Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (17287)	11/22/2003 5:26:01 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793698

It seems to be the rule that populations explode as regions start to develop, the population growth slows way down as development continues. Europe's population exploded in the 19th century; India's and China's did in the twentieth century, the Arab world and Africa did in the last 50 years.

To: Lane3 who wrote (17287)	11/22/2003 8:05:08 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793698

That may feel "right" at some intuitive level, but I can think of no rational basis for it Cultures are "Thermodynamic," not "Thermostatic." That is why it feels "right," and is rational. We can handle the people coming in if we got rid of our "PoMo" attitude. As long as our Educational system is pushing "Multiculturalism," we are going in the wrong direction.

To: Lane3 who wrote (17287)	11/23/2003 5:12:29 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793698

A rational basis would be the prolonged survivability of our species. I believe our development is only in its infancy, and eventually we will reach out to the stars and inhabit other planets, establish colonies and so forth. The notion that earth and its limited resources should limit us as a species is not rational imo. One significant meteor shower could destroy life on this planet in a matter of years. A growing population gives us some safety that some will survive if a catastrophe happens. We know by now that population density is not connected to poverty or to environmental stewardship. Some of the least populated places on earth are mired in poverty and environmental ruin. I'm thinking of Bulgaria and places in southern Africa where the herds of elephants have been decimated. In contracts, places like Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore demonstrate the opposite. Sound economic systems connected to governments which enforce civil conduct and believe in environmental stewardship are the recipe for success as a species. As a nation grows beyond a certain point of wealth, they naturally shift resources toward the environment and protect nature more. Therefore, what rational basis would it be for a country to shrink its population? Is it because at some level it feels right intuitively? or is it because there are short term positive gains like more parking spots on the local mall. People are part of the species known as human beings. In order to survive and prosper, we need to have offspring which survive us. What has become apparent in far too many cultures, especially European ones, is at some point they become wealthy enough that they devalue children. This trend is dangerous, the social impact of a shrinking population is only now beginning to be felt in these places. Just wait another thiry years.