If anything, this thread did for me what most movies couldn't. It made me laugh, then it made me cry, and finally angry, all in 5 minutes.
I'm guessing Chris couldn't handle your stupidity anymore, so I'll try to respond to your last post in his stead.
You talk about confidence, and how having a higher population equates to higher levels of confidence. I'm not even sure why or how confidence came in to play in this thread, but generally in history, a high population is generally associated with low confidence for a civilization, but it goes far deeper. Chris was right in consulting a nation's history, and ironically, you should be the one reading up on these things instead of spouting out *beep* you know nothing about. Simply put, generations ago, before modern medicine came in to play, people had more babies just to be sure the few surviving children could take care of the parents (low confidence), since without modern medicine, the infant mortality rate was off the charts compared to today. More children also meant more hands to help in manual labor, i.e. farming, which Japan and China did a lot of, and what developing countries in Africa still do.
Of course, as industrialization came to be, birth rates slowly leveled off, but not without some exponential growth, as people slowly became adjusted to lower infant mortality rates. This means the original population of a country has a great deal to do with the population that is here today. The thing with this is, the U.S. was huge compared Canada in terms of population throughout history, since their inceptions, as after the Seven Years' War, only a handful of people and places became "Canada," and most of the French has become absorbed in to modern day U.S., but it goes on and on. I'll talk about it further if you wish.
I won't lecture you on your opinions of children, to each their own, but our resources are definitely finite, as with anything else in nature. Obtaining resources now is still relatively easy, as we still have quite a bit in reserves for the next few decades, but if history should teach us anything (Easter Island, anyone?), it's that nothing lasts forever. All the abandoned mines and dry oil wells in our country alone should be proof enough. Also, dams and irrigation systems only go so far before they themselves go dry, the Rio Grande being a prime example. If these evidence of resource depletion isn't enough for you, go look up peak oil, the state of fresh water (aquifer depletion or otherwise), as well as soil erosion.
As with overpopulation, it is indeed a problem, with the only solution being family planning, or possibly as you said, a bullet, but violence is rarely the answer. Instead, we have the VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org/).
Finally, coming back slightly on topic healthcare wise, we (the U.S.) pay more for healthcare than Canada. Straight from Wikipedia: "Total spending in Canada for 2007 was equivalent to 10.1% of the gross domestic product which was slightly above the average for OECD countries, and below the 16.0% of GDP spent on health care in the United States." - CIHI p.55 I don't know about you, but I'd rather have their plan. Speaking of money, our 13.7 trillion surely isn't going to pay for itself, which is why I'm glad I can just move on over to Canada when the *beep* begins when the dollar collapses. Dual citizenship sure is awesome.
Now, finally to finish off with a quote from our resident troll Glenn,
"It's actually quite funny how you accuse me of being arrogant when you are the one who rode in here on your high horse thinking that you'd teach someone how to have intellectual debates. It's not my fault that you got taught a lesson instead. Don't be a sore loser. We Americans don't like that. :) "
reply
share
14 years ago
[deleted]
frozenoreo
14 years ago
Look, I'm defeating these idiotic points you're trying to make, but all you do is come up with more. I was referring to the whole higher population = more confidence BS you were spouting, and how that all came to be. Your response to which is... "You assume that the primary reason for having children is utilitarian", and continue to go on a rant about how sad and pathetic my life is despite the fact you seem to patrol these boards 24/7, and then continue to tell me to commit suicide, and even manage to drag the soviets in here. I basically explained why the population density of countries were higher. In western society today, of course love and planning takes place, but back then when field combines didn't exist, children would be used instead (which is still the case in third world countries).
Really, your crazy rants just make you seem more desperate than I hope you are, and your projections of your own sad, crazed self on to me is laughable at best.
You kept talking about reading the history books, so that's what I did. Unlike you, I actually have a general idea of how the world came to be, because I do research. You on the other hand just spout random *beep* we've all learned in grade school and generalize from there. If you actually had some factual data, I might be able to respect your arguments, but from the looks of it, you're just some fat slob of a troll, slouched over on your dirty seat, Glenn Beck on the radio on one side, and reruns of the O'Reiley factor on the other.
Then you go on to talk about energy. Look at the data, deforestation is still going on, but at a slower pace because we did find oil. However, of course that's not going to last forever, so what's going to be next? You keep expecting some miracle to pop out, but you're completely ignorant to the reality of the situation. Nuclear reactors are indeed a clean source of energy, but the last nuclear plant to be built was in 1977, and these things takes decades ahead of time to be made, not overnight, and even if we begin today, the reactor vessels being made have to be queued in behind countries already with orders in, another thing that takes decades.
Then you talk about mining the moon? Then I realized you're an ignorant moron with a thesaurus, so I forgive you. You see, to even harness the power of the moon, you'd first need to perfect fusion power (ITER project), and that's still ongoing with no end in sight. So you can mine all the helium 3 you want, but you're still going to just end up with a bunch of dust and wasted fuel *if we still have fuel*. Then we have asteroid mining, which begs the question just WTF are you smoking? And MARS?! What, are we going to haul back some rocks for *beep* and giggles?
Also, yes I have the utmost respect for the innovators who has made the modern world it is today, and I've read quite a bit on them, clearly not the case on your end. However, it is slightly to my dismay that it has merely led to people such as yourself abusing such privileges to simply "HAVIn' MoAR CHILDRUN CuZ' I LOVE mY COUNTRy SO MuCH, AnD WE CAN AlL LiSTEn To GlENN WhILE EAtING SoME MCD's GoD BLESS AMERICA"
Also, I have never stated my political beliefs. In fact, I'm all for less government spending, and all these recent massive bailouts and defense spending is absurd, but so is our new health care bill, and the lack of nuclear reactors. I'm in the U.S. because I have more family over here, and love this country as much as any other citizen, but I have to admit, the hospitals here are top level. If you can pay the bills. If I didn't have health care, a simple ER visit (a rare sight these days since they're getting shut down), a few pills and a BP test later, I'd be a few thousand dollars poorer.
reply
share
mkofman
14 years ago
Well, I am really sorry that my "little rant" went over your head. The point that I was making regarding more confidence = higher population would be common sense to most people. The fact that it is being lost on you is your own personal problem. Saying things like "...and continue to go on a rant..." rather than considering the point being made just betrays that you have your head stuck so high up your ass that your brain got digested and turned into goo. If that's how you conduct your so-called "research" then you have no hope at all.
Isn't it a well-known fact that US economy is only like 3% agricultural? US is also the third most populous country in the world topping 300,000,000. With that being the case, how does your argument that people make kids for agricultural labor hold up? You can beat your chest all you want about, ahem, "defeating these idiotic points" - that's not going to make what you desire real. You are cherry-picking random bits off Wikipedia to fit your notions of the world and that's hardly working. Start paying attention, will you?
So, once again, my point is: people make kids because they are wealthy, confident, and enjoy raising and developing human beings. That's as clear as daylight. If in a place like Canada they don't make as many kids as in the US, what's the big reason? All that agricultural historic crap you've dug up obviously doesn't answer the question because obviously US is not any more agricultural than Canada. Is that really so difficult to understand? So if per capita Canadians make close enough to Americans, then wealth is not the problem. So what's the hang-up, buddy? Go make kids. But no.... you aren't doing that. Must be something wrong with confidence. And it's not suprising given your total obtuseness to the idea that having kids = good thing. By the way, no one would believe either that Canadians are just too busy with their illustrious careers and enjoyment of life to have any time for kids. I mean, come on, if everyone was so busy with brilliant careers the economy of Canada would be developing off the charts with 20% GDP growth or higher, which would in turn mean more spare time on people's hands because the economy is so innovative and not labor-intensive. That would also mean that Canadian per capita GDP would also exceed American off the charts. So, yeah, do a little thinking before you beat your chest and drown yourself in the sea of irrelevant Wikipedia facts and cookey notions of the world.
Your last paragraph is just oh-so-touching. After all, you are just a fiscal conservative in disguise... Awwww... that's really supposed to ingratiate you with us. That would be just oh-so-sweet... it if it was oh-so-believable. :)
It's interesting how you take offense with my "mine the space bodies" ideas. I guess it's perfectly fine to talk seriously about cookey "alternative fuels" scams with no hope whatsoever of ever producing energy but not OK in the least to talk about space mining for which technology exists and which would deliver same materials as those that currently exist on Earth and for which present-day economy is already perfectly tooled. I guess you've never read Jules Verne, have you? You know, the guy who was writing about submarines and space flight decades before it happened? Not a problem; it was rather obvious from the beginning that you aren't a creative person in the least. I guess back in the days of Jules Verne there were so-called "researchers" just like you who would offer up all sorts of "facts" and doomsday scenarios. Guess what? No one even remembers anymore who those jokers were. So, yeah, don't worry... while you are drinking your leftie kool-aid and bash Fox News there'll be people all around you solving the energy problems (and by the way, don't get amazed when they get filthy rich and you don't) and you'll be the unknown nobody who had all the, ahem, "facts," on his side to prove that the energy is tapped and we are all going to die. :)
By the way, the reason why they don't build nuclear power plants in the US is because environmental leftie loons such as yourself have been pushing regulations to make nuclear power plant construction too risky to commit capital to. So, no worries... as soon as we discredit fools like you who've been standing in the way all this time we'd have no problems with building nuclear power plants. Come to think of it, you guys have had a very nice scam going since 1977... first you block power plant construction and then you whine about lack of energy. It was just oh-so-convenient. :)
You read history books??? Which ones??? Those by Karl Marx and Noam Chomsky? :)
reply
share
frozenoreo
14 years ago
I already tried to explain but it never seems to get through your head. In HISTORY, people had children because they needed security and an extra hand in the field. I already explained that "In western society today, of course love and planning takes place, but back then when field combines didn't exist, children would be used instead (which is still the case in third world countries)" in my last post, and the fact that only 3% of our employed population in agriculture is a testament to how industrialized our agricultural industry has become. However, like I've said before, third world countries still don't have machines, so they still rely on children for farming, like how we or any other nation used to in history.
If only you would start paying attention, so I won't have to repeat myself, it would be so much easier.
If you really want to see the facts for yourself, just head on over to https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html?
Over there is a list of countries by fertility rate. See how the U.S. is at 2.06? Yeah, we're real confident. According to your theory, Niger is the most wealthy, confident, and just overall awesome country in the world!
Look, throughout this thread, I've just stating facts, and ingratiating myself with your kind is the last thing I want to do.
Also, I never took offense with mining the moon, MAYBE in the future, but MARS?! Come on, seriously, what are you smoking? Oh right, Glenn's tiny dick. But there you are again, making crazy accusations.
Alternative fuels are a scourge, that not only screws with subsidized food pricing, but even if it is able to produce energy, it's just not efficient enough. It's amazing how crazy you could get though. I've already stated the most modern advances in technology thus far, and we're still not cutting it, and then you come in and start talking about Jules Verne?! Man you have no idea how hard I laughed. But come on, be real here, there's nothing here in the near future stopping us from free falling when oil does start running out.
By all means, Jules Verne did predict a lot of what's going on in the future, but not everything he said is completely right. You can't just blindly follow a prophetic figure, or you're going to be screwed when they turned out to be wrong (See Mayan Prophecy and Nostradamus).
Also, do you even read my posts? I'm FOR nuclear power. Again. I'm ALL FOR NUCLEAR POWER. It's one of the safest forms of energy, not to mention the fuel is cheap and available, with all the thorium in the earth's crust. Again, I'd be glad if nuclear power became big, but the 'crazy environmentalists' are only part of the problem. Raising enough capital for such endeavors is a huge problem, as not only do plants cost a lot (~2000$-3000$/kW capacity compared to 1600$/KW for coal and 711$/kW for gas), their decommissioning costs are also extremely high (300 million on avg). Thankfully, Obama recently posted up 8 billion in loans for nuclear plant construction, but the projects are still up in the air.
Finally, history is history. Karl Marx and Noam Chomsky may be part of history, but their books deal more on ideology, and really have nothing to do with this thread. It's like me asking you "You read history books??? Which ones??? Those by Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin? :)"
reply
share
mkofman
14 years ago
So how exactly is the HISTORY that you are referring to at all relevant to the present subject matter? US has population of 300,000,000. Canada has population of 35,000,000. WHY? According to your oh-so-HISTORICAL theory it follows that US has higher population than Canada because US is super-agricultural and un-industrial and people in US have more children to help out with field work. That's a pot of horse manure, buddy. If you seriously believe that I advise that you check yourself into a mental hospital. It shouldn't be too difficult for you to dig up statistical facts regarding ACTUAL composition of US economy and composition of Canadian economy and compare the two in terms of agricultural output.
On the other hand, if you are just a little bit more sane and don't believe the above and agree that US and Canada are about equally non-agricultural and industrial, then how do you explain such profound difference in population count? Go ahead, provide the explanation.
It is funny how you brought Niger into the mix. The original discussion centered around why US GDP is so much higher than Canada's. It was contended that that's because US has much greater population. True, population count does help US, although not to the extent contended by Chris. If you look at per capita numbers for US ($45,000) vs. Canada ($38,000) then Canada is still behind and is in the same camp as West-European countries. Also, take a look at GDP and population numbers for Singapore ($163bil, 5,000,000) and Ukraine ($115bil, 46,000,000). A tiny island of a few million beats the output of a sizeable country of almost 50 million! That ought to tell you that just because people live, breathe, and convert oxygen to carbon dioxide it does not imply in the least that they are doing anything useful economically. Clearly there is more to GDP than just population count (e.g., the culture of learning and innovation and entrepreneurship, general state of peace and freedom from government interference). Take a look at Niger's GDP - measely $5bil. What in the world made you think that I'd say Niger is the greatest country in the world??? As you should have known already from reading the start of the discussion, I look at GDP first and foremost to see if a country is any good. If a country is any good its GDP reflects that. Population count doesn't matter that much to me. Why should it? The only reason it was ever brought up is because Chris was whining that Canada has it too low. Well, duh... have more confidence in the future, live happy life, make kids, and it won't be low. It's common sense. So, yes, given that Niger's GDP is so low (even per capita) the fact that fertility rate is so high is very interesting. Have you ever heard the term OVER-confidence? I guess it won't be familiar to you at all, given that you haven't even mastered confidence yet. But overconfidence does explain why poor African countries have such high fertility rates. The fact that there is not much to do economically also leaves plenty of time for having children and low standards for education may fail to make people see that having children is an expensive proposition. The answer for Niger, though, is not to dampen its fertility rate but to promote freedom, good governance, and economic growth. That means US model of development, not Canada's or Western Europe's. Only a suicidal loser like you would dream up ways of lowering population count (e.g., by favoring things like VHEMT) instead of coming up with ways to boost economic freedom and GDP growth (that again points out just how uncreative you are). The fact that such a decrepit country as Niger has such high fertility rate should be inspiration to the US. We have it good; I guess we can always do better. As the state of medicine improves and we all live 200+ years having 7 kids won't be such a huge issue. But yeah, I know you don't see it... losers like you generally aren't optimists.
Look, throughout this thread you have shown complete lack of thinking or creativity. That which you call facts is just random bits of data that just never seems to be relevant... Are you like an accountant geek who crunches statistical data all day long and can quote all sorts of data but never connect it into a comprehensive picture with a story? And when you do come up with a story it's the most boring thing anyone can think of. Ahem, helping hand in the field. I am beginning to think that that's the only reason your own parents had you. I mean, come on, read the things you say... there is no other reason whatsoever why anyone would want to have you. :)
So I see now you are trashing Jules Verne. How visionary of you. That just confirms my point of what an uncreative hopeless dufuss you are. "But come on, be real here, there's nothing here in the near future stopping us from free falling when oil does start running out." Of course. What else an uncreative dufuss like you can possibly think? We are all doomed and we are all going to die! Oh my god! Someone please call Obama to save us all! :)
You don't have to follow a "visionary figure" at all. In fact, people who get things done usually don't. They do get inspired, but in the end they do their own thing. A figure is visionary only when he makes predictions that simply make sense and the people who get the things done also see that those things make sense. I guess to you that would be a very alien concept because nothing ever makes sense to you. :)
Gosh, I am so glad that there are so many people in the world who are more intelligent than you. That's why I don't go Chicken Little over oil reserves.
By the way, your Fox News bashing is a bit juvenile. Kind of like bashing Bill Gates because he has more money than you. I mean, after all, Fox is only the most watched news network with ratings only going up. Go ahead, bash the success for being successful... I can tell you love feeling miserable. :)
At least you aren't a complete loon and acknowledge that "alternative fuels" is a bunch of hogwash and acknowledge that nuclear power would be effective. That's good. Maybe not all hope is lost for you. Just a little note: I know you want to blow Obama just like Joe Biden wanted to do it when the healthcare bill passed, but really, no sane businessman would ever count on a credit from Obama to conduct his business. Obama is an idiot who doesn't know what he is doing. Today he is giving you credit and tomorrow he accuses you of being greedy and takes away your whole company. Like today he lifts an offshore drilling moratorium and tomorrow you can't drill at all. Very cooky guy. Thank goodness his poll numbers are tanking and he'll be out in a couple of years. Maybe he can move to Canada and you fools can elect him a prime minister there and turn Canada into Venezuela under his brilliant socialist leadership. :)
About KM and NC... Who says that you do read history? You may believe you do, but just as with other things you believe belief alone does not make it so. :)
reply
share
frozenoreo
14 years ago
Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about. After reading your post, I've decided that you're either a troll, or truly a lost cause. If you've read my earlier posts, and actually possibly understood them, then we would'nt be having this conversation.
I　wish you luck in the future in getting your facts straight, instead of randomly bashing others and using straw-man arguments. In the meanwhile, I'll be enjoying my vacation while you continue to patrol these boards trying to force your ignorance on to others.
reply
share
chrisbedford
14 years ago
Don't you just love this one
mean, after all, Fox is only the most watched news network with ratings only going up
Oh yah! Of course, "millions of viewers can't be wrong" - Uh, except if they are all brain-dead trailer-trash. Popularity of any TV program, news or "Married with Children", is
*NO* indication of how good it is, only of how popular it is.
Yes, I said popularity is an indication of how popular it is. You can't draw *any other* inference from it, any more than you can say refrigerators kill people when you notice that the statistics indicate refrigerator sales and deaths go up at the same time.
reply
share
salndean2003
14 years ago
You can -- and one does -- draw much indication as to how capable and effective a popularly elected representative leader will function, that is to say how they'll lead or govern within a so-called representative democracy, the type we hopefully have a remnant of yet operating in the U.S.A. Now any other conclusion drawn is really nothing more than a thinly veiled desire to be done away with the former, i.e. votes, will of the masses, open dissent, lively and open exchange on free and not state owned media regarding the policies and future governance of people and their continued right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
reply
share
chrisbedford
14 years ago
Thanks Frozen,
Couldn't have said it better myself. Oops, maybe I shouldn't say that, our intellectual friend will jump all over that and say it proves I'm a dimwit.
Funny he jumps to the conclusion I'm Canadian. Just because he preceived my post to be in their defence, when I was only trying to puncture his narrow-minded bubble. Ooh, mixed metaphor there, more fodder for him...
Just as well I didn't come back to this discussion earlier, because I might have become embroiled in a flame war with him. But now I've had a chance to cool off, I'd just like to lift one small part of that last rant: and since I can't be bothered to re-open his post, I'm quoting from memory, but I find it supremely ironic that in defence of his arrogance he makes the incredibly arrogant claim that there is no problem "getting more resources" - just "apply your intellect".
Hoo boy.
Come to Africa, boyo. Come take a look at finite resources. It may look easy to an American who just has to open a tap to get as much fresh water as he needs, drive his huge gas-guzzling bullet-proof 4x4 SUV 100 yards to the corner convenience store at any time of day or night to buy any amount of whatever food his heart desires, or push one button to have his sewerage flushed away to somewhere he doesn't have to worry or even think about - but there are parts of the world where you have to walk (Yes! Walk! On your feet!) many miles to fetch water in drums, then carry it back in the sun (and do it all again tomorrow, and the next day, ad infinitum). Where the only food you get is what you scratch out of a patch of dry ground behind your hut, and where if you crap too close to your village everyone gets sick.
Places where the rivers are drying up because of the dams upriver... or polluted way past drinkability. Where the mines are worked out, so there is no more work, and the ground periodically collapses in sinkholes.
Finite resources, guy. Denial is dangerous disingenuity at best. But incomprehensible, to me - the rest of the world has been aware of the problem since at least the early seventies - where have you been?
Oh - apply intellect and build more dams, right? Yah, why not flood a couple more valleys, kill a few species whose habitat you just destroyed, lose forever a few hundred square miles of the surface area of the planet (oh - not finite? Hmmm). Sure - go ahead. After all, humans are so important that they can use up as much as they want of whatever's available - it'll never run out. Never mind, by the time it's a problem, you'll be dead and it's someone else's problem, right?
reply
share