> And as it is technologically possible for everyone on the planet to enjoy a basic middle class lifestyle, we *can* go with option 1 part and parcel. We just seem to prefer to worship billionaires.
True, in a sense option one is in fact technologically possible. However, the only reason society is capable of reaching and maintaining that…
> And as it is technologically possible for everyone on the planet to enjoy a basic middle class lifestyle, we *can* go with option 1 part and parcel. We just seem to prefer to worship billionaires.
True, in a sense option one is in fact technologically possible. However, the only reason society is capable of reaching and maintaining that level of technology is due to the incentives inherent in capitalism, what you derisively dismissed as "worshiping billionaires".
The number of non-subsistence humans has grown remarkably over the past century and the proportion in penury has dropped. Industrial economies are almost incomprehensibly productive, but also considerably destructive to the natural environment, soil, and biosphere.
Why do you think the globalists want us culled down to 500 million or so?
When I read Thomas Malthus at age 15 and then saw the projections from the Club of Rome I was a proponent of constrained population growth.
I have travelled to many places on earth and seen much open land, I don't think we all need to eat bugs at this density. Even Japan is now worried about declining population; between visits 4 decades apart I still could see considerable open space.
We eat diesel: look at tractors, trucks, trains, and ships. The current assault on energy consumption is the rate limitation on continued growth, wealth, and sustenance. This is targeted at the wealthy productive western economies of course- China and India are building coal power plants as fast as they can, and third world countries are not rushing to build windmills or solar farms.
So "technologically possible" is a rather disingenuous statement.
> And as it is technologically possible for everyone on the planet to enjoy a basic middle class lifestyle, we *can* go with option 1 part and parcel. We just seem to prefer to worship billionaires.
True, in a sense option one is in fact technologically possible. However, the only reason society is capable of reaching and maintaining that level of technology is due to the incentives inherent in capitalism, what you derisively dismissed as "worshiping billionaires".
And it is still working, so far.
The number of non-subsistence humans has grown remarkably over the past century and the proportion in penury has dropped. Industrial economies are almost incomprehensibly productive, but also considerably destructive to the natural environment, soil, and biosphere.
Why do you think the globalists want us culled down to 500 million or so?
When I read Thomas Malthus at age 15 and then saw the projections from the Club of Rome I was a proponent of constrained population growth.
I have travelled to many places on earth and seen much open land, I don't think we all need to eat bugs at this density. Even Japan is now worried about declining population; between visits 4 decades apart I still could see considerable open space.
We eat diesel: look at tractors, trucks, trains, and ships. The current assault on energy consumption is the rate limitation on continued growth, wealth, and sustenance. This is targeted at the wealthy productive western economies of course- China and India are building coal power plants as fast as they can, and third world countries are not rushing to build windmills or solar farms.
So "technologically possible" is a rather disingenuous statement.