Why, then, is the world population estimated at 7 billion people and growing? This would seem to directly contradict your claim.
Wrong. Birthrates in most white countries are at an all-time low. The only people in the world who breed like bunnies are the ones who live in places where the average lifespan is way lower.
You do realize that as long as the world population keeps growing, the quoted statement is false? Seeing as the world population is growing, your above statement is false.
Seeing as the world population is growing, your above statement is false.
I think this is not the case. For population to grow, every person on average must produce just a bit more than one offspring who gets to mate as well. So if an average person produces 10 offsprings, 8.9 of whom die before reaching age 1, and 1.1 live to age of 15 and then repeat this procreation cycle, then average life span is less than 2 years, while the population grows steadily.
You do realize that as long as the world population keeps growing, the quoted statement is false? Seeing as the world population is growing, your above statement is false.
Doesn’t matter what birthrates are. If the world population keeps growing it will hit its peak soon enough which will cause huge food wars (aggression) once industrial ag finally bottoms out. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying concerning the LoL. Civ enables populations to grow to huge porportions but kills the race at the same time. Civ grows to die. We can feed more people thanks to industrial ag and GMO BUT then you have to deal w/ extreme cases of overpopulation which lead to massive die-offs. Also GMO is death cells being injected in your food. Statist industrial ag destroys topsoil to the point where soon enough ag itself will be dry. More reason I advocate doing away with tech, leaving civilization and learning survial skills.
Biological organisms are a kind of technology, a natural technology. The cell can be described as a self-replicating computer hardware device. The ecosphere is a kind of “economy” or “civilization” and the rules that have arisen within it are a kind of law (law of nature, or law of life, if you prefer). It seems to me that you’re committing a genetic fallacy or at least special pleading to single out human-devised technologies, economy, civilization and law as being somehow inherently destructive.
Clayton -
Then why did you bring it up? I mentioned population growth, not an increase in birthrates.
You need to prove this. This an unsupported assertion.
First part is true. The second part is unsupported.
First part is true. The second part is unsupported.
Unsupported. You also need to define “soon enough”.
I am detecting a pattern here. You make a lot of unsupported statements, and then you repeat yourself. That does not mean supporting your statements.
Gee. We’ve only been hearing that since world population was less than half a billion.
Here’s a video for you.
And, by the way, world population growth is slowing and will continue to slow. Some experts are predicting growth will zero out later this century. Once we cross the zero-growth boundary, there is nothing stopping us from going into negative growth (shrinking population) for the first time in centuries. While this thought may make the Algoreans giddy, the fact is that a population crash is a much more worrisome catastrophe than any population explosion.
Clayton -
Those “experts” seem to be arriving at those conclusions by very economically ignorant methodology. And in fact that whole thing is incredibly contradictory. I didn’t hear the guy in the video say anything about the subject introduced by the title of the article. In fact he spends the entire first half of the video talking about how the birth rate and fertility rate (of Australia, anyway) are going up.
And then something he did mention (emphatically) was that this kind of shift is just a matter of personal preference, and “you can’t entertain a situation where governments were making rules about whether you could or whether you couldn’t.” He elaborates on this for basically the rest of the video saying that the State has no place in interfering and issuing mandates and the like in this area.
Then the entire article below the video goes on to say how “federal and state governments should aim to lift [the retirement age] to 65 by using sticks and carrots to make people put off their retirement, and get retired people to return to work part-time.”
This of course as a reaction to the notion that (despite a shrinking population, which, don’t forget is supposed to be the subject of the article), “most people will be living in cities, and in developing countries - and they will consume twice as much food and water as the world now produces”. This of course—as the conventional economic illiterate wisdom would dictate—“rais[es] serious issues of sustainability.”
Seems to me that
That article does more to agree with Freedom4Me73986 than refute him.
Both he, and the authors of that piece need to watch the video I posted above. (As well as this one.)
So, once you abandon civilization, you won’t use agriculture?
So, once you abandon civilization, you won’t use agriculture?
Learn the right gathering skills and I won’t need to.
Who cares? Will you respond to my arguments without resorting to ad homs?
Will you learn the definition of “ad hominem” and quit incorrectly invoking it everytime someone points out the hypocrisy of your entire philosophy?
Will you learn the definition of “ad hominem” and quit incorrectly invoking it everytime someone points out the hypocrisy of your entire philosophy?
Pointing out someone’s supposed hypocrisy IS an ad hom attack. Will you respond to the videos Ive posted or are you going to ramble on about how I’m using a computer at the moment?
I love how F4M constantly reposts the exact same 2-4 minute wishy-washy YouTube videos like they’re some kind of master answer.
And this “law of life” stuff. It’s a non-concept. The videos compare it to empirically determined physical laws, and offer NO SUPPORT for this argument, besides just repeating the lie over and over again.
Is that F4M in that one video? Because the kid makes about as much sense as he does.
Oh, and this repeated assertion that “every civilization that has existed has collapsed”. This is utterly false. Civilizations rarely collapse, but States do. Roman “civilization” didn’t collapse. The Roman STATE did. The Egyptian civilization didn’t collapse, the Egyptian STATE did. And so often, the results of these collapses isn’t the result of some massive systemic failure, but rather a weakening, followed by an invasion of another group of civilized or otherwise organized peoples.
When the state collapses it brings part of civilization down with it, doesn’t it?
Please note that I don’t believe civilization is evil:)
