyota FJ-Cruiser $22,545 16/20 Cool retro design; real off-road capability; decent ride on pavement Big blind spots; awkward rear "suicide" doors; marginal gas mileage
Mazda CX-7 $23,750 17/23 Sporty, carlike handling; quick engine; aggressive styling Cramped rear seat; sleek design compromises cargo space and visibility
Nissan Murano $27,750 18/23 Smooth handling; modern styling; strong engine with good mileage Sleek design cuts into cargo space
Ford Edge $25,330 16/24 Quick acceleration and smooth ride; intuitive controls; roomy Gets expensive with options; no third row available
Honda Pilot $28,395 16/22 Loaded with standard features; spacious; carlike ride Bland design; mediocre fuel economy
Saturn Outlook $27,820 16/24 Strong engine with decent mileage; spacious; third row; nimble handling Clunky transmission
Toyota Highlander $27,300 18/24 Versatile seating; third row; good standard safety features Soft handling; little cargo room with all seats in use
MINIVANS
Chrysler Town & Country $22,460 17/24 Smooth ride; buslike interior space; numerous seating configurations Sluggish base engine; nerdy square styling
Kia Sedona $20,695 16/23 Generous standard features; strong safety ratings; long warranty Middling cabin; no navigation system available
Honda Odyssey $25,860 16/23 Great handling for a minivan; versatile seating; can fit eight passengers Bland styling; it's a minivan
-
Again, not one gets close to 100 mpg.
-
To what purpose?
Err, EPA.
Environmental Protection Agency.
I would say it has something to do with the environment.
What?
-
What?
The engine violates EPA regulations.
-
cro,
Prius' have like a three month waiting period last I heard.
I get emails still about how some Toyota dealership here in Memphis finally has ONE Prius available for sale.
-
cro,
Prius' have like a three month waiting period last I heard.
I get emails still about how some Toyota dealership here in Memphis finally has ONE Prius available for sale.
That wasn't the point, Brass.... that is just your quick response. My point is that until the price of gas went up the public demanded bigger and better cars. It is impossible for a car manufacturer to switch out tooling in order to change from an SUV to a tiny compact car in a week or two....it takes months to come in and retro fit. Even the foreign car makers had to gear up for large car production be cause their sales were off.
Nothing is selling right now big or little. People are watching their jobs go away, their life savings go away, and their reckless managing of the credit history come home to roost by not being able to get the credit they once had.
-
My point is that until the price of gas went up the public demanded bigger and better cars.
Since when is a bigger car a better car in any respect? Since when is a monsterous SUV or truck that gets 13 MPG in any way a responsible or safe purchase for anyone? Please.
It was totally irresponsible for Detroit to manufacture huge SUVs and trucks to sell as family vehicles. The results of this are easy to see, both for the environment, the consumer and the automakers themselves.
No one forced Ford to come up with rolling, deadly crap like the Expedition. Trucks have their place, but the damned things are not family cars.
-
My point is that until the price of gas went up the public demanded bigger and better cars.
Since when is a bigger car a better car in any respect? Since when is a monsterous SUV or truck that gets 13 MPG in any way a responsible or safe purchase for anyone? Please.
It was totally irresponsible for Detroit to manufacture huge SUVs and trucks to sell as family vehicles. The results of this are easy to see, both for the environment, the consumer and the automakers themselves.
No one forced Ford to come up with rolling, deadly crap like the Expedition. Trucks have their place, but the damned things are not family cars.
Edited for bad manners.... strike dumber than a box of rocks.
Insert, don't be so literal, XO... I meant...
People wanted BIGGER.... People wanted better (as in better than their neighbors buy one get one free prius)
I never implied that bigger was better....
-
The public may or may not have "demanded" bigger cars, which were of course not officially cars, but trucks. SUVs are all classified as trucks, which allows them to gulp more gas and still meet cafe standards.
The US automakers decided to pimp their pickups and specialty vehicles, like the Suburban, with leather upholstery and the sort of fancy crap women like, because they were not successful at making reliable economical vehicles or even reliable luxury vehicles. Nearly every Toyota is more reliable and superior in most ways to every Chevrolet, Dodge or Ford, and a Lexus is far better than tired old crap like Lincoln towncars and the old Couple de Villes. Cadillac has improved the line quite a bit of late, but they stil push the huge Escalade more than they do there technically superior sport sedans and coupes.
Before the Great Pimping, pickup trucks were farm equipment, and most Suburbans were bought to ferry corpses around between embalmers, morgues, hospitals and funeral parlors.
GM had the engineering knowhow to develop and produce good economical sedans and coupes, but chose not to, because there was less competition and expense in pushing pimped-up trucks.
-
The public may or may not have "demanded" bigger cars, which were of course not officially cars, but trucks. SUVs are all classified as trucks, which allows them to gulp more gas and still meet cafe standards.
The US automakers decided to pimp their pickups and specialty vehicles, like the Suburban, with leather upholstery and the sort of fancy crap women like, because they were not successful at making reliable economical vehicles or even reliable luxury vehicles. Nearly every Toyota is more reliable and superior in most ways to every Chevrolet, Dodge or Ford, and a Lexus is far better than tired old crap like Lincoln towncars and the old Couple de Villes. Cadillac has improved the line quite a bit of late, but they stil push the huge Escalade more than they do there technically superior sport sedans and coupes.
Before the Great Pimping, pickup trucks were farm equipment, and most Suburbans were bought to ferry corpses around between embalmers, morgues, hospitals and funeral parlors.
GM had the engineering knowhow to develop and produce good economical sedans and coupes, but chose not to, because there was less competition and expense in pushing pimped-up trucks.
Right.... and that is exactly why Ford was forced to make more than BLACK cars....NOT. People like to be different... wait that make that 'demand' to be different. If I am selling apples and people get sick of apples but are wanting oranges... don't you think it would be stupid of me keep stocking apples?
-
If I am selling apples and people get sick of apples but are wanting oranges... don't you think it would be stupid of me keep stocking apples?
================
I think anyone was stupid that bought an Escalade and other pimped out trucks. I think the manufacturers were triple stupid to make so many of these grotesque things and stake their entire business on selling them. And I don't think that they need to be bailed out, either.
It's more like this. If you are selling aspirin and people are tired of aspirin, then you really need to stock heroin. Why? Because people LIKE heroin. It makes them feel good, just like cruising down the street in a Hummer H3 pimped out super ugly truck, blocking everyone's vision in traffic and taking up way to much space to compensate for one's teensy penis.
There was NO REASON to push, not just offer, but push, in every conceivable way, huge gashogs as some sort of fashion statement to the copycat hicks, rubes, yokels and putzes. This was nothing at all like offering cars in a different color. This was totally irresponsible. No one needs a Hummer H2 or H3, a Navigator or an Escalade. It was like putting tapeworms in diet pills, except that it wasn't even effective.
-
If I am selling apples and people get sick of apples but are wanting oranges... don't you think it would be stupid of me keep stocking apples?
================
I think anyone was stupid that bought an Escalade and other pimped out trucks. I think the manufacturers were triple stupid to make so many of these grotesque things and stake their entire business on selling them. And I don't think that they need to be bailed out, either.
It's more like this. If you are selling aspirin and people are tired of aspirin, then you really need to stock heroin. Why? Because people LIKE heroin. It makes them feel good, just like cruising down the street in a Hummer H3 pimped out super ugly truck, blocking everyone's vision in traffic and taking up way to much space to compensate for one's teensy penis.
There was NO REASON to push, not just offer, but push, in every conceivable way, huge gashogs as some sort of fashion statement to the copycat hicks, rubes, yokels and putzes. This was nothing at all like offering cars in a different color. This was totally irresponsible. No one needs a Hummer H2 or H3, a Navigator or an Escalade. It was like putting tapeworms in diet pills, except that it wasn't even effective.
you can be so small minded. While you flap your yap about greedy bastards that make tanks trucks or what ever the hell you want to call them, you are trying to usurp my ability to buy what I can afford, drive what I want to drive and support what I want to support. Of course THIS of all things should not come as a surprise to me. It is the liberal mantra....
you are free, we will look after you... fuck all the greedy bastards. Followed by... you can't drive a big car, you can't make a living at the plant that manufacturers big cars, or RV's, or boats because they waste our resources. The list of things that you would have not be able to do far exceeds any of the crap you base your cyclopic eyesight on.
One has to wonder at the impact of making all large vehicles illegal in regards to manufacturing, marketing and extraneous markets that these production employ? Let's go one step forward and think... ok, we did away with those greedy bastard big vehicles and although our unemployment rose substantially, we have good government welfare programs in place so no worries. No let's look toward all of these plants that manufacture the new efficient small although similiar products... we should disallow that and make it that we have minimal choices in small cars, so let's say we can have X amount of small vehicles and we can close all the other plants and that should help with the green house gas. Yeah... that's the ticket. Another plus to that would be less people would be employed and so there would be less cars on the road and that too would have a significant impact on green house gas. Wow... a win win...
Give me a break. I get sick and tired of your blame tirades, bitching about lies and trickery by 'the government' and yet you want to give government more of our freedoms.
-
Gee, I didn't realize that suggesting that people actually use their heads was a "liberal" position.
When did I ever say I was for banning anything?
The government is not responsible for tricking stupid people into buying SUVs and trucks who have no real use for SUVs and trucks. That was the admen and the manufacturers they work for. I am not in favor of banning advertising or these things, nor of preventing people from buying the damned things, either. It is a matter of logic and personal responsibility.
People who bought these are stuck with them. That was their decision, and they should make the best of it.
The companies who decided to lure dolts into buying them knew that the price of gas was going to go up, they knew that they were screwing their customers, and knew that they were putting the country on the wrong track. Now they want taxpayers to buy them out of the mess that anyone with the intelligence God gave a grapefruit. I am opposed to this. That is all I was saying.
Hell, buy a semi truck and drive that to work. Or a Sherman tank. I'm not taking away your freedom or anyone's freedom. I am just a guy commenting on the current mess in a chat forum. There is no way that I could "take away your freedom" if I wanted to, and I don't want to. We never get to vote on whether to ban any sort of vehicle. I just think people, both consumers and manufacturers should think things through before they create a big mess. Or to put it in perspective, they should have thought things through before they created the big mess.
Just as people who were told by Realtors that they could afford a $200K house when anyone with the brain of a common gecko could have told them that a $100K house was all they could swing. They should have told that Realtor to go f*ck herself. But they didn't. The banks had no reason approving loans to people who could never repay them, either, but they did. When I bought my first house, 90% of all the houses Realtors showed us were $10K more than the most I told them I wanted to pay. Eventually, I just hung up on them before they could say anything else beyond "Hello". I assumed a mortgage and bought my house without a Realtor. These are matters of personal responsibility. I am proud to believe in these and also proud to support "liberal" positions. But as a rule, personal responsibility is supposed to be a conservative mantra, isn't it?
It was immoral for Detroit to foist these things on people. People have a right, of course to ignore advertising. It is rare when they do, but it has happened. Take the bazillion dollars they spent trying to get people to drink Zima, "an alcoholic malt beverage with a hint of lemon-lime flavoring". It didn't work. But on the other hand, they manage to force thousands of people who would prefer a 7-up to drink a Sprite or a Sierra Mist every day. Not giving people six-ton Escalades to drive is like depriving them of 7-up or Zima. Big Deal.
Any really good rapper could buy a Bentley, anyway.
-
and there you go again. I have figured out what really pisses me off with debates like these.
That people are really nothing more than lemmings that cannot make up their own minds, know their own desires and are the constant victims of greedy bastards, advertising, and what ever people like you decide for them.
You come in here daily demanding that it is your way or the highway and it never dawns on that you that human beings (even if you are religious) have free will. If they are all so damn stupid as to succumb to all of these things then as a species we are really in trouble.
I am pissed that people in general are getting a free pass for their lack of responsibility. Our businesses are comprised of US, our governments are comprised of US. We are responsible for what is happening and not some no named bad guy be it corporate or government.
-
If they are all so damn stupid as to succumb to all of these things then as a species we are really in trouble.
I would say some people really ARE in trouble, like the ones who bought houses they can't afford to pay for and cars they can't afford to drive with gasoline at $4.00 a gallon.If people were not so stupid as to succumb to ads, eventually, we would not see those ads. I haven't seen a Zima ad in years. Or a Zima. Therefore, the only conclusion that I can make is that the ads I see again and again are effective.
As a species, we can't be in trouble. If we were, every year, there would be fewer of us, like spotted owls.
===============================================
I am pissed that people in general are getting a free pass for their lack of responsibility. Our businesses are comprised of US, our governments are comprised of US. We are responsible for what is happening and not some no named bad guy be it corporate or government.
Well, this is certainly true. I really can't dispute this at all. It was, in fact, the point I was trying to make.
-
If they are all so damn stupid as to succumb to all of these things then as a species we are really in trouble.
I would say some people really ARE in trouble, like the ones who bought houses they can't afford to pay for and cars they can't afford to drive with gasoline at $4.00 a gallon.If people were not so stupid as to succumb to ads, eventually, we would not see those ads. I haven't seen a Zima ad in years. Or a Zima. Therefore, the only conclusion that I can make is that the ads I see again and again are effective.
As a species, we can't be in trouble. If we were, every year, there would be fewer of us, like spotted owls.
===============================================
I am pissed that people in general are getting a free pass for their lack of responsibility. Our businesses are comprised of US, our governments are comprised of US. We are responsible for what is happening and not some no named bad guy be it corporate or government.
Well, this is certainly true. I really can't dispute this at all. It was, in fact, the point I was trying to make.
WE have learned to put off famine pretty well , but the laws of market work against us if we ignore them , allowing there to be very many people and so many that we are only marginally able to support all , makes us vunerable to catastrophic crashes .
As a species we ought to increase our resorces or manage our numbers to keep a margin of resorces above the need . Expanding to the very limit of the resorces ability to carry us means that a small decrease in availible resorces will cause a snowballing effect and cause an outsize die off , all the worse for being a long time comeing.
-
XO "As a species, we can't be in trouble. If we were, every year, there would be fewer of us, like spotted owls."
===============================================
Interesting (although dated) article, "Population Growth
by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 2001
In late 1999 the world's population reached 6 billion and was growing at an estimated 1.3% per year. This growth rate is characteristic of the last 100 years or so. World population reached 1 billion around 1790, 2 billion around 1927, and 4 billion in 1974.
Many people have expressed concerns about this rate of growth as well as the size of the world's population. If this growth rate remains constant, then world population will double every 50 years, giving a population of 12 billion by 2050, 24 billion by 2100, and so on. (Such growth is called geometric increase.) They say that current growth is unsustainable in that the natural resources to feed and house such populations will soon be depleted. In fact, some state that the world's current population is unsustainable. In other words, even if the world's population remained at 6 billion various natural resources would be in such short supply within a century that wars and mass starvation would result.
Additionally, these people claim that this growing world population will cause devastation to the environment. Various predicted disasters include pollution, species extinction, sea level rise, etc.
Can such predictions be true? A good scientific hypothesis makes predictions which can be verified by later observations. In the 1960s it was predicted that by the year 2000 the world's population would be 7.5 billion and that the world would be running out of oil, causing a global economic crisis. These predictions were false: by late 2000 the world's population will be 6.1 billion, and increased oil production has helped improve the global economy.
Where did these "experts" go wrong? First, population growth does not really continue geometrically. Population growth for individual societies goes through a "demographic transistion." In short, societies over time transition from low population growth to high growth rates, then back to low growth rates again. There are three phases:
Agricultural: Pre-industrial societies have little medical technology and poor sanitation. As a result, they have high birth rates and high death rates. Since population growth results from how much births outpace deaths, there is little population growth. (This was the world before 1800.)
Developing: When industrialization begins, technology is introduced that substantially reduces the death rate. However, the birth rate changes little. This results in rapid population growth. (The U.S. was in this phase in the 1800s, and most third world countries are in this phase now.)
Industrialized: Once everyone in the society has increased access to resources, people tend to choose to have smaller families. As a result, the birth rate drops closer to the death rate. Population growth is low again (and in some cases is zero). (Western Europe has fully transistioned to this phase.)
What this means is that economic development will inevitably shift a society (and the world) to low population growth. In fact, the current 1.3% annual growth of world population is down from a peak of 2.0% in the 1960s and early 1970s. Currently the world's population is projected to peak before 2100 at perhaps 11 billion.
But is even this population unsustainable? The pessimists point to famine and disease in the third world as evidence of "overpopulation." However, as Nicholas Eberstadt points out,
"Overpopulation" is a problem that has been misidentified and misdefined. The term has no scientific definition or clear meaning. The problems typically associated with overpopulation (hungry families, squalid and overcrowded living conditions) are more properly understood as issues of poverty.
The point is: famine and disease are consequences of poverty (limited access to resources), not high population density. Japan has a far higher population density that Ethiopia, but the greater wealth of Japan grants it a far higher standard of living.
Moreover, the world has enough resources to feed and shelter any foreseeable world population. For example, current agricultural technology is capable of feeding a population of 80 billion using less than 10% of the Earth's land for crops.
The solution to improving the living conditions for the present and future world population is increased access to wealth and resources--in other words, a free market economy. Taiwan has five times the population density of mainland China, but has a standard of living ten times higher. This is because Taiwan has a free market economy, whereas mainland China's communist government still controls both the economy and individual human ingenuity.
Opponents of free markets have variously suggested or imposed various methods to "control" population growth. The most extreme case is mainland China, with severe penalties for families who have more than one child and (despite official claims) mandatory abortions against the will of the mothers, sometimes in the ninth month of pregnancy. Those who prefer to limit human freedom as a solution often praise China's policies in general."
It appears that our numbers are declining. In some of the African countries, they are in a negative growth pattern due to number of HIV deaths. If in fact the areas that have the poor living conditions grow and spread it could at some point threaten the species.
-
All right , it is not the sheer number , it is the number and their availible resorces and skills in a matrix.
It is still possible to swamp the availible resorce with persons and their needs or waste.
-
It appears that our numbers are declining.
===================================
No, it does not. This is not only untrue: the opposite is true.
If the Chinese do not limit the growth of population, nature will do it for them, with the usual methods: famine, war, pestilence and death.
Odds are we will see this occur in India, which has chosen not to limit its population with an effective plan.
-
It appears that our numbers are declining.
===================================
No, it does not. This is not only untrue: the opposite is true.
If the Chinese do not limit the growth of population, nature will do it for them, with the usual methods: famine, war, pestilence and death.
Odds are we will see this occur in India, which has chosen not to limit its population with an effective plan.
Well I am glad that Plane could understand. I pointed to one example in regards to Africa....you know... not limiting their population growth - maybe the 'usual methods' are not so usual anymore.
-
Well I am glad that Plane could understand. I pointed to one example in regards to Africa....you know... not limiting their population growth - maybe the 'usual methods' are not so usual anymore.
================================
The closest thing to a usual method for limiting population growth in Africa 100 years ago were diseases, especially disentary, smallpox, cholera, malaria, bilharzia and sleeping sickness, though yaws and elephantiasis were also biggies. Many of these diseases have been eliminated or prevented, and so the population grows. It might be limited in growth by AIDS for a while, but people oftn reach an age where they reproduce before they die of AIDS, because AIDS kills rather slowly.
-
Well I am glad that Plane could understand. I pointed to one example in regards to Africa....you know... not limiting their population growth - maybe the 'usual methods' are not so usual anymore.
================================
The closest thing to a usual method for limiting population growth in Africa 100 years ago were diseases, especially disentary, smallpox, cholera, malaria, bilharzia and sleeping sickness, though yaws and elephantiasis were also biggies. Many of these diseases have been eliminated or prevented, and so the population grows. It might be limited in growth by AIDS for a while, but people oftn reach an age where they reproduce before they die of AIDS, because AIDS kills rather slowly.
Many AIDS infest countries are down to nearly negative 1%. African countries will be breeding with AID infected partners, producing AID infected children. Here in the Western world AIDS kills slowly because we have all of the drugs necessary to control the virus. The African countries do not. Add to that it is considered unclean to have wet sex in those nations so that the woman must be absolutely dry during coitus which leads to her vagina becoming easily abraded and thus more open to infection.
-
Add to that it is considered unclean to have wet sex in those nations so that the woman must be absolutely dry during coitus which leads to her vagina becoming easily abraded and thus more open to infection.
dry sex? That is painful for all concerned. Also, difficult. ??? THis sounds like one of thse rules make by old coots who never have sex. I don't think that any religion could enforce a "dry sex" rule. If there is a method for doing this, it would be most interesting to learn. But not fr the sake of the "Joys of Dry Sex", for there is no joy in dry sex.