A world collapse coming? - Page 4 - PhillyBlog

romano · #31 (**permalink**) 01-10-2008, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyaggie

As far as population goes, China's has stabilized by now. India's has slowed and is expected to soon stabilize. Each Indian woman used to give birth to 3.2 children (yeah, averages produce fractional children!) back in 1970s, and that rate has been steadily coming down to now it is around 1.4, I believe. India may max out at 1.5 billion people by 2050. But there are other, smaller countries, where the birth rate is still quite high. We're talking about trying for just replacement level (2 or less per couple), and we haven't achieved that yet on a global basis, so the population runaway train is still coming down the tracks.

I think the biggest problem with India and China isn't their population growth, it's the economic growth. I remember seeing a chart that Americans have over 1000 cars for 1000 people. China has something like 7. As their economy keeps growing, they're going to want the same consumer luxuries we enjoy and that's where the real problem lies. Not to mention we're outsourcing all our polution there as it is with all their factories and whatnot.

phillyaggie · #32 (**permalink**) 01-10-2008, 03:04 PM

So you're talking about humans being humans and wanting to consume ever more resources. Which is kind of what the original essay is saying. Unless only a few countries can ever be rich and most of the rest of the planet be poor and just be the supplier of resources (and even that isn't very sustainable), what we have on our hands is a big problem.

Mahatma Gandhi was known for his humble life and preaching the same to his fellow Indians. To this, a British reporter once asked Gandhi would he not like to see India have factories and industry like that of Britain. The Mahatma replied that such a small island nation as Britain needs to enslave half the world in order for it to be rich. Imagine if India pursued the same practices!

"God forbid that India should ever take to industrialism after the manner of the west... keeping the world in chains. If our nation took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts."

This was said almost a century ago.

raider.adam · #33 (**permalink**) 01-10-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romano

You can't look at the differences without acknowledging the similarities. If the horse is mechanical and has two wheels, it's called a motorcyle and the leaking of water can also be considered a warning sign....just to take your analogy a little further. If you don't think America is overextended with war and overburdened with debt, then you're not paying attention.

1) I think the differences between america and the soviet union are a lot more than the differences between a vehicle with two wheels or a vehicle with four wheels. In this analogy, I wouldn't even say both would have a combustion engine. These are two significantly different models of economic theory and governmental theory. I would agree with you if they were both capitalistic countries with different tax structures and monetary policy. They aren't. The differences are vast.

2) I am not saying there can not be similarities. I am just saying, due to the different systems, basing the argument off the analysis of a non-similar model and using similarities to prove the eventual collapse of the other system is not reliable or justifiable. It is wrong.

3) I said nothing about american debt burden or the war. Why was that brought into our discussion? And even if you want to go into that segue ... what was our debt burden post WW II compared to pre-II? What was debt burden pre-Vietnam and post Vietnam? I would assume those are a hell of a lot better models than using a communist economic engine. And America didn't implode then.

Am I happy about the American economy, spending, war and all the rest? Of course not. I also don't think it is the 4th horseman, either.

passyunk square · #34 (**permalink**) 01-10-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyaggie

As far as population goes, China's has stabilized by now. India's has slowed and is expected to soon stabilize. Each Indian woman used We're talking about trying for just replacement level (2 or less per couple), and we haven't achieved that yet on a global basis, so the population runaway train is still coming down the tracks.

fyi - 2 children per couple is actually below replacement since some people die before they're ready or able to have kids themselves. Replacement is actually somewhere around 2.1 or 2.2

also the birthrate is closely tied to educational attainment, not necessarily industrialization.

phillyaggie · #35 (**permalink**) 01-10-2008, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by passyunk square

fyi - 2 children per couple is actually below replacement since some people die before they're ready or able to have kids themselves. Replacement is actually somewhere around 2.1 or 2.2

also the birthrate is closely tied to educational attainment, not necessarily industrialization.

agreed on both counts. on the population stats, i was going off memory but the point was that India has halved the rate over the past two decades or so as more basic education and basic sanitation services have been provided. Industrialization and population growth are two different issues, but are interconnecting in places such as China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc to multiply the effects on resource consumption.

passyunk square · #36 (**permalink**) 01-10-2008, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyaggie

agreed on both counts. on the population stats, i was going off memory but the point was that India has halved the rate over the past two decades or so as more basic education and basic sanitation services have been provided. Industrialization and population growth are two different issues, but are interconnecting in places such as China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, etc to multiply the effects on resource consumption.

yeah, i knew what you meant, i was just making the point that it's not unreasonable to expect the birthrate to drop by one child per household in a generation.

passyunk square · #37 (**permalink**) 01-10-2008, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illiniwek

Eh, been there, done that. Media in the 70's were full of stories about global economic collapse, impending resource wars and the new ice age waiting to crush civilization.

yeah, and they were predicting that it would happen now. I would say that what's happening in iraq, iran, afghanistan, and venezuela is just the opening act. and yes, we should've entered a cooling period already so what our predecessors of the 70's got wrong is that we would "use" technology to counteract the next ice age. The earth spent billions of years sequestering carbon and we spend 100 years digging up as much of it as possible and burning it.

Quote:

Instead, we got unprecedented economic growth, falling resource prices and a new tune called global warming.

what resources have fallen in price? Steel? Concrete? Oil? Uranium? Copper? Plastic? Milk? Corn?

unprecented economic growth globally but certainly not domestically and while tickers and spreadsheets might grow and add zeros at a staggering clip and while rich people might be accumulating even more wealth faster than anyone could've ever imagined it doesn't mean that we're building wealth nationally or globally by any measure other than to say we're printing more bills with more zeros on them.

People need to be careful when they try to use "capitalism" and "free market" as synonyms. The free market is a theoretical construct and capitalism is an ideology.

Capitalism is represented by firms like Wal-Mart and GE with internal economies larger than most countries. They manipulate and distort markets. There's nothing free about it.

Smarter U.S. power usage could save $120 billion:
and reduce the need for 30 large power plants

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0961359320080109

It's for stuff like this that a.) i'm really not all that pessimistic even though i think we're in for big changes and
b.) the influence of the capitalist ideology is clear. We already have all of the technology we need to solve our
current problems but there's still too much money to be made on the status quo and as long as patents can be
bought and withheld, subsidies for inefficient industries can be maintained, and prices can be manipulated we're
not going to see innovation or change at anywhere near the rate we need to.

frankdialogue · #38 (**permalink**) 01-12-2008, 04:13 PM

The world will not collapse anytime soon, although the economy is in a precarious position...this could be solved by closing the Federal Reserve and having the US Treasury print 'interest-free' money...there is no 'peak oil'...this is a scam by the oil/gas monopolies to keep prices artificially high, while at the same time refusing to make capital investment in better refining technology, or in a more hi-tech energy source...there is no 'global warming'...refer
back to the 'peak oil' scam...what is a danger is the use of sophisticated digital and other technologies to control populations...
also, possible use of biological weapons by various 'Intelligence' services...as Jesus Christ stated 'there will be wars & rumors of wars, famine & pestilence, and earthquakes in diverse places, but the end is not yet'.