"The growth in human population has been more than met by increases in the production of food..."

Yes, but 'food' by what definition? Genetically modified corn, high fructose corn syrup, trans-fats and soy products? Is that what the author means by progress? Increased life span is mentioned as 'progress' too but length doesn't equal quality.

Another interesting piece:

Is the world really overpopulated? Dr Frank Furedi, author of Population and Development,doesn't think so 'I think that it's important to realise that there is always a disjuncture between the perception of population density and the reality. The reason why so many Westerners regard Asia as a continent of teeming masses is because people feel very uncomfortable with Asians. The reality, of course, is that Belgium has got a higher population density than China.

You'll find that many Western societies have far higher population densities than Asian or African societies. But we don't talk about those 'insects' in Belgium, those teeming masses. The reason for that is that we're quite comfortable with those people.'

Environmentalists say that people are the problem: too many of them can only lead to famine and environmental degradation. But critics of the Greens point out that people in countries with high populations are by and large better fed and live in nicer environments.

The Netherlands, for example, has a population of 381 people per square kilometre. This is more than three times as high as China's population density of 126 people per square kilometre. Africa is very sparsely populated indeed. Even discounting desert and semi-desert areas, there are still only 48 people per square kilometre, compared with 238 people per square kilometre in the UK. Despite what the Greens suggest, the result of all these people in the First World has not been environmental degradation.

Some of the most densely populated parts of the world also happen to be growing more trees than ever before. In Europe, for example, there are 30% more trees than there were 50 years ago.

'Trees and forests provide a good example of how it's possible to have a growing economy and a growing population and a thriving environment,' says Steve Hayward of the Pacific Research Centre. 'The lesson from trees really applies across the environment. We have cleaner air today; we have cleaner water; we grow more food at less impact on the land; we have more wildlife diversity - and we've done all this while having a growing economy and a growing population.'

Wow, you don't hear that perspective very often, wonder why?

I'm looking for some box jump stands (20 & 24 inch). Please send any info and/or website info.

Thanks.

CDT-
Check out your local dixieline or lumbermill...we just had 6 boxes made at a dixieline in San Diego and they came out great.

Thanks Lisa Lugo, I'll check it out!

I suspect an argument of length versus quality in reference to human life is a) afforded by affluence, to the affluent, and b) lost on those whose populations are dying in large numbers in infancy.

"Human comfort," wrote John Rickman, a contemporary chronicler of the Industrial Revolution, "is to be estimated by human health, and that by the length of human life."

'In A Moment on the Earth, Gregg Easterbrook points out that "it cannot be noted too often that the spectacular worldwide increase in human lifespans has come during the very period when global use of synthetic chemicals, fossil fuels, high-yield agriculture, and radioactive substances has increased exponentially--a fantastic flowering of life coincident with the very influences doomsday orthodoxy depicts as antithetical to life."'

'By what standard is the earth overpopulated?'

A painfully obvious question, but one I've rarely heard asked before. The author presents a sound, well reasoned argument.

Another plyometric box link; http://www.biggerfasterstronger.com/p_pDetails.asp?pID=371

CrossFit Santa Cruz got a set of these at least five years ago. They aren't cheap, but they have been pounded almost daily ever since, and are still going strong.

Tim Post#2,

The majority of the population in China lives in the East Coast. I once saw a percentage in a Time article, don't quote me, but I think it was close to 80% who live on the East Coast.

I think comparing Belgium and China in this respect is like comparing Apples and Oranges. China has roughly the same land mass as the U.S which is much bigger than Belgium or Netherlands. I have not been to either, but having lived a little in China my opinion is that China is overcrowded because it is, not because I dislike Chinese people. I'm sure the fact that I grew up in the 'burbs in TX where things are not crowded at all, helped me percieve China as crowded.

What would the U.S be like if there were 4 times as many people as there are now, and the majority of them lived East of the Mississippi?

Theoretically, we wouldn't be overcrowded because of "rural" sparsly populated areas out west, but what would your opinon then be visiting the East Coast?

Found the link to that article:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/20050627/map/

I couldn't find an exact % but I think the graphic conveys what I was trying to say in my above post.

Troy

God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." Genesis 1:28

The author had this sentence...

"Believers in overpopulation should ask themselves this question: What evidence would persuade you that there is no population problem?"

I think the question should be "what evidence would persuade you there won't be a population problem?"

By the laws of compounded interest, you can roughly figure out the doubling rate for something subject to recurring percent growth by taking the percent and dividing it into 70. So if the population grows by 2% per year, it will double in about every 35 years. It grows exponentially. In order to accomodate this growth rate, access to resources must also grow exponentially, or eventually the population will catch up. An exponential growth will always overtake an non-exponential. An 80-fold increase in food productivity just provides a buffer.

So in short, it'd appear to me that somewhere down the road either populations will naturally need to level, or be controlled to do so. Probably a good many years away, though, for the reasons in the article.

The problem with population growth is that the populations of underdeveloped countries continue to grow while the populations of developed countries have leveled out. See this graph:

http://www.prb.org/images/e-01(world_pop_growth).gif

And read this web site:

http://www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/Educators/Human_Population/Population_Growth/Population_Growth.htm

So it isn't simply a matter of the population doubling. It is that the percentage of people living in poverty is going to increase and this places a increaing burden on the developing countries to provide assistance.

So if poverty increases then the cost of paying someone to mow my lawn should go down...that is good. With all this global warming my lawn is going to need a lot of work.

I give you, British Barrage Baloons of WWII. Pretty sweet, eh?

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWbarrage.htm

God Warrior....
1. Mow my lawn you idiot
2. If you think you are cool you aint
3. No one here thinks you are funny if that is what your aim is
4. No one here really cares about your propoganda
5. Hitting & hiding is gutless and piss weak
6. If you are a wod regular posing as 'god warrior' grow up and stay away from rest days if that is your motivation
7. If you are even remotley religious you wouldnt call yourself what you do, which suggests you dont really care about the crap you write and it is really just an adolescent attemtpt at amusing yourself. Is it smaller than the other boys?

Question for admins of this site...can you just remove all posts made using illegitemate email addys. Maybe set up a varification of posts via email system. That would cut these idiots out, or at worst allow management of their crap.

Krista ....are you in the final stages of childbirth, sneezing one mutha of a sneeze, someone wired that bar up to the mains...or are you are feeling the burn CF style? Which is it? Go hard girl :)

Have a good day all.

I have to say, I agree with most of the points raised in this article. It’s true that the growth in human population has been more than equaled by growth in our ability to provide for ourselves. Most of the problems associated with “overpopulation” in fact result from other causes, most of them political and localized. . I also really like the distinction he draws between resources and materials. And I agree that the Act he was arguing against (back in 1995, by the way) was poorly-conceivedI hate the arrogance embodied in the whole Act; the idea of overtly controlling in any way how many children someone can have seems to strike at one of the most fundamental of human freedoms.

But there are a couple of things I don’t agree with. He quotes John Rickman (an anti-Malthusian who died in 1840) as saying, “Human comfort is to be estimated by human health, and that by the length of human life.” Do we really believe this anymore? Long life=comfortable life? I think we’ve moved past this simplistic model.

Also, it’s true that spectacluar increases in human life expectancy have come at the same time we’re using more fossil fuels, synthetic chemicals, radioactive substances, etc. But I think most people who are concerned about overpopulation would question the long-term effects of those usages. This is the real issue, and I don’t think Richman really sddresses it adequately. People who say overpopulation is a problem are saying that if a given amount of people in an area need to use nonrenewable resources in a non-sustainable way, then that area is overpopulated. (This is why I think his strongest point was to differentiate between materials and resources.) Extremists would say that, for example, the U.S. is overpopulated, because our population is currently running a “net resource deficit”. I personally find this ridiculous, but that gets to the heart of the problem: how do we account for the long term? Yes, human society is better off than it was, but we can’t seem to agree on how to account for things like the long-term effect on the environment.

I think it comes down to a couple of questions. Should we care today about problems tomorrow, even if those problems are merely possible and not inevitable? If we should care, what should we do? And what’s the government’s role? It would guess Richman’s answers would be no, nothing, and none. And I don’t think I agree.

Anyway, thanks for the article. Good read.

You just can't go wrong with CATO.

Very solid evidence against the leftist kooks who are always shoving their "tree-hugging" garbage down our throats. (Like the mainstream Media)

The sky is not falling henny penny!

I say we take these doomsday folks (whom probably have never put in a hard days work in their lives due to the great benefits of overpopulation like plentiful food) and make them mow all of our lawns (lawns must be 2.5 acres or more), in the hot sun, all day long, armed only with a pair of scissors for cutting.

Now that's funny! I don't care who you are!

I rarely comment on rest days, but this topic begs a note from someone who spends a large amount of time in the ocean: it's a mess. I've been an avid surfer for a decade and the pollution level is increasing exponentially: the sewage (read: shit), viral disease, and waste that is present on our shores and in our oceans is without a doubt the result of overpopulation (when I say overpopulation, I mean that every Ameican sucking down Big Gulps, Big Macs, and bottled water causes 10x as much environmental harm as any hard working farmer in Indonesia). We dont't need less Americans - we need less lazy ass Americans. #17: please go tell any self-sufficient farmer they've never put in a hard days work in their lives; they'll callous your hands before you can say "John Deere". I'd like to see you survive for a week munching on your over-fertilized front yard. Being ignorant is not a sign of strength.

'when I say overpopulation, I mean that every Ameican sucking down Big Gulps, Big Macs, and bottled water causes 10x as much environmental harm as any hard working farmer in Indonesia'

The evidence would seem to contradict your claim yofi. From; http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indoe.html

'Indonesia's water quality is deteriorating. One of the most serious problems is the lack of sewerage systems in urban areas. The Indonesia Environment Monitor notes that Indonesia ranks among the worst countries in Asia in sewerage and sanitation coverage. Few Indonesian cities possess even minimal sanitation systems. For example, according to a 2002 World Bank report, less than 3% of Jakarta's population is connected to a sewer system. The absence of an established sanitation network forces many households to rely upon private septic tanks or to dispose of their waste directly into rivers and canals. The commonality of the latter practice has led to significant contamination of Indonesia's surface and groundwater, as well as to repeated epidemics of gastrointestinal infections. As of 2001, an estimated 90% of Jakarta's shallow wells were polluted by domestic waste.'

'Indonesian coastal waters are highly polluted, especially in high traffic areas such as the Malacca and Lombok Straits, the major shipping pathway between Asia and the Middle East. Unsustainable fishing practices (e.g. blastfishing), industrial effluent, sewage, and agricultural discharges also have placed the ecosystems of Indonesia's reefs, the most biologically diverse in the world, in jeopardy. According to a 2002 report by the World Resources Institute, 86% of Indonesia's reef area (19,700 square miles) is at medium or high risk.'

From the sources I've scanned briefly, it looks like the 'hard working farmer in Indonesia' causes considerably more than the 10x the pollution of 'every American sucking down Big Gulps, Big Macs, and bottled water.' (Although the farmers had help from the Indonesian government in the form of huge subsidies on water and pesticides.)

Not enough time to read the whole article, but I did like this- "Famine in the 20th century is a political rather than an ecological phenomenon." How true. Some of the worst famines in history have not been the result of ecology, too many people, or anything else. They are the result of the corrupt leaders of failed states. Ethopia, for example, where Western aid poured in the front door and the president was selling it out the back, or in many cases just destroying it instead of giving it to his people.

What's the recommended rowing machine?

By the way, I love that whoever's picking these articles picked last week from Reason magazine and this week from Cato Institute. There really ARE other Libertarians.

Rowing is done on a concept 2 model D

Didn't feel like resting today. Got in a light chest workout with a mile and half run and 15 minutes on the bike right after. Practiced elevated push ups (trying to get up to full handstands soon) lots of abs today, feel like i've been slacking on that.

Have a great day everyone, enjoy a restful Saturday.

"...Nature does not provide resources, only materials. A resource is a material that has been stamped with a human purpose."

"People don't deplete resources. They create them."

Well, by creating resources, people deplete materials, which are limited. More people require more material, and when we deplete a particular material, we move on to a different material(whale oil to kerosene, for example). Eventually, we will deplete a critical material to the point of a serious problem(Google "overfishing" for example).

For an extensive compilation of arguments against Richman's view, see http://dieoff.com. It's unpleasant, but it's important to understand both sides of an issue.

Some of these posts are bringing me straight back to last week's rest day comments. Some of the people here need to do a little more redearch before they start to make an arguement....this fact was just skillfully illustrated by RossB and yofi. My point is the same as it was from last time....read before you post a response or risk making yourself look foolish.
To the population article...
I agree fully that famine is a governmental issue. Those countries that suffer from incredible poverty and high famine, also suffer from civil war, and intergovernmental strife. Hunger and peverty can't be construed as evidence to support overpopulation. If overpopulation is a problem, then it's got to be a global one, and from what I see, "overpopulation" hasn't stricken the US yet. Now I will play devil's advocate a little here. I may not see a problem with overpopulation, but I do see an increase in global overcrowding of certain areas. Overcrowding is a problem, it poses great health risks. I'm sure that someone will disagree with me, I don't care. The fact is this: overcrowding one area will result in higher disease/virus rates and the spread of those disesases and viruses. It's evidenced recently with SARS and Avian Flu. The areas most stricken by these deseases are the areas that seem to be overcrowded. Avian flu is a slightly different story because it is rarely trasmitted human to human, but mark my words...the H5N1 strain(the one humans don't like) will mutate before we find an antigen for it and will become more pathogenic human to human. In any instance it will affect faster the overcrowded areas on the planet first. Just as HIV/AIDS did. The pandemic that turned epidemic started mainly in an overcrowded parts of the world, not overpopulated, and then spread. I know there wil be dissention in the ranks about my post, but it's cool to read the responses.
Oh yeah, God Warrior.......
Just go somewhere else with your stuff...nobody here cares to read it. It's not funny, it's ridiculous. Nobody here is propogating a view, it's an open discussion about a specific subject, not a daggone religious forum. If you would like ot quote scripture here, first do some WODs, then post some results. If not, go join the 700 Club, get outta here, this is not the place for your faux religious propaganda.

Hi all,
When the oil goes, so will the majority of the human population... 6.5 bilion is unsustainable.

Workout as follows ALL WEIGHT IN KILOS
Lisa Power clean and Power jerk 35x3x2, 45x3, 52.5x2, 57.5x2, 62.5x1, 65x1, 70x1; front squat 45x3, 65x3, 75x2x2.

Jon ride 3 at level 6 (8:15)
PCJ 50x3x2, 65x3, 80x2, 90x2, 92x2, 100x1x3 (no jerks); Front squat 62x5, 90x3, 105x2, 115x2x2; Power jerk from traps 65x3x2, 82x2, 90x2x2, 95x2,1,2.
Rest...

I think the article has some good points and some that I have thought about previously. I do not think that the world is overpopulated, but rather that the population centers are getting crowded. I also believe that our government is inherently flawed. We are spending vast amounts of time and money trying to divert funds to corporate pockets or to governments that we wish to influence. I don't think either is a good use of resources and they are not the only recipients of government (tax payer) money.

As to the environment, the paradox exists that the government is trying to restore parts of the environment and at the same time allowing corporations to destroy others. I would like to see some better management of resources. I like the concept of tree farms, but I don't know everything that goes along with them. I would lke to see more time and effort devoted to sustaining what we have left of our environment. I think spreading the population out is not the best option, but we do need to look at decentralizing our populations for our own sake. Perhaps better use of our recyclable materials. Perhaps better management of resources. Perhaps changing how we operate as a society.

I would also like to see some of the times from God Warrior and Tristam, who are ever present to spout political rants, but strangely absent during the workout days...

That Guy, you make an interesting point. There are thought to be around 50 million different species living on the earth, of which we have currently catalogued a little less than 10% (4-5 million). In the book The Hot Zone, author Richard Preston makes a brief anecdotal statement about the earth as a single organism. He says that like a humans immune system reacting to a viral infection, the ebola virus was one of the earths 'immune responses' to mans probing too deeply into the rain forests of Africa.

To play devils advocate; it's quite possible, and not altogether unrealistic, that the earth will kill man long before man can kill the earth, or exhaust any natural material necessary for our survival. But not as a result of overpopulation, or overcrowding. Payback's a bitch as they say.

Some wise person once said that each side in an argument has a tendency to be right in what they assert and wrong in what they deny. This article is a good example of that. Sure, anybody who truly looks knows that famine is a political issue, that countries can be economically well off while their population grows, and that increased life expectancy is mostly responsible for population growth.

Those truths don't mean there is no population problem, however, just that the problem isn't what many people think it is. Think about it in a way that most here can relate: Is it possible for 6.5 billion to eat Zone and be Crossfit? The honest answer is no.

RossB - you should also check out a book by Bill Bryson called A Short History of Nearly Everything. He extensively covers this very point (extensively for a non-scientist) and lots of other related topics.

Higher world population = More CrossFitters!

Extra training today of my weaker points:
3 rnds for time of 10 burpees, 5 ring pull ups, 5 ring dips, 10 knee to elbow
total time 8:30 min, 3x10 squat clean oly-bar, nice and deep squats.
All exercises done strict.

About the population, I do not think this is a political, economical or financial problem. I think this is a spiritual problem. Would you give to a person in, say, India the same help as you did in Orleans? If so why didn't you do it in the past?
I'm guilty as well, but I am working on it. I do not speak for anybody but myself. We, as the total world population, have all the resources there are to stop world hunger today. We all want to stop fighting today. Every child can go to school. There is enough money in the world to make everybody well off..
Why does this not happen?
I think we have to look inside ourself before we point our fingers to"the goverment" We are the goverment, we deside who sits there.

Happy healthy MIND TRAINING
Johan

God warrior

keep posting the word mate, i'm reading

I fully agree, RossB. It is quite possible, and completely fesible that the planet will utter its last groans of agony and put the human species in its place. But until then, I'm gonna keep a healthy diet, and I'm gonna keep on CrossFitting. And I'm gonna try to spread the word.
My retort to Joahn, I quasi-agree with you. I don't blame fully governments for the state of the planet, you're almost right...we are the government, but we don't control the government, nor do I fully agree that we put the leaders that are in those positions where they are. I also do not agree that it's a spiritual problem, it's a cultural problem. You don't treat one person on one side of the planet the same another out of respect for their culture. On your view of "the government"; I remember one of my freshman year PolySci lecture classes. It was intro to PolySci, but my professor made it worth going to. There are many political theories in world politics, but the one theory, or model that I belive the US falls under is called Political Eliteism. The essence of Eliteism is that the government is run by those with the most cashflow, the elite. The people involved; the President, the electorate, they're all puppets of the elite. Wheather or not you believe it, or realize it, the "big ballaz" are the ones who control what happens. The fattest wad usually is the one who has the most push. The masses can say all that they want, and elect whom they chose, but the decisions that are made at the upper echlons of the government are made by the money pushers.

Did a repeat of Helen @ Brand-X today.

11:01, improvement over last Helen this week @ 14:26.

Way to go, SD Mike!

My time at Brand X with 35# dumbbell = 15:08.

That Guy,

Interesting point. I agree in that you have stated it better than I could have. Money is our controlling factor. The fattest wad does have the most pull. It is unfortunate that we cannot truly run the government. We are a republic, not a true democracy, and we should be better at controlling our fate than we are. So, Johan, I disagree with your view that "we" are our government. We select the slickest, most appealing campaign strategy to run our governments and decide our future. Right now, as That Guy said, it is money that runs the show. Our wants and desires for government are not considered as often as we would like, if we don't have the same clout as the money holders.

I think if we put everyone on permanent beds and tube-fed them perfectly so that they would all live to 150 years old, then we would have really improved the "health" of the world's population.

Health = longer lifespans is about the worst equation I've ever heard.

Last I heard, rumor (and media) had it that this generation of children would be the first to have shorter lifespans than their parents (mostly d/t diabetes and its related complications). It would seem that something is catching up to us in general.

5 generations was the magic number in Pottinger's cat studies. While I think humans have had better food in general than the worst-fed cat group, at least the cats' health was only assaulted through diet. We humans have found myriad ways of attacking the natural order and thus our health. Synergy in that area will not work in our favor.

98% percent of children born in the US today will be driving poorly while yapping on their cellphones in 16 years. Makes me think we ought to put something in the water to cure the problem of reproduction.

Tried this...
21 kb swings 24kg
21 pullups
21 kb sw.
21 burpees
21 kb sw.
21 sandbag lifts (I got 205# SB up onto my shoulders, so I squatted with it, and did 8... really 8 singles, so to keep up the pace, finished with 13 sandbag lifts to shoulders with an 80# sandbag.)
21 kb sw.
21 wall ball (18# med ball)
21 kb sw.
21 50# sandbag get ups
21 kb sw.
21 pullups
:30::08
first set with the sandbag smoked my time. But it was fun.

"Well, by creating resources, people deplete materials, which are limited. More people require more material, and when we deplete a particular material, we move on to a different material(whale oil to kerosene, for example). Eventually, we will deplete a critical material to the point of a serious problem(Google "overfishing" for example)."

Oil was going to run out in the 1970s until some genius invented fuel injectors. Oil is going to run out now, so geniuses figure out how to better refine cellulosic ethanol. There are incredibly intelligent people working to solve various problems on a daily basis.

"Yes, but 'food' by what definition? Genetically modified corn, high fructose corn syrup, trans-fats and soy products? Is that what the author means by progress?"

There are plenty of people who don't follow the paleo diet that lead healthy, productive lives. Your point has some merit, but is mostly a straw man fallacy. A meal consisting of whole wheat pasta and chicken is wildly different than trans fat laden doughnuts and a two liter of soda.

'Whole wheat pasta' as fuel for healthy productivity? I say add it to my above list. Pasta is about as nutritious as paper mache.

As to 'straw man fallacy', I'm not seeing that in the rising rates of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer.

bw195
light bench: 105#x15
115x20
95x15
squat: 135#x10
155x8
185x6
225x3
245x3
Ab work with 10# medicine ball
Spar with martial arts student (bloody nose). I guess I trained him well!

God Warrior,

If you are such a true believer, why don't you pack up your Bible and get on a plane to the Middle East. There are plenty of poor heathen souls there who haven't, "Heard the good news" yet. I'm sure all the,'God Warriors'there would enjoy you spouting the 'truth' at them as much as I have. Unfortunately, i'm sure you are more of a 'keyboard warrior' than anything else.

And the bartender tipped the glass under the tap, from which came the frothy substance in quantity. Loaded with color and tastefulness..and the bartender stood back and said it was good...go forth and multiply upon thy patrons.

From the Book of the Hot Wings, verse Blue cheese.

Wow...I love that guy #46...I'll buy him a drink.

Rest Day WOD: 400 sprints (fastest 1:15...hey I am slow and it was a crosswind...but still sucked ass)

ok so, most important, couldn't sit still, did a good weight circiut followed by half a murph.

so, i really enjoy these rest days, they are a good mental wod whether you agree with the articles or not. i usually disagree for the most part but i do enjoy (mostly) the ensuing discussions as they give me a different view and way to look at things regardless of what i think of their right or wrongness. at anyrate this is my take on the articles main points;

1 - dont disagree with this, in fact it would seem to me that this arguement would be to the contrary of the article. if death rates are dropping and people are living longer, and the percentage increase of reproduction even stays the same, wont the population percentage just continue to increase?

2 - resources are a finite issue and to say otherwise is simple propoganda or ignorance

3 - reporductive freedom? i think the short of this is there is an incredible amount of space on this planet, the jacksonville example shows it. i have heard the put every one in texas example where everyone would get something like 1/4 acre a peice. but the simple fact is there is also only so much "usable" area(i.e. currently the gobi and sahara deserts are not really usable for supporting much of any population, nor is the arctic or antarctic). only so much area to grow crops, raise animals, etc. and for every person there is a base requirement as to how much is needed, there fore, while we may be ok at the moment, it is not hard to extrapolate out the data and see where there is more people than real area that can be used. Only one other organism will knowing use all its area and continue to populate - a parasite. so unless we come up with another alternative, which is possible, i just don't know what it is.

all of this article seems to say to me is "there is no population problem, move along"

god warrior, wow,
with great power that god has given us comes great responsibility, to multiply beyond our means is irresponsible, to say we have dominion of animals and fish without the responsibility to ensure their wellbeing is irresponsible.

rant off, that was too much i just spewed

"soylent green is people"

The wife and I ran-jogged-walked-hiked from our hotel (the Hilton Waikiki Beach) up Diamond Head and back. I carried a little pack. First long trek in the Vans slip-ons and my feet are very sore.

Regarding overpopulation, I really don't care for humans all that much. I don't so much think there's an overpopulation problem, just a population problem. People blow regardless of how the resources are distributed.

People here can be as into God as they want if they don't mind me being WAY into Satan.

-D.

Cute 49. Reminds me of one of those boogers you dispatch that ends up having a stringer that feels like it was curled around the inside of your eye socket. Anyway, LMAO at you the "ran-jogged-walked-hiked" Diamond Head, in Vans slip- ons. . Poser. Were they checkered? And I bet the Op courderouy shorst weree pretty sweaty too...

"for example, there are 30% more trees than there were 50 years ago."

yeah, because we blew them all up 55 years ago and its taken a while to get a lot of them back

Comment #8 Troy D

I am currently living on the East coast of China and the population is dense but the country is not overpopulated.The main point of the excerpt that I posted was

"You'll find that many Western societies have far higher population densities than Asian or African societies. But we don't talk about those 'insects' in Belgium, those teeming masses. The reason for that is that we're quite comfortable with those people.'

Environmentalists say that people are the problem: too many of them can only lead to famine and environmental degradation. But critics of the Greens point out that people in countries with high populations are by and large better fed and live in nicer environments.

The Netherlands, for example, has a population of 381 people per square kilometre. This is more than three times as high as China's population density of 126 people per square kilometre. Africa is very sparsely populated indeed. Even discounting desert and semi-desert areas, there are still only 48 people per square kilometre, compared with 238 people per square kilometre in the UK. Despite what the Greens suggest, the result of all these people in the First World has not been environmental degradation."

I should have included this part to demonstrate the 'increase in population equals the increase in human resources' aspect:

'Most of the [African] continent is underpopulated,' argues Dr Margaret Ogola, who runs a health centre in Nairobi. 'The evidence of the world so far is that countries with a lot of people with high population densities tend to be the richer ones. I believe that this is why you are having the phenomenon in some of the Asian "Tiger" countries, as I believe they are called - people create wealth and ways of using it more effectively.'

Machakos is a thriving district in southern Kenya with a growing town and a green hinterland. But 50 years ago there was no town and the hinterland was almost a desert. Few people lived here and the soil was typical of most sub-Saharan Africa: red, short of nutrients and hostile to crops.

Then, in the 1940s, the population began to rise, and as the population grew, so did the town, creating a market for food. Farmers used the income from selling their produce to buy fertilisers and pesticides and to improve irrigation and water storage. Today there are five times as many people in Machakos as there were in the 1940s, and far from destroying the land, the use of chemicals has enormously improved the quality of the soil, which is now comparable with that of southern Italy. Consequently, agricultural production has increased tenfold and Machakos has 10 times the number of trees.

The lives of the people have been transformed. They now have more shops, markets, schools and hospitals. Having more people has made them healthier, better fed and better educated.

'When you have low population densities, as in north-eastern Kenya, for example, you find it's very expensive to provide schools and health centres,' says Dr Rachel Musioki, an economist and adviser to the government. 'So this is one area where sufficient density of population is essential.'

I Don't mind you being into Satan Dan.
just remember your on the losing side.

rev 20: 7 to 10 for details.

Daniel 2:22.

-D.

"'Whole wheat pasta' as fuel for healthy productivity? I say add it to my above list. Pasta is about as nutritious as paper mache. "

Don Quixtote was undefeated when jousting windmills.

toddseney #41,
"There are incredibly intelligent people working to solve various problems on a daily basis."

Great point. Humans are smart creatures. Our species has a history of finding better ways to exploit its environment for growth and expansion. However, all species exist within greater ecological systems, and are, in fact, constrained by specific boundaries. My point was simply that there are limits.

"However, all species exist within greater ecological systems, and are, in fact, constrained by specific boundaries. My point was simply that there are limits."

If by specific boundaries you mean the limits of the universe, then we are in agreement. The word lunatic was originally used to describe those insane folks who actually thought humans could ever walk on the moon.

If you choose to get into a war of words with Dan Silver, know this; he's well armed and likely way smarter than you'll ever be.

"and I will smite thee with great vengance!"

Pete in Oz:
"Australia, Australia, Australia, we love you, amen.'
"Amen, pop two."

This Cato Institute article is over ten years old and uses references written in the 1980s.

Moreover, the author is trying to debunk a strawman by oversimplifying the work done by the overwhelming majority of scientists and researchers on this topic.

Yes, population is a sign of progress. Yes, famines are political in nature. But that is exactly why politics will need to play a role in preventing famines. To say that the 'free market' is capable of solving these issues is not to say that it WILL solve them. To say that "The growth in human population has been more than met by increases in the production of food" is factually wrong. Nor does the author adequately address other increasingly scarce resources such as water, or such problems as pollution. Some countries are able to meet these challenges, others are not. Many of these issues will need to be addressed globally.

For more reliable and up-to-date (and less ideological) information on these topics, I'd suggest the World Watch Institute. Here are some free .pdf s from 2004. More recent research papers are available but cost $

http://worldwatch.org/pubs/mag/2004/175/

Rocky (#59):

Your wrote:

"Moreover, the author is trying to debunk a strawman by oversimplifying the work done by the overwhelming majority of scientists and researchers on this topic."

That is complete bunk. Theories of the dangers of overpopulation today have about the same degree of intellectual credibility as theories promoting the benefits of rent control: effectively none. But that does not prevent these ideas from lingering on dangerously in the public consciousness.

Why does the article cite references from the early '80s? Because this is when some of the seminal work was published that debunked (that word again) the orthodoxy of overpopulation theory. One of the cited works was from Peter Bauer, a genius in the field of understanding human development. During decades of writing prolifically across a wide spectrum of developmental economics he rarely touched on overpopulation worries: he thought them wrong headed and irrelevant nonsense. By the late '70s, however, he had become fed up with the widespread belief in neo-Malthusian bullshit and authored "The Population Explosion: Myths and Realities". Here is a recent Cato Institute retrospective on Bauer's impact on this topic:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj25n3/cj25n3-7.pdf

(The above article is from the Fall 2005 Cato Journal "Remembering Peter Bauer": http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj25n3/cj25n3.html )

I'll call your attention to page nine, where the author (Bauer's former student Nicholas Eberstadt) describes the intellectual retreat of the overpopulation crowd to environmental concerns (global warming anyone?):

"Since Peter Bauer wrote on the population question, a shift in anti-natal argumentation has been evident. Broadly speaking, advocates have moved away from the traditional Malthusianism or neo-Malthusianism, and have come instead to embrace what might be termed "environmental Malthusianism." No longer is the argument that population growth will untether the Horsemen of the Apocalypse simplicatur but, instead, that rising demands upon the planetary eco-system will result in catastrophic overshoot and collapse of the natural global systems that sustain us all.

"By itself, this argument should be seen as at least inherently plausible, and thus should be taken seriously. But to be taken seriously, it must be investigated empirically--and this is self-evidently a more complex and demanding proposition than the erstwhile Malthusian task of calculating the per capita availability of, say, bread.

"In retreating to the parapets of "eco-disaster," anti-natal Malthusianism has abopted what Sir Karl Popper would have called defensive "immunizing tactics or stratagems" for protecting the cherished doctrine against testability--and thus against possible falsification. Peter would have recognized the approach as a "hydra-headed rationalization" (Bauer 1981: 86-134)--much like the devices he had elsewhere identified and described in the hands of convinced proponents of foreign aid."

I will tell you precisely what I think of your "less ideological" buddies at World Watch: they are in the business of supplying hydra-headed rationalizations for the subjugation of free men. They espouse contempt for humanity dressed up as humanitarianism. They seek to constrain choices to only those which fit their collectivist ideology du jour. They are truly contemptible.

Here is Bauer on the primacy of unconstrained choice, i.e., freedom:

"I regard the extension of the range of choice, that is, an increase in the range of effective alternatives open to people, as the principle objective and criterion of economic development". --Peter Bauer 1957 "Economic Analysis and Policy in Underdeveloped Countries"

P.S. Invoking what the "majority of scientists" believe, even (especially) incorrectly, is just begging for Dr. Rocket to come by and deliver another "what is science?" lesson.

I don't know itf this was mentioned or not but it seems to me that the means of obtaining sufficient amounts of food for such a large population necessitate grain based diets and factory farming. As long as these food sources are the norm it is clear to me that diabetes, arthritis, and obesity as well as a barage of other problems are going to grow. Whether or not that will play a role in an eventual levelling out of our populations I do not know.

Eventually South America will run out of rainforest to cut down to graze cattle on right? Or is that a myth? I think that down the road we are going to need to expand into space for sure, there's only so much any contained environment can take and earth is one big contained environment. It would take some pretty drastic technology to create food-producing nanobots or something of the sort. Might as well settle a new planet in a different solar system.

Daniel 2 :22
He is the unveiler of deep and secret things: he has knowledge of what is in the dark, and the light has its living-place with him.

thanks for that Dan, thats earth shattering stuff.

Daniel is talking about God here, not sure what your point is.

Ron
I'm Australian do you love me too.

just playing fellas, no harm intended

Thanks Brian, I'd have said something similar about the 'World Watch' folks, but with much less eloquence, civility, and tact. You da bomb!

I prefer "and the light dwelleth in him."

Some of us are surrounded by the darker side of humanity and strive to keep our heads above it. As a coping mechanism to accomplish this, some of us turn to faith, some of us turn to substances and self-destructive behavior and some of us (gasp!) use humor (like joking about being WAY into Satan).

Perhaps one day I'll wind up in hell after a lifetime of service to my fellow man and, if that's the case, I'll contently burn away while pondering how many of the evil men I knew wound up in Heaven because they read a book and said they were sorry under the right roof. I like to think that I also know what is in the darkness and, despite that, the light still shines in me.

-D.

nice Dan

I don't know what to say, haha as old Ron said you are obviously a smart man,

reading a book and saying a prayer don't mean much

its about where your heart is, i think just maybe your heart is in a good place.

cheers.

Thank you, sir. The feeling is mutual.

-D.

I think that we should turn our focus inward. When Mr. Richman summarizes "Government involvement in the intimate matter of reproduction is especially dangerous" I feel that he speaks of the current state of affairs witnessed by all following hurricane Katrina. An entire city of people who should have taken the initiative to leave on their own but would not because they have been generationally trained to count on others for their needs. How many died waiting for their "first of the month" pellet? How many times more people have we trained to think this way across the nation with our "Welfare Program"? It seems to me we need look no further than our own backyard if we want to help solve a large mess in this world.

Sheldon Richman, author of the Cato article, testified before Congress on the bill, S. 1029, apparently successfully. It was sent to Committee around 1993 or 1994, never to emerge. This flap is dead.

Even before this bill was proposed, activity on limiting population was organized and intense. Remember the movement called Zero Population Growth (ZPG)?

The ostensible purpose of S. 1029 was to extend our foreign aid to the women and children all around the world. Could that have been the real purpose? How were foreign population control and reproductive rights in the interests of the United States? The bill reads like an attempt to expand entitlement programs, as if we didn’t have a big enough problem with domestic entitlements.

A surprising aspect of the S. 1029 is that it was introduced by Alan Simpson (R) Wyoming! What was he thinking? Isn’t he a level-headed individual and conservative leaning?

Sometimes such measures just die of their own weight. This one did. The Kyoto Accords are sufficiently drastic that Congress is not likely ever to ratify them. Sometimes, like Anthropogenic Global Warming or the Hole n the Ozone Layer, the theories and congress need a little push.

On population growth, Richman provides some good source material. But a couple of aspects of the problem are missing.

Historically, that is, until modern times in the West, humans intentionally practiced the highest birth rate possible. This was a consequence of economic imperatives to have lots of farm hands, and the motivation to keep the family line viable, both in the face of high infant mortality.

All viable species have the capacity to grow to an infinite population. Disease and attrition slow the rate of growth, but not the ultimate size. If the net rate is positive, the population heads toward infinity. If the net rate is negative, it heads toward extinction. This is a mathematical consequence of exponential growth, sometimes called geometric growth.

The word exponential is used everyday to mean extremely large or rapid, but that is another example of many misuses of technical words. Exponential means that the rate of growth of a population is proportional to its size. If you deposit one dollar at 0.000000001% per annum, say, it will become infinite, given enough time. Insect colonies don’t grow exponentially because the number of egg producers is generally fixed and is not proportional to the size of the colony. Just about all other forms of life and many other things in the real world grow exponentially during some period of their existence.

Equilibrium is where the birth rate equals the death rate, a net growth rate of zero. Richman called this population stability. The probability of the rates just happening to be equal is zero. That is a theorem in math.

What this means is that the human population, as long as it remains viable, tends to grow to infinity. A fundamental question for science, then, is why does the growth rate ever stabilize? It appears to have done just that in many developed countries. Any model for population growth must account for that fact before the scientist may use the model to predict a population catastrophe.

In other words, a reputable scientist is forbidden to make predictions from an unvalidated model, and a model that does not reproduce all the observations in its domain is a mere conjecture. This is an example of Popper’s now classic falsification principle. Ethically, scientists may not use the AGW model used to predict man’s contribution to GW until it is shown to account for the natural causes of GW. Ethically, scientists may not use the Hole in the Ozone model to predict catastrophic UV radiation from release of CFCs until the model can account for why the Ozone Layer is otherwise stable and constant.

Because the world’s population growth rate is known to be different from nation to nation, the population model must account for the differences. The legitimate scientist may not dismiss those differences and simply consider an abstract model for the entire human population. If his global model doesn’t work for both the Sudan and Switzerland, he must limit the domain of his model to at most the Sudan or Switzerland.

A consequence of these observations is that humans have not been rutting animals probably since we developed language. Population growth models generally presume a natural growth rate imposed by external forces, absent any will, direction, or intelligence. It’s the same for dandelions as it is for humans. Whenever individuals in these models can reproduce, they will. Instead, population growth in man is a human activity, much like and twice related to economics. Philosophically they are both composites of human choice, and economic wealth drives reproduction choices.

In the Theory of Evolution, biologists sometimes offend science and inflame the religious by giving Natural Selection a will and direction. The Theory may not postulate Supernatural Selection. The Intelligent Design model of the religious is junk science because it inserts a supernatural force. On the other hand, economics properly models the actions of natural and intelligent objects. So should human population models. But economics and population models are no better than hypotheses, and not theories, because many of their predictions don’t come true. Like economic growth under socialism. Like famine from excessive population.

Humans are not reactionary like house cats, captives of their instincts. On average, though, humans do appear to have an innate need to reproduce at least in sufficient numbers to keep their families going. Just a couple of centuries back, this meant almost as many pregnancies as possible because of the high death rate before reproduction age. Also because of agrarian economics, family prosperity increased with the number of hands to hunt or plant. Again because of the early death rate, as many pregnancies as possible was the rule. These are likely still the forces in primitive economies.

In chronic famine we’re told, women stay pregnant to breast feed their starving older children. But prosperity, bringing the essentials of food, shelter, health care, and birth control, can reverse all these unhappy practices. But welfare does not convey prosperity. Socialism consumes wealth, not creates it.

The solution to the fear, hysteria, or myth (to use a severely over-worked word) of a population catastrophe is the installation of capitalism.

Socialists measure justice by the uniformity in wealth. In their optimum socialistic society, individuals have the same wealth. Unhappily, that happens only when everyone is broke. In capitalism, the disparity in wealth is recognized as the motivation that causes people to go to work and to create wealth. The reality of capitalism is that at every level, people are better off than they would be under socialism. In capitalism, people are free to fail, and others are free to be charitable. In socialism, there are no failures, only the disadvantaged and victims, and charity is replaced by welfare for them. It’s a power thing, because in the socialist model, socialists are in control.

Population bombers promote welfare. So do people who run Worldwatch, or other websites like Media Matters or Political Cortex. The Haves are supposed to be taxed to give birth control methods and tutorials, and necessities of life to the ignorant and broke Have–Nots. These Have–Nots, though, are not motivated to limit their reproduction rates. Their death rates are too high. Their economies are too poor. They need babies, not rubbers. They need jobs, not TVs.

What the Third World needs is safety, stable currencies, the right to own property, the right to earn real interest, the right to do as a citizen chooses with his earnings, a low tax rate, an infrastructure to support private transportation and communication, a decent law enforcement system, sanitation, cheap energy, clean water, and basic freedoms. Embedded in these are the seeds and nutrients of capitalism. Byproducts include a vocational educational system, a banking system, a practical health care system, and a marketplace of food, clothing and shelter.

Encourage the needs and prosperity will develop, followed by stable populations. Expect an economic growth rate of about 3%, a mysteriously recurring number. If you apply a lot of pressure, and donate a lot of money and capital goods, you can slow the rate down.

Capitalism creates jobs. Socialism creates drones.

Remember, what socialists promote is their control over our lives in order to bring the Haves down closer to the Have-Nots. What capitalists should promote is freedom to show the Have-Nots how to make Haves of themselves.

When you read about some impending social calamity, jump to the bottom line first. If the article calls for US income redistribution, siphoning US capital, controlling US corporations, halting US nuclear programs, urgent US federal controls, or throwing out one or more Republicans, give it a red flag. It’s certainly not a science, no matter the peer review or the credentials. On the other hand, if the article is about AGW, and the bottom line is to relax nuclear regulation and promote nuclear power, it may be legit! If you give it a red flag and still want to read it, go ahead – you’re ready to read it critically and highlight the errors.

Stephen,
If you're in Australia, then you too can apply my Monty Python quote.
I believe it is the intro to the "Philosopher's Song," and we've been down that road before.

and yes, I was right about Dan. All that introspection, half the years of most.
Impressive.

Brian #60 & Jeff #68,

I've noticed a common thread in all of your arguments:

You present the simplest and most obviously incorrect version of an idea as if it is the version held by the person you are arguing against. If the other person says, 'no, that is not my idea' you simply say, "see, your idea didn't hold up!"

The article written in 1995 may have been a semi-accurate depiction of the stupidest neo-Malthusians of that decade and the decades prior. But that doesn't mean that those who believe population is a problem have no counter-arguments, nor does it mean that they have not changed their opinions since. As Brian points out, the trend today is more toward a broader look at the environment and available resources, rather than simplistic and outdated notions of too many humans eating each other like rats in a cage. The fact that your 'opponents' have evolved their opinions to take in new facts (maybe even to acknowledge the legitimate observations of Peter Bauer and Sheldon Richmond) is a sign of their intelligence, and a sign of their genuine desire to understad the situation fully, not a sign of their inherent spinelessness.

The fact that you cannot evolve to understand that World Watch and others striving to understand the world we live in have evolved says to me only that you are more interested in settling decades-old old political scores, and in advancing some age-old political agenda, than in actually understanding reality.

World Watch is above all a research organization. How do they try to subjugate free will? Please explain yourself, Brian.

Jeff, you write that "What the Third World needs is safety, stable currencies, the right to own property, the right to earn real interest, the right to do as a citizen chooses with his earnings, a low tax rate, an infrastructure to support private transportation and communication, a decent law enforcement system, sanitation, cheap energy, clean water, and basic freedoms. Embedded in these are the seeds and nutrients of capitalism. Byproducts include a vocational educational system, a banking system, a practical health care system, and a marketplace of food, clothing and shelter."

I agree completely. And I would say that World Watch has worked harder and longer to achieve all of those goals than the Cato Institute has. Please explain how I am wrong.

To phrase this as a debate between 'socialism' and 'capitalism' is really asinine and just plain ignorant. But if that's really where you want to want to take every argument, then you need to show me the situations where libertarian capitalism has really been tested. If you want to talk about untested theories, I would say libertarianism is one of them. Plenty of examples of abuses and poverty and exploitation can be found under capitalism. But the libertarian can always say, "no that's because those systems still contained some vestige of socialism in it!" If it's bad, it's socialist. Therefore socialism is bad. I'm not sure the greek word for it, but it's a logical fallacy.

Some version of 'socialism' or 'libertarianism' may or may not be the answer. Maybe not. But you guys will only be shouting in your own little echo chamber until you get off the Cato Institute website and really start engaging alternative ideas as they really exist, not as ideological enemies.

#68 Jeff Glassman

Unfortunately it's too apparrent these days that US capitalism has got some serious side-effects. Thanx to the so called "free trade" policy a lot of (manufacturing) jobs have been going oversees and the trend is accelerating.
In addition immigrants are flooding the country and the Wal-marts are very happy with these "cheap" workers, meaning salaries are not rising to say the least, when prices everywhere seem to be going up. Mom and pop stores and small businesses are paying full tax, whereas the big companies pay little to none thanx to their offshore accounts and international filiates.
The gap between the elite and the ordinary american citizen is widening in an astonishing pace and now it's the turn for the middle income americans to pay their full share...tax cuts only for the elite, the Fed printing money like there's no tomorrow which implies inflation for the years ahead...

On another note, it's clear you are a vivid opponent of socialism (collectivism would be a better term), but what you don't seem to "see" is that the reach of the US government into individuals ' lives is bigger than ever. After 9-11 the "war on terrorism" has serious eroded the freedom and individual rights in the form of farreaching legislation for FBI, CIA, Homeland security, etc. Under the Patriot Act for instance if your name is Johnson and your name accidently gets mixed up with another Johnson who happens to be the neighbour of an arab guy, you can be arrested, trialed and convicted without you having the right for an attorney.

But the most important and shocking reality is that the elite of the USA, including all the former and present white house administrations have 1 common goal for the US in the future: One-World-Government.

You can google for CFR, Trilatteral commission, Bilderberg group, Chatham house, Carnegie foundation and the U.N. for proof of their common goal.
That means that you, the russian, the iraqi and the chinaman are going to be the same citizen under this new world government. I seriously urge you to look into this matter to discover the facts of where the leadership is leading the country.
You may not like it.

jeff #68

Please tell me how you get all those things you mentioned without a decent tax rate. I hear this all the time from libertarians; they list things like "safety, stable currencies, the right to own property, the right to earn real interest, the right to do as a citizen chooses with his earnings, an infrastructure to support private transportation and communication, a decent law enforcement system, sanitation, cheap energy, clean water, and basic freedoms" and then say they want them but with little government interference and very low taxes. Of course they never specify the exact level of taxes. None of these things are cheap or easy to do with minimal government.

As for your comment "Capitalism creates jobs. Socialism creates drones." Any one familiar with the history of the industrial revolution can tell you that capitalism produced both drones and jobs. Many people were forced off their farms in england to work in atrocious conditions in urban
factories working mind numbing jobs for 16 hrs a day.

Oliver #72

Amen to that, brother.

Jeff #68
Socialism, unions, taxes, Social Security ... all of these things were responses to real problems. We can debate whether or not they were the correct response, but to pine for some dream world in which 'free choice' magically fixes all problems is a waste of everyone's time. Libertarians apparently respect all free choice except the right to address problems collectively. Free-thinnking democracies came up with taxes for good reason. You act as if you are the only pure partiot, but in reality you seem to want us all to be guinea pigs in your social engineering project.

For Rocky #70:

From the Mission Statement: “The Worldwatch Institute is an independent research organization that works for an environmentally sustainable and socially just society, in which the needs of all people are met without threatening the health of the natural environment or the well-being of future generations.” What does “socially just” mean, and who decides?

What is Worldwatch hiding behind the passive voice, “the needs of all people are met”. Who or what provides those needs? Who decides what is just? This is not unfamiliar language – of the left.

I browsed the World Watch Magazine (it seems to operate under an unsettled name: is it Worldwatch or World Watch) and other publications. The articles are for sale! I saw some close to $20. Maybe the mission statement ought to say first it exists “for profit”. Contributions might be solicited, or it might operate on the basis of free information. Regardless, I'm not buying it.

You say, “libertarian capitalism”. What is that? I framed a definition of capitalism for you: it is, I submitted, what blooms from the needs of the Third World. You agreed with the needs, but you seem to believe in what WW wants: social justice and something meeting the needs of the Third World. Therein appears to lie the difference between our views. Also I am not a libertarian. So guess again. To make it easier for you, I’ll give you another hint: I am not a free market capitalist, either.

Contrary to your conclusion, I did not quote anything Cato said, nor did I knowingly rely on anything from it. Instead, you will note I criticized an article it published for the scientific omissions and oversights. I suggested that data show a difference in population growth rate that a correct model would reproduce before any reputable scientist would say his model predicts an impending population catastrophe. Further, I will submit that all science is based on models with predictive power.

For August, #69:

Your worry about jobs going overseas is misdirected. Overseas is the graveyard of products.

All products exhibit a birth, life, and death cycle. Unhappily, a lot of companies follow right along, but unnecessarily.

As a product goes through its normal maturation, the labor content shrinks, both in hours and cost per hour. This is no accident. Manufacturers spend money on support engineering during production with the specific task of reducing recurring costs. Success is measured by well-known Learning Curves. I’ll dub this model the LC Theory. Even our old off-shore darlings, Japan and Taiwan, are moving manufacturing off shore!

American manufacturing comprises the world’s highest skill labor. Maybe there are better technicians making Swiss watches or German lenses, but net no country out produces the US. American factory labor can work with the least instructions. They turn out profitable stuff from minimal planning and rough sketches of the end product. They are just what is needed when a new product is rushed to market. But that kind of skill is too pricey for fully matured products. Faced with product in its death throes, the choices for American manufacturers are poor. They might overspend on manufacturing, let foreign competition eat their lunch, or simply drop out.

Instead of going out of business to firms in Mexico, the Phillipines, or India, a better choice is to help American manufacturers build or service off-shore. None of these solutions is the featherbedding the unions and the left might think is their best interests.

Our system beats up on Capitalism every day. One candidate for the biggest error is the MBA. Thank you, Harvard. He is trained to maximize short term cash flow, uneducated in the products and science to which his company had been dedicated. The result is mergers and acquisitions. It is the takeover in the style of arch-criminal Milkin, but done now in-house by criminal CEOs and their accounting firms. A company’s seed money, often publically owned and previously ear-marked for new products, passes to the deal maker as his new family fortune. In the wake is a shell of a company in junk status, on the verge of extinction, and under new management dedicated to guess what, mergers and acquisitions!

But who can afford to build new products? It takes three to ten or twenty years to bring out a new product. No one can invest for that long a haul when interest rates are 7% to 25%. Only Japan could do that when its business friendly government bought down interest rates for selected businesses.

So while old products shift off shore under the banner of free trade, American companies play monopoly with one another’s business units. Prices for brick and mortar production facilities are jacked up, while profitability and occupancy shrinks. Meanwhile, America introduces fewer and fewer new products, and our high skilled labor retires.

Every business wants cheap labor! Only a socialist would believe the mission of a business is social justice, as Worldwatch claims for itself. But who is flooding the labor market with cheap labor? Who has a party platform for each group and class? Who wants to woo Hispanics as a constituency separate from other Americans? Who wants constituents to flood across the border?

You appeal to the socialist tenet: look at the astonishing spread in wealth. Never mind if everyone is better off. Look over there! That guy is doing better than you. You call that Social Justice? Citizens, to the barricades. Pull the lever for my party.

And I can’t believe you actually wrote “full share”, the robust slogan of the left. It is a direct appeal to class passions. It is Trotsky, or Karl Marx, the founder of modern liberalism and its parent, socialism. But alas, it doesn’t fit.

Thanks to W, the highest earners now pay more taxes. Federal tax revenues are up. W, like JFK before him, was responsible for tax rate cuts, not tax cuts. And with those rate increases, the Clinton era recession ended, and jobs are way up.

Printing money does not cause inflation either. The federal government could fill the biggest vault imaginable with fresh billion dollar bills and it would have no effect on inflation. What counts is the money in circulation, and whether it grows faster than the goods and services. The fed releases money into the system in two ways. It has done so twice since the Carter days.

The first time was a failed attempt to pay for budget deficits by the fed buying down long term interest rates. It did so by buying out the last of the bond offerings when the rate got high enough. The effort ruined Carter’s Presidency, and produced double digit inflation with all the dislocation that came with it. It certainly stimulated the economy, but it also produced insane business ventures when the real interest rate turned negative.

Soon the fed owned almost 30% of the debt! It surrendered, and interest rates soared through the roof. Where inflation had appeared to be zero, it was now revealed in double digits. Interest climbed above that. This simply killed new product development and the banking business. The value of loans at below 5% were wiped out at 25%, even though it was purely MBA bookkeeping. The fed letting go of its end of the rubber band created the S&L crisis.

The second time the feds intervened they applied a similar technique to short term interest rates. It made short term money available below market to bail out a failing S&L and banking system. Part of the theory was that the lenders would pass on the low interest rates to the public and stimulate consumer spending. Instead the banks kept their rates high and went on a spending spree to buy up just about anything that could be bought. There was little effect on the economy because the rates stayed high, and because Clinton chilled the economy with a huge tax rate increase. And so we slipped into a stubborn recession.

Through these actions, inflation chugs along in secret. The traditional measurements are fooled. Statins: we know the cholesterol test doesn’t work anymore; we don’t know about your life expectancy. The doctor touched up your x-rays. Housing prices are out of sight. Your Chevy looks great, but can’t make it to the levy.

Greenspan did a good job keeping the economy on an even keel, but he was never forthright about his methods.

You’re half right about my leanings. I AM an opponent of socialism. But also of its evil half-sister, collectivism. I oppose junk science and junk economics indiscriminately.

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production and giving. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. It is local governments made agents of an all powerful, central (federal or world) government.

Collectivism is the grouping of Americans into convenient, warring clumps, with a plank in the party platform for each. One for the poor; one for women; one for the handicapped; two for peaceniks; one for Blacks; one for Hispanics; one for trial lawyers; and one for school teachers. This makes for the most efficient, centralized campaigning. This way the socialist party can exploit hatred over unity. It can trash the ideal of individual Americans with shared dreams. Oh, and by the way, don’t look for a plank for Asians, for Whites, or for the Rich. After all, someone has to be the goat and the theoretical cash cow.

Interesting thought that: “One-World-Government”. Hmmm, sort of a United States of the World? I don’t think we could pull it off, do you?

You say I “may not like it.” I don’t like it already. Actually One World Government is a cornerstone of modern American liberalism.

Oliver #72:

Did you confuse drones and slaves? Slaves work hard! Drones just have sex and live off welfare.

Oliver #72 wrote>>Please tell me how you get all those things you mentioned without a decent tax rate. I hear this all the time from libertarians; they list things like "safety, stable currencies, the right to own property, the right to earn real interest, the right to do as a citizen chooses with his earnings, an infrastructure to support private transportation and communication, a decent law enforcement system, sanitation, cheap energy, clean water, and basic freedoms" and then say they want them but with little government interference and very low taxes. Of course they never specify the exact level of taxes. None of these things are cheap or easy to do with minimal government.<<

Check out:
http://www.harrybrowne.org/GLO/GreatLibertarianOffer.htm

Here is an excerpt:

Today federal, state, and local taxes consume 47% of the national income. These taxes include:

Taxes you pay directly — income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, Social Security taxes, death taxes, and gift taxes.

Taxes you pay but don't see — taxes on corporations and imports that add to the price of everything you buy, employer taxes that reduce the wages you earn, and excise taxes that are hidden in the prices of bread, phone calls, and hundreds of other products and services you use in your daily life.

You pay these taxes one way or another — in a tax bill paid directly to the government, in money deducted from your paycheck, or in the price of what you buy. They total 47% of the national income.

You may pay a little more or a little less than the national average. But since you are subject to taxes coming at you from so many directions, your own taxes most likely are somewhere around the 47% average.

This means virtually half your working time is devoted to supporting government, leaving only half your working time to support yourself and your family.

Does it have to be this way?

No. At the start of the 20th century, government consumed only 8% of the national income.

Did people starve in the streets? No.

Was the country overrun by barbarians? No.

Were people defenseless against unsafe products? No.

Was crime rampant? No. In fact, crime was a much smaller problem than it is today.

Was the economy stagnant? No. The economy grew faster than it does now.

Imagine how much more prosperous, how much happier, how much easier your life would be if you could keep 92% of what you earn (with only 8% going to government), instead of splitting your income roughly 50-50 with the government.

What would you do for your children that you're unable to do now?

What kind of home would you live in?

What kind of travel would be possible?

How much more secure could you make your future?

YOU'RE NOT ALONE

I'm sure you realized long ago that government is far too big, too expensive, and too intrusive. And you probably wish there were some way to make it smaller.

You may think you're an exception — that most people believe government takes good care of them, government programs do more good than harm, and high taxes are necessary for a civilized society.

But that isn't the case. Just like you, Americans overwhelmingly think government is way too large, too costly, too meddlesome, and the least efficient way to solve problems. While most people might be fond of a government program here or there, they would gladly be rid of most of the rest of government.

Polls in recent years have found that:

73% believe "the federal government is much too large and has too much power."

67% believe "big government is the biggest threat to the country in the future."

63% think "government regulation of business usually does more harm than good."

Only 22% "trust the government in Washington to do what is right most of the time."

60% want a strong third party to provide a true alternative to what they're getting now.

People aren't hungry for more government. They are gagging on it. They've become dissatisfied with government, disgusted with politicians, and despairing of any improvement — so much so that only 48% of eligible voters bothered to vote in 1996. And only 38% voted in 1998. So no matter who wins any election, the outcome isn't a mandate for big government.

Tim #75

Please look at exactly where our tax dollars go.
Thay are spent primarily on defense, social security, and medicare and medicaid. These programs take up the vast majority of the government budget. Subtract out education spending, infrastructure spending, cops, and firemen, and there is very little else to eliminate. So, any body who is honest in calling for smaller government and less taxes has to say what programs they are willing to cut. I suspect that you and Jeff would probably like to eliminate entitlements such as SS and medicare. That is fine, but you would be in a very small minority.

Jeff #74

"Clinton chilled the economy with a huge tax rate increase" is simply false. The Clinton era was one of strong growth and low unemploment. I don't know where you get your data.

#74 Jeff Glassman

It is evident that in the last 220 years since the making of the Constitution, the US has shifted more into the direction of collectivism than towards individualism.
And the Republicans have had plenty of time to roll things back towards more individualism, but didn't.
So to vote for Republicans and still believing in their rethoric about small government, etc. doesn't strike me as genuine libertarianism.
The reach of the arm of the law has never in the history of the US been greater than under the current administration and if you support that, than you are supporting collectivism. I'm sorry, but you've got more convincing to do...

If we look at the actual record (since WW2) and not the rhetoric, we will find that the function of the Democrat administrations (especially Roosevelt, Truman, and Johnson), has been to advance the march to collectivism by Great Leaps Forward, and in the name of "liberalism"; while the function of the Republicans has been, in the name of opposition or small government or "conservatism," to FAIL to rollback any of these "social gains," and indeed, to engage in more big-government collectivizing of their own (especially Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and Bush). Indeed, it is arguable that Nixon did even more to advance big government than his earthy Texas predecessor.

I'm chiming in pretty late, and there's not much to add to all that has been said, but

For you scripture fans:
Deuteronomy 23.1

I don't think we running out of resources or materials because of over population. Many of you will recall the famous bet that Paul Erlich, a Malthusian, with Julian Simon. http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html
The bet offered by Simon was that Erlich should pick several natural resource commodities that would be scarcer (higher priced) in 10 years as Erlich's overpopulation theory predicted. Erlich lost the bet with respect to every single natural resource he picked. That, of course, has not shut him up or stopped him from making Chicken Little prognostications that always prove wrong.

But I do have serious concerns with population growth. First is that higher population density seems to require higher levels of government regulation of almost all aspects of life, and I don't like other folks telling me what to do. If I want to cut down a tree in my yard, I will damn well do it. Second, the wilderness, and other places of great natural beauty where we go for solitude and spiritual reasons are increasingly crowded, and that detracts from the experience of such places for me. The experience of he seashore loses something important at places like Destin & Panama City, FL. where you can stay in or look at high rise condos lining the beach for miles, and travel up and down the coast road, a seemingly endless neon lighted strip mall, and look at women with yard wide butts eating cheese doodles.

august k #77

Agreed. W is about as far left as one can tolerate in a President.

And we elect conservative men to Congress and as soon as they get in office they turn populist. That is to get re-elected, the number one and overwhelming objective of each legislator.

The Republicans do little but encourage a dialog.

So I support term limits. One term, and no resignation to run again. If they can't find the bathroom in 2, 4, or 6 years, then elect someone smarter. Or elect people with larger bladders, or shorten their term of office.

Remember, you have one Congressman and two Senators working for you. But you have over 400 Congressment and 98 Senators working against your interests.

I look forward to a two party system: Republicans and Libertarians.

jeff #77

You've written a couple of times in the last few weeks that you "look forward to a two party system: Republicans and Libertarians" and that the Republicans are about as liberal as you can stand. You've also written about how you think there is far too much taxation and government regulation. I guess I took these as hints that you were a libertarian or at least a free-market capitalist.

So if you aren't either of those things, what are you? I don't want to guess anymore.

I find it almost comical (and sad) that the mere phrase 'social justice' should send you running in fear that the commies are coming, and should cause you to shut yourself off from work you might otherwise actually agree with. I'll say it again: you seem to care more about settling old political scores and driving a semantic wedge between often non-existent categories of people than you do about actually trying to solve problems.

When I first mentioned World Watch I provided a link to some free .pdfs with more-up-to-date thinking on the population issue than the 1994 Cato Institute article. I also said that there were more recent pieces but that they cost money. So I warned you.

I wouldn't have thought, however, based on your other comments, that you would not have trouble with an organization charging a small fee for their efforts. World Watch has supported itself through selling these trusted research papers since the 1970s, which in a free market should indicate that they have value. Charging a fee makes their work more independent from corporate or other vested interests that would otherwise put limits on their findings. If anyone wants to see the papers, they're surely at your library. Not all truth can be found on the internet.

Speaking of corporate finding, I urge all crossfitters to research 'junk science' to see how the term itself was invented by PR firms working for the nuclear, chemical, tobacco and other industries. "Junk science" is often merely inconvenient science for irresponsible corporations.

For starters, check out: http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html

Another good starting point for anyone interested in what is meant people like Jeff Glassman say they are against "junk science"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science

According to sourcewatch.org ...

>> Cato "receives most of its financial support from entrepreneurs, securities and commodities traders, and corporations such as oil and gas companies, Federal Express, and Philip Morris that abhor government regulation."

Financial firms now contributing generously to Cato include American Express, Chase Manhattan Bank, Chemical Bank, Citicorp/Citibank, Commonwealth Fund, Prudential Securities and Salomon Brothers. Energy conglomerates include: Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation and Atlantic Richfield Foundation. Cato's pharmaceutical donors include Eli Lilly & Company, Merck & Company and Pfizer, Inc.<<

... arguably those corporations have the right to express their opinions and promote their own agenda. But is it any wonder that the primary agenda of the Cato Institute is to fight government regulation and to call into question the work of environmentalists?