World population to surpass 7 billion in 2011

Jul 28, 2011

Global population is expected to hit 7 billion later this year, up from 6 billion in 1999. Between now and 2050, an estimated 2.3 billion more people will be added—nearly as many as inhabited the planet as recently as 1950. New estimates from the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations also project that the population will reach 10.1 billion in 2100.

These sizable increases represent an unprecedented global demographic upheaval, according to David Bloom, Clarence James Gamble Professor of Economics and Demography at the Harvard School of Public Health, in a review article published July 29, 2011 in Science.

Over the next forty years, nearly all (97%) of the 2.3 billion projected increase will be in the less developed regions, with nearly half (49%) in Africa. By contrast, the populations of more developed countries will remain flat, but will age, with fewer working-age adults to support retirees living on social pensions.

"Although the issues immediately confronting developing countries are different from those facing the rich countries, in a globalized world demographic challenges anywhere are demographic challenges everywhere," said Bloom.

The world's population has grown slowly for most of human history. It took until 1800 for the population to hit 1 billion. However, in the past half-century, population jumped from 3 to 7 million. In 2011, approximately 135 million people will be born and 57 million will die, a net increase of 78 million people.

Considerable uncertainty about these projections remains, Bloom writes. Depending on whether the number of births per woman continues to decline, the ranges for 2050 vary from 8.1 to 10.6 billion, and the 2100 projections vary from 6.2 to 15.8 billion.

Population trends indicate a shift in the "demographic center of gravity" from more to less developed regions, Bloom writes. Already strained, many developing countries will likely face tremendous difficulties in supplying food, water, housing, and energy to their growing populations, with repercussions for health, security, and economic growth.

"The demographic picture is indeed complex, and poses some formidable challenges," Bloom said. "Those challenges are not insurmountable, but we cannot deal with them by sticking our heads in the sand. We have to tackle some tough issues ranging from the unmet need for contraception among hundreds of millions of women and the huge knowledge-action gaps we see in the area of child survival, to the reform of retirement policy and the development of global immigration policy. It's just plain irresponsible to sit by idly while humankind experiences full force the perils of demographic change."

Explore further: Former Brown dean whose group won Nobel Prize dies

More information: "7 Billion and Counting," David E. Bloom, Science, July 29, 2011

Related Stories

Sub-Saharan Africa: the population emergency

Jan 08, 2008

Sub-Saharan Africa has been experiencing phenomenal population growth since the beginning of the XXth Century, following several centuries of population stagnation attributable to the slave trade and colonization. The region’s ...

One-child policy yields multiple woes

Jan 04, 2011

China recently marked the 30th anniversary of the launch of its one-child-per-couple policy. Intended to curtail the nation’s burgeoning population, it has produced a serious gender imbalance, a ballooning ...

Recommended for you

Former Brown dean whose group won Nobel Prize dies

11 hours ago

David Greer, a doctor who co-founded a group that won the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize for working to prevent nuclear war and who helped transform the medical school at Brown University, has died. He was 89.

Federal budget authority for R&D in 2014 rises slightly

Nov 19, 2014

New data indicate that in fiscal year (FY) 2014, Congress gave federal agencies authority to spend $3.2 billion more on research and development and R&D plant (together) than in FY 2013. However, the increase ...

User comments : 144

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Kingsix
3 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2011
Gosh, hopefully over the next 30 years we can get most of our energy and resource use problems under control, and hopefully more countries will consider population limits. No one needs 6 kids in the western world, and probably if we can help the poor, so many would be unnecessary anywhere.
sherriffwoody
1.8 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2011
It won't be 7 billion for long if the so called bilderberg group have there way.
ABSOLUTEKNOWLEDGE
1 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2011
It won't be 7 billion for long if the so called bilderberg group have there way.


indeed the illuminati have a difrent plan the a clueless demmographics resercher has

population reduction to 500 million is there target
as inscribed by them in stone at gerorgia guide stones

i take its prety serious since its writen in stone

that_guy
4.5 / 5 (10) Jul 28, 2011
I...can't...tell...if absolute is just kidding or crazy...

Here's the main problem. We have an overpopulated underdeveloped nation like India. They are having trouble feeding all their people...again. They already have a successful and fairly productive agricultural sector (No, really they do!).

So what does India want to do policy wise? They want their agricultural sector to produce more per acre than the US, a very modern industrialized nation.

And this is why India will remain a poverty hole of the world. Because while I fully support modernization, at this point it is too late not to take a look at your 1.1 billion population and consider strategies perhaps to reign that in.
jjoensuu
4.1 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2011
so you guys have any more proof that just talk about Bilderberg and Illuminati?
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 28, 2011
"The world's population three centuries from now will stabilize at 9 billion if fertility levels continue their decline, particularly in the developing world, but could also top more than 1.3 trillion if they remain unchanged from current rates, according to statistics released today by the United Nations."
http://www.un.org...ID=12439
If you can't trust the UN, who can you trust?
jamesrm
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2011
Bilderberg From wikipedia
"Chip Berlet argued that right-wing populist conspiracy theories about the Bilderberg group date back as early as 1964 and can be found in Schlafly's self-published book A Choice, Not an Echo,[44] which promoted a conspiracy theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberger group, whose internationalist policies would pave the way for world communism"

So it up their with Sasquatches, Cupacabras, Obama being an ET and Rupert Murdock bugging your phone if he thinks he can get way with it, one of them might be true?

Its the groups you don't worry about that should concern you.
shawnhar
2.9 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2011
Conspiracy to reduce the world poulation? What a joke, if it is real they are the dumbest bastards ever, cause it ain't workin.
India is NOT having trouble feeding people...FACT.
Food = People. You can't grow more people without more food, they don't grow out of air. There is nothing anyone can do about the runaway population problem. It will grow, unchecked, until we ruin this planet. We have a positive feedback system of more food, more people. (Sure, SOME places even show poulation decline, but not the whole system)
astro_optics
1.4 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2011
Before we are all forced to become Vegetarian, well be made Cannibals. Welcome to the new world order. Time to move to another planet...
whitefang
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 28, 2011
An untenable but simple solution which will never see the light of day: until population is reduced to sustainable levels, impose compulsory VCD (4-vinylcyclohexene diepoxide) patch use for all females after one child. Fair? Who ever said nature was fair?
diego
4 / 5 (7) Jul 28, 2011
Anyone else looking forward to a bright future with skyrocketing food prices, and mass famine? I know one nation that that will survive the coming worldwide famine: china. There the only nation responsible enough to take any real action to avoid the repercussions of an overpopulated world.
sherriffwoody
1 / 5 (8) Jul 28, 2011
Conspiracy to reduce the world poulation? What a joke, if it is real they are the dumbest bastards ever, cause it ain't workin.q]
The rumour is they are still in the planning phases and have yet to implement their plans of global population reduction. Though one article I read recently claimed they (the bilderbeg group and its inner circles) are very close to implementing their plan. Apparently it will be done through foods and flus, and the bird and swine flus were used to test ways of accomlishing the world population reduction. But wait, theres more, they will only let 500 000 000 survice because that is how many people the bilderberg and illuminati can control. 7 billion is to big for their management and government structures.
But wait theres more, buy now and you'll be one of the survivors.
maxcypher
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2011
I propose that the Pope reverses the Catholic policy of preventing birth control among their over-replicating mind-slaves. There's quite a few Catholic families having more than six kids. But I don't know: maybe even this would have little impact on total, world population.
Pete1983
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 29, 2011
I, for one, look forward to the coming apocalypse, even if the conspiracy theorists turn out to be right, or global warming, or mass famine, war, whatever.

We need to wipe the slate clean, and badly. The western world is stuck in this completely insane democratic/capitalistic social setup that has become so conservative and facist that change for the better now appears to be impossible.

I welcome the end in the hope that we can create something significantly better after the fall, even if most of us won't live to see it.

Also I have to agree with Diego, the only major country on the planet seemingly capable of dealing with the problems we face is China.
ShotmanMaslo
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2011
China-like population control and education/empowerment of women should be our top priority worldwide, if we ever want to eradicate poverty on this planet. Without breaking the demographic-economic paradox, there will be no success.
Oblivion
1 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2011
Nice. Let the people suffer more, dig their own graves..i'm all for it! I agree with Pete1983 BUT NOT rebuild, we are incapable of "getting along", human nature is nasty so i want complete annihilation. Earth should get destroyed in the process so sentient life cannot evolve or any other life (nature sucks, it's basically evil).
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2011
Yes, let's follow the policies of China and start killing people off with shoddy infrastructure.
"Chinas high-speed rail system epitomizes the inherent flaws of authoritarian governance, not its strengths.
After a minimum of public discussion and despite contrary expert advice, the nations unelected rulers decided to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a mode of transportation that many, if not most, ordinary Chinese cannot afford to use. As the cash flowed, well-connected officials lined their own pockets. Plan-fulfillment and national prestige took priority over passenger safety as officials muzzled reporters who dared to say otherwise.
...the high-speed rail program operated pretty much as you would expect in a one-party state with a controlled media and no effective checks and balances. The only mystery is why people in the West who should have known better looked at high-speed rail in China and saw a model for the United States instead of an accident waiting to happen."
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2011
So what does India want to do policy wise? They want their agricultural sector to produce more per acre than the US, a very modern industrialized nation.

The thing is: There is little to no help for the sick/elderly in India - especially in the rural areas. So what strategy is left to them? Naturally they will have more children which can support them when there is need.

Upping the productivity of agricultural production is not going to change that one bit. Until and unless a nation takes care of its people the people will find strategies of their own to survive. For the individual survival comes first - something as abstract as 'concern for the human race' comes a (distant) second.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2011
Is otto the only one who understands that RELIGION is the cause of all this? RELIGIONS all mandate that the world be filled up with more of their adherents and fewer of the infidels next door. RELIGION prevents 3rd world cultures from being educated on family planning and living within ones means.

Human pops have 3 draconian limitations to growth: famine, disease, and war. This has always been the case. They all threaten civilization with collapse. Luckily, Leaders have long age accepted their Inevitability and have learned to Use them for constructive Purposes.

The great wars and revolutions of the past have been used to destroy obsolete cultural systems which would not end by themselves. Religions themselves were concocted to consolidate vast areas by force.
Cont
Moebius
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 29, 2011
You think the way to control the earth is with less people? The more people there are the easier they are to control. You don't gain freedom by gaining population density, you lose freedom. Our so-called 'freedoms' in the US are already eroded by the growth in population. We can't drive a gas guzzler because there are so many of us now we can screw up the atmosphere. There are places where backyard barbeques are prohibited. You can't just go out hunting anymore. You can't do what you want with your own land because of zoning laws. I can't shoot a gun on my property anymore because of people who have built and moved in. I can't drive from CT to NYC at 100mph anymore (and I used to) because the highway has heavy traffic 24/7 now. The list is much longer, no space or time.

Most people can't see the woods for the trees, people not trees in this case. As the population grows we lose freedom. It shouldn't be hard to extrapolate the inevitable result that eventually you have no freedom.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2011
But as the monarchies of Europe were destroyed when their utility had ended, so will religion be destroyed. How will this be done? Famine, disease, and war. Religions are set to instigate perhaps the most miserable war the world has yet seen. We can watch world economies adjust themselves in preparation. We can watch western militaries positioning themselves to safely contain the maelstrom.

And we can watch as religions themselves are radicalized and polarized to fuel the conflagration, just as the nationalist cultures throughout Eurasia were first created and then stoked to high intensity.

Then, as now, the world sat on the brink of breathtaking but dangerous new technologies. Consider what life extension and curing cancer and other diseases will do to pop growth. Consider the potential for engineered pandemics, a greater threat than nuclear tech was before ww2.

These Potentials demand that the world be pacified to a greater extent than ever before. This may be about to happen.
Yellowdart
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2011
Wow, for a science website, most of your answers is just Chinese population control? Seriously?

To put it in perspective. If you were to use just 1950s technology in agriculture, today, you would have to use every inch of land from Texas to Florida across the southern states, just to produce enough food.

Science, has dramatically pushed agriculture production, and will continue to do so.

ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2011
Yes, let's follow the policies of China and start killing people off with shoddy infrastructure.


China has consistently the biggest economic growth per capita in the world during past decade or two. Hundreds of millions were lifted from poverty. There are of course many shortcomings in China (corruption, censorship, human rights issues, pollution and more), but as a whole, it is an example for every undeveloped and developing country showing how things should be done. And their population control program is among the positive influences, IMHO.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2011
Moebius looks backward and not forward. Machines will be replacing humans quickly. They continue to steal jobs at an ever-increasing pace. They leave increasing numbers of people to starve or riot.

More machines and fewer people is where the world is going. Machines are much more manageable, dependable, and useful. A great deflation is about to occur.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2011
Science, has dramatically pushed agriculture production, and will continue to do so.

You ever hear of Malthus yellowdart? Malthus pointed out what Leaders had already known for millennia; no matter how fast the food supply grows, populations will grow faster still.

This means that no matter what you do, pops with traditional reproductive rates will always produce that one generation of starving children whose parents will be up in arms in order to feed.

They will inevitably blame whatever government they live under no matter how benevolent or egalitarian it is. They will inevitably attack those neighbors whom they perceive to be outside their tribe.

Western culture has configured itself to mitigate this relentless Equation. Mainly by enabling family planning and the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS which have taken place in the last century or so. One fifth the worlds pop and their descendants to 3 and 4 gens, have never been born.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2011
RELIGIONS all mandate that the world be filled up with more of their adherents and fewer of the infidels next door.

The strategy of outbreeding the other group is not limited to religion (e.g. China has been invaded numerous times but always managed to outbreed - and thereby asimilate - the would-be overlords)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2011
RELIGIONS all mandate that the world be filled up with more of their adherents and fewer of the infidels next door.

The strategy of outbreeding the other group is not limited to religion (e.g. China has been invaded numerous times but always managed to outbreed - and thereby asimilate - the would-be overlords)
Absolutely. But today it is only religion which prevents people from receiving the education they need to find more rewarding things to do than reproduce.

The most important website you may ever visit:
http://www.johnst....html#SU

-Note in particular the % of pregnancies aborted by country. The US is around 25%, Russia 50%. This is what it takes to make the miracle of yellowdarts agricultural tech work.
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 29, 2011
The thing is: There is little to no help for the sick/elderly in India - especially in the rural areas. So what strategy is left to them? Naturally they will have more children which can support them when there is need.


In the past, people had more children because just a few of them survived into adulthood. The population was relatively stable, or growing slowly. Today, with advancements in healthcare and food supply, many more of these children survive into adulthood, but people continue to have lots of children due to cultural inertia. This is called demographic-economic paradox, and it leads to exponential population explosion in undeveloped and developing countries. The results can be catastrophic for such developing nation, with living standards either stagnating, or god forbid regressing back to undeveloped status even worse than before.
ccr5Delta32
1 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2011
We do what we do and because we do what we do we are successful and numerous and when we're stressed we do what we do and when we reach a wall of saturation we do what we do
We're screwed
emsquared
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2011
We're screwed

This is the problem in the first place. Hey-oh!
ccr5Delta32
3 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2011
@ emsquared Always happy to meat a fellow optimist !
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2011
We're screwed

This is the problem in the first place. Hey-oh!
Long live Shecky Greene-
that_guy
5 / 5 (4) Jul 29, 2011
Wow, for a science website, most of your answers is just Chinese population control? Seriously?

To put it in perspective. If you were to use just 1950s technology in agriculture, today, you would have to use every inch of land from Texas to Florida across the southern states, just to produce enough food.

Science, has dramatically pushed agriculture production, and will continue to do so.


Actually, barring illegal immigration becoming far worse, the US is fairly safe from having to make draconian population policies.

A few people mentioned a china style population control, because it was successful. But that is not the main point. The main point is that India is expanding faster than technology can accomodate it, yet india has NO population policies in place - even "Country, lets start using condoms if you can't afford kids"
that_guy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2011
Also, you do realize that if we used 1950s technology to feed our population - We are one quarter of the population of india on two to three times the amount of land. How is your point valid? Our population increased with our ability to handle it. India's population increases despite their inability to improve the lot for 90% of the country. It increases beyond the ability of technology to keep up.

@antialias - Your point about people having children to take care of them when they get old - very salient. good point.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Jul 29, 2011
Anyone doing this yet?
http://www.verticalfarm.com/
No worries.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2011
In the past, people had more children because just a few of them survived into adulthood.
'A species will always produce more offspring than can be expected to survive to maturity.' Humans began to alter this equation when they invented weapons and began to hunt the predators which hunted them.

Their primary enemy since that time has been those of the next tribe. They too were hunting the same game; it was only natural to turn hunting instincts upon them.
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (8) Jul 29, 2011
the US is fairly safe from having to make draconian population policies.
The US aborts 25% of all pregnancies, and family planning prevents many more. Thats pretty draconian.
india has NO population policies in place
"Family planning in India is based on efforts largely sponsored by the Indian government. In the 1965-2009 period, contraceptive usage has more than tripled (from 13% of married women in 1970 to 48% in 2009) and the fertility rate has more than halved (from 5.7 in 1966 to 2.7 in 2009), but the national fertility rate is still high enough to cause long-term population growth."

-But india is still in the throes of religions locked in reproductive competition as this chart shows:
http://en.wikiped...graphics

-In regions such as Kashmir this reproductive warfare is especially pronounced:
http://en.wikiped...graphics

-And could spark nuclear war.
that_guy
5 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2011
after some research, I grudgingly have to agree with Ghost of Otto. At least according to official numbers, the growth rate of India is around 1.5%

Although the extreme population density of the country is still a burden on ability of the land to support the people. India has a higher population density than Japan...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2011
Anyone doing this yet?
http://www.verticalfarm.com/
No worries.
Yeah well we tried building vertical slums too but that didnt work out very well.
http://www.youtub...=related
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jul 29, 2011
Anyone doing this yet?
http://www.verticalfarm.com/

Yeah well we tried building vertical slums too but that didnt work out very well.
http://www.youtub...=related
No worries.

-Dont you mean 'What - me worry?'

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NSAQjsCzwcE/TGQGKe5iiUI/AAAAAAAAAx8/wNRsBcmmPqc/s320/Bush-Quotes-ngin.jpg
jamesrm
4 / 5 (2) Jul 29, 2011
"-Note in particular the % of pregnancies aborted by country. The US is around 25%, Russia 50%. This is what it takes to make the miracle of yellowdarts agricultural tech work."

Abortion rates without data on infanticide is skewed, infanticide is the cheapest type of abortion and is unlikely to be pursued criminally in developing countries.

I can see the advertisements for it now:
Infanticide, the organic choice.
just leave it to nature.

http://en.wikiped...anticide

"In Africa
In spite of the fact that it is illegal, in Benin, West Africa, parents secretly continue with infanticidal customs."

"United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) up to 50 million girls and women are missing in India's population as a result of systematic sex discrimination."

"China has twenty-five million fewer girl children than expected"
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 29, 2011
Abortion rates without data on infanticide is skewed,
So the rates of postnatal infanticide are less quantifiable than those of prenatal infanticide. Whats your point? They are both indications that, despite great effort, the world is too full because populations still grow too fast.
50 million girls and women are missing in India's population as a result of systematic sex discrimination."

"China has twenty-five million fewer girl children than expected"
Indeed, birth restrictions amidst these obsolete cultures limit pop growth in 2 ways; directly by limiting the # of children per family, and indirectly by reducing the total # of baby makers. They also compel young chinese men to emigrate in search of wives from other ethnic groups, thereby aiding in dilution of ethnicity. This all sounds like a Plan to me.

More Indicators of just how dire the threat of overpop is in todays world. This threat grows along with the pace of technology. Imagine 1000s of islamist octomoms...
ccr5Delta32
not rated yet Jul 29, 2011
I'm all for progress ,so long as it doesn't mean too much change a sentiment endemic within the affluent .And yes you may include yourself within but it's not the reality much of the world perceives itself as a part of

JohnMoser
1.8 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2011
Some of the leftists nutjobs on here seem to advocating baby hunters, like the creep from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Even these simpletons should be able to understand, from studying populations, that capitalism and the wealth created from that system, do more to reduce pop. size than any amount of guns and abortionists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Jul 30, 2011
Some of the leftists nutjobs on here seem to advocating baby hunters, like the creep from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Even these simpletons should be able to understand, from studying populations, that capitalism and the wealth created from that system, do more to reduce pop. size than any amount of guns and abortionists.

Capitalism cannot be controlled by the socialists. It is an emergent system which demonstrates the impotence of the 'progressive'.
Control is the highest priority of the central planners, not prosperity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2011
Some of the leftists nutjobs on here seem to advocating baby hunters...Even these simpletons should be able to understand, from studying populations, that capitalism and the wealth created from that system, do more to reduce pop. size than any amount of guns and abortionists.
And you sound like an extremist bigot yourself. Whos hunting babies?

The same changes after ww2 which enabled capitalism and wealth to flourish worldwide, also enabled the international family planning efforts to significantly reduce pop growth.

Read the numbers.
http://www.johnst...310.html

-These were compiled by a baptist.

YOU CANNOT DISPUTE the sheer size of these numbers. Nearly HALF A BILLION EACH in communist china and the soviet union which would long ago collapsed in war and revolution had not this Great Reduction taken place.

You bigots would want to see another world war just so you could make more babies than you can support. Well I fear you will soon get it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2011
Some of the leftists nutjobs on here seem to advocating baby hunters, like the creep from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Even these simpletons should be able to understand, from studying populations, that capitalism and the wealth created from that system, do more to reduce pop. size than any amount of guns and abortionists.

Capitalism cannot be controlled by the socialists. It is an emergent system which demonstrates the impotence of the 'progressive'.
Control is the highest priority of the central planners, not prosperity.
I think you mean that it cannot WORK without 'socialist' checks and balances to keep it from devouring itself, dont you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2011
No.
Customers, competition and nature provide the negative feedback.

'Progressives' won't recognize these feedbacks as they do not need their positive control.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 30, 2011
No.

Customers, competition and nature provide the negative feedback.

'Progressives' won't recognize these feedbacks as they do not need their positive control.
Yes.

The desire to corner markets, limit competition, and engage in unnatural practices quickly lead to the breakdown of free markets. This is called ingenuity.

You are naive. Again and again and again. Your dogma has you chained and whipped.

'A sucker born every minute.' Your free markets are every shysters dream.

Like this guy here:
http://www.youtub...ure=fvsr

-Sadly, foiled once again by socialist federation lackeys.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jul 30, 2011
engage in unnatural practices

Like hiring a coercive govt mob?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 30, 2011
engage in unnatural practices

Like hiring a coercive govt mob?
You calling starfleet a mob?

"To spread peace and love around the world sometimes you gotta crack a few heads."
TheRedComet
5 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2011
Like hiring a coercive govt mob?


Capitalist coercion under minimal government can and does occur like the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Which was motivated by population growth and capitalist greed resulting in genocide.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jul 30, 2011
Like hiring a coercive govt mob?


Capitalist coercion under minimal government can and does occur like the Indian Removal Act of 1830. Which was motivated by population growth and capitalist greed resulting in genocide.

So Red, whose conquered land do you live on?
Do you plan on returning it?
TheRedComet
3 / 5 (2) Jul 30, 2011
Thats the kind of excuse I would expect from a capitalist. Not like it translates to a modern sentiment in America over the Iraqi war hey we killed 150,000 or so people in Iraq for oil. It done its over might as well steal all their oil now cant change the past right. Im surprised that you could type with that much of Andrew Jacksons lower half in your hands.
hush1
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2011
lol
"Im surprised that you could type with that much of Andrew Jacksons lower half in your hands." - TheR

Hearing language is no different than listening to music.
The subtlety here is the grace note.

If you listen to music and not a single note sounds 'right' to anyone except you, others will continue playing in concert.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
So Red, what are you doing to return the conquered land you live on?

BTW, did you know that Iraq was created by the Great Powers after WWI? I suspect the people who live there have been there for a few thousand years. Except for the Jews that were expelled.
How many times has Iraq been conquered/invaded over the centuries? How many times have the invaders tried to create a govt that represents the people?

How many Iraqi people were killed by the Stalinist regime of Sadam, and were aided and abetted by France, USSR/Russia and others in Europe?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2011
Thats the kind of excuse I would expect from a capitalist. Not like it translates to a modern sentiment in America over the Iraqi war hey we killed 150,000 or so people in Iraq for oil.
It wasn't for oil. It was to destroy saddaamms most dangerous WMD - his army. Capable of regional destruction. look what it did in Iran. We had to do it twice.

'Why did you invade Kuwait?' someone asked him. 'Because my army was getting to be a problem.' Standing armies which are not used indeed can become a problem. The people question their necessity and they become a political force, threatening swelling pops and the leadership.

Sadaaam seized power in a Baathist military coup.
How many Iraqi people were killed by the Stalinist regime of Sadam, and were aided and abetted by France, USSR/Russia and others in Europe?
The realities of maintaining stability as pops chronically overgrow in religionist cultures. There is always oppression and war.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
Iraq had a conscript army and those who refused to fight in Desert Storm were summarily shot by their officers.
It's no wonder so many surrendered to the US en masse. They knew they would be well treated.
But they were betrayed when Sadam was allowed to stay in power.
TheRedComet
not rated yet Jul 31, 2011
So Red, what are you doing to return the conquered land you live on?

You side stepped the original accusation of a limited government being corrupted by capitalism and population growth. During Andrew Jacksons presidency who I expect you would be a great supporter of.
My analogy of the Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the Second Gulf War. May not have been the best choice since it is still a topic of heavy debate and its not over yet.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
I have continued to be critical of govt interference in the economy. You seem to believe that govt is pure of heart and it is only those evil capitalistic that corrupt govt. Govt IS power. As such it can choose how to wield that force. I support limited application of that force. Limited to protection of private property, which is why the govt in the US was initiated in the first place.
Govts seek more power and need wealth to support that power. The Jackson govt was not corrupted. It was doing what is in its nature to do, acquire more power. Which is what the 'progressives' pushed in the USA in the early 1900s leading to the pending collapse of world economies.
Historically, govts have invaded and conquered. That is their nature.
So Red, whose conquered land do you live upon? Does it make you feel guilty?
TheRedComet
not rated yet Jul 31, 2011
It wasn't for oil. It was to destroy saddaamms most dangerous WMD - his army. Capable of regional destruction. look what it did in Iran. We had to do it twice.


The US invaded Iraq for their oil just like Iraq invade Kuwait for oil. Rapid population growth has put a large strain on energy providing countries resulting in wars. If US foreign policy was so concerned over the loss of life we would have intervened in the Congo.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
No, it was NOT for Iraq's oil.
AS GHWB stated, many times, it was for the free flow of oil at market prices, which is in the best interest for everyone in the world who uses oil.
TheRedComet
not rated yet Jul 31, 2011
@ ryggesogn2
I presented a case where limited government was corrupted by capitalist interest that was my intent. The type of system that you want the US to revert to was corruptible as all governments are. But living in the late 1800s is not the answer.
I was born in the US does that make me a hypocrite no you took the propose of the statement out of context or you didnt get it in the first place. Does it make me feel guilt LOL no my family came to the US because Hitler was killing 6 million of my people.
TheRedComet
not rated yet Jul 31, 2011
No, it was NOT for Iraq's oil.
AS GHWB stated, many times, it was for the free flow of oil at market prices, which is in the best interest for everyone in the world who uses oil.

Oxymoron Ahoy!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
I presented a case where limited government was corrupted by capitalist interest that was my intent.

It takes two to tango.
Govt IS the power and bears any responsibility for its corruption.

Iraq is on one country in the region the sells oil which is shipped to the world through the Persian Gulf.
A dictator that can control flow of oil from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other countries disrupts the free flow of oil at market prices.

How much oil has the US taken, not purchased, taken from Iraq?

TheRedComet
not rated yet Jul 31, 2011
Iraq is on one country in the region the sells oil which is shipped to the world through the Persian Gulf.
A dictator that can control flow of oil from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other countries disrupts the free flow of oil at market prices.

How much oil has the US taken, not purchased, taken from Iraq?

Theres a ethical paradox in that statement.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
Red suggested the USA invaded Iraq to take their oil.
How much Iraqi oil has the USA taken from Iraq?
TheRedComet
not rated yet Jul 31, 2011
How much Iraqi oil has the USA taken from Iraq?


It depends on how much a life is worth to you. Your argument is a Moral absolute based on your perception of the events. This takes us back to the analogy of the Indian removal act and the Iraq war. How much was the Indians land worth did we really steal it from them after all we gave them horses.
American exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, Bush Doctrine.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
Well Red, if not for American exceptionalism, I suspect you would not exist as the final solution would have been implemented.

If you feel so guilty about what happened to the Indians, drop by an Indian casino and pay them back.
Your argument is a Moral absolute based on your perception of the events.

And your argument is not?
TheRedComet
not rated yet Jul 31, 2011
If you feel so guilty about what happened to the Indians, drop by an Indian casino and pay them back.


I dont feel guilty for what happened to the Native Americans. But returning to a system that again and again has resulted in imperialistic accusation of land by the US. Is disrespectful to Native Americans.

And your argument is not?


No its not I dont use moral absolutism I tend to use Pragmatic ethics.

Gigel01
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2011
We are too few from my point of view. Not enough, it seems, to cause human expansion into the uninhabited spaces. Right now the human civilisation is stagnant and self-limiting. We need to go out on the oceans and into the cosmic space. This is essential for the human race. For that to happen, we need new ideas and thus children, plenty of them who can grow up and find alternatives. Old cultures don't do that. Right now we live in an informational environment in which the dominant idea is that we are too many and that spreads like a virus. It's an idea getting into peoples' minds. I say the fact is we are too few and moderately crammed and we need to go out of the old house and find a new place to live in. Then it will appear we are just too few. Right now the priority is not population reduction, which would lead to other problems, but the colonisation of other places.
pubwvj
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2011
It is a pity so many people merely spout the politically correct dogma rather than thinking about this. We NEED more people. We need more minds thinking about the big problems. Like how to get ourselves and our coin-habitants of Earth off this rock and out into space. There is an astroid or other disaster headed our way. That's simply the way the system works. If we don't disperse outward soon we'll be wiped out.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
I tend to use Pragmatic ethics.


Millions have been murdered based upon such 'ethics'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
I tend to use Pragmatic ethics.


Then why are you critical of attacking Iraq? It was pragmatic.

TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2011
It wasn't for oil. It was to destroy saddaamms most dangerous WMD - his army. Capable of regional destruction. look what it did in Iran. We had to do it twice.


The US invaded Iraq for their oil just like Iraq invade Kuwait for oil. Rapid population growth has put a large strain on energy providing countries resulting in wars. If US foreign policy was so concerned over the loss of life we would have intervened in the Congo.
Your colon is as bound as rygges is by your idiot dogma. This results in posts which make little sense.
Iraq had a conscript army and those who refused to fight in Desert Storm were summarily shot by their officers.
It's no wonder so many surrendered to the US en masse. They knew they would be well treated.
But they were betrayed when Sadam was allowed to stay in power.
And so what is your point? Either way the army had become a problem as usual. And like alexanders, it was summarily disposed of in the desert; or in saadams death camps. Twice.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2011
We are too few from my point of view. Not enough, it seems, to cause human expansion into the uninhabited spaces. Right now the human civilisation is stagnant and self-limiting.
I guess you didnt read the article then?
We need to go out on the oceans and into the cosmic space.
This is a common misconception that people will need to leave the earth en masse to colonize space. Humans reproduce like a virus. Colonization will not relieve overcrowding here on earth.
we need new ideas and thus children, plenty of them who can grow up and find alternatives.
Plenty of them are dying by the roadside right now in somalia. Young minds ruined by short lives of malnutrition, borne by religionist moms who could not support them; doomed to die in the dust.

Plenty more being conscripted into al quaeda and guerilla militias throughout africa; soon to die in firefights. Not much time for innovative thinking. Either starve or fight - little imagination required.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2011
We need to go out on the oceans
...And the oceans are already full of garbage, chemicals, and radiation. Ninety % of food fish are gone. Corals are dying, invasive species are ruining ecologies. Oceans need remediation not habitation.
Right now the human civilisation is stagnant and self-limiting.
By self-limiting you mean war, famine, epidemic, and massive pop control measures such as the worldwide family planning efforts which have resulted in, among other things, the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS... which has singularly prevented additional major wars throughout europe and northern asia to date?

THIS is what you mean by self-limiting??
TheRedComet
not rated yet Jul 31, 2011
Then why are you critical of attacking Iraq? It was pragmatic.
Im not critical of Desert Storm Im critical of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pragmatic ethics should have prevented Operation Iraqi Freedom but it didnt because most people forgot the lessons of Vietnam hopefully next time around people will remember the past.

Millions have been murdered based upon such 'ethics'.

Same for people that use moral absolutes except they become hypocrites when they do it which happens frequently.

TheRedComet
not rated yet Jul 31, 2011
Your colon is as bound as rygges is by your idiot dogma. This results in posts which make little sense.

BS my ideology can be revised. My post made sense US foreign policy has contradictions perhaps it wasnt gracefully I will give you that.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2011
my ideology can be revised.

You think this a virtue?
Revised to what?
Pragmatic ethics should have prevented Operation Iraqi Freedom

Red, were making money on the corrupt oil for food program? That was certainly pragmatic.
The Operation was not a mistake. It's execution has been the mistake.
The US had defeated the North Vietnamese in 1967. The Tet Offensive was a last ditch effort that failed militarily and succeeded politically.
More blood on the hands of the baby boomers as Pol Pot came to power and millions had to flee Vietnam. Quite pragmatic!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Jul 31, 2011
You think this a virtue?
Revised to what?
That is correct. Dogmae should be as immutable as the stuff in the colon of a hibernating grizzly.
Im not critical of Desert Storm Im critical of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Pragmatic ethics should have prevented Operation Iraqi Freedom but it didnt because most people forgot the lessons of Vietnam hopefully next time around people will remember the past.
So sorry you know so little about war. Vietnam today is a stable and productive member of the world community. This could not have happened without gens of involvement in the destruction of the ancient religionist cultures which would have prevented it. First France, then the US, and finally the communists, all working together to achieve this Goal.

As to current Operations in the Mideast, one need only imagine what the region would look like had we not compartmentalized it. The caliphate would be upon us - one empire from Palestine to Pakistan. With nukes.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 31, 2011
Vietnam today is a stable and productive member of the world community.

Really? At least it recognizes the failure of socialism.
http://www.herita.../Vietnam
Even Cuba is starting to 'get it'.
"Cuba's party congress agrees to allow private property"
http://www.bbc.co...13125104
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2011
The US had defeated the North Vietnamese in 1967. The Tet Offensive was a last ditch effort that failed militarily and succeeded politically.
More blood on the hands of the baby boomers as Pol Pot
The Vietnam was fought for 20 or so very good reasons. The main one as I said was to bring it's people into the 20th cent. It's religionist cultures had produced ruinous cycles of overpop, war, and collapse.

Indeed pops had to be, and were, reduced; directly by death or forced migration, and indirectly by continuous stress, cultural obliteration, farmland ruin, etc.

Tet was staged by fomenting US riots which gave the VC the mistaken idea they could win. Fonda was instrumental in this. The VC subsequently gleefully threw themselves onto the wire and were slaughtered in great piles. Constructive attrition. Tet broke their back.

When the baton was passed to the NVA they had little left to pacify. They could turn their attention to the kmer rouge.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2011
Really? At least it recognizes the failure of socialism.
'Communism' is not socialism it is martial law. Ignore the flags and focus on what it DOES and how it does it. It is a most efficient ruinator of cultures, especially religious. You would agree with that?

It's funny - socialism promises the same things democracy does - freedom, equality, pursuit of happiness etc. Today's socialist countries offer the same general mix of democracy and socialism as the US, more or less. So it's only you nitpickers who choose to make some primary distinction when the only differences are in degrees.

In other words you and many many others are rubes. IMHO.
Gigel01
not rated yet Aug 01, 2011
Plenty of them are dying by the roadside right now in somalia. Young minds ruined by short lives of malnutrition, borne by religionist moms who could not support them; doomed to die in the dust.

Plenty more being conscripted into al quaeda and guerilla militias throughout africa; soon to die in firefights. Not much time for innovative thinking. Either starve or fight - little imagination required.


You seem to mistake the whole world for Somalia and Africa. These are very specific places with their particularities which do not apply to the whole world. Somalia is a semi-desert country with a volatile political system, while sub-saharan Africa looses a lot to political and tribal fights. The rest of the world is not like that. It does not have to "starve and fight". But societies have to have lots of youngsters in order to find new solutions and go further. That is nature's way.
Gigel01
not rated yet Aug 01, 2011
Oceans need remediation not habitation.
Perfect, then do both at the same time. Look for Marshall T. Savage, he had a couple of ideas on how to do it. His ideas need improvement, but they can be taken as a model.

By self-limiting you mean war,...
We have a self-limiting culture, each one goes for his own, tends to care less for the others, accumulates things that are not always essential like big houses, cars, TVs and all kinds of gadgets and appliances. They are not useless, but sometimes it is worthy of thinking what will remain after us when we are no more and do something for there to remain some things of quality. What I'm saying is that we become complacent and the human civilisation does not advance much, it becomes stagnant. The young ones would not settle for that and if they are numerous enough and motivated they could make the world go further.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 01, 2011
You seem to mistake the whole world for Somalia and Africa. These are very specific places with their particularities which do not apply to the whole world.
I see. So regional overpop is not a world problem it's someone elses problem eh? Meanwhile Somalis with no source of income are hyjacking tankers off their coast, north African refugees are drowning trying to get to Italy, Europe is being flooded with Moslems and the west is fighting wars to counter the effects of overpop in the Mideast. And this is not a problem for you.
Perfect, then do both at the same time.
-Or do everything possible simultaneously!
Look for Marshall T. Savage
People unavoidably create residue and disruption. We don't need more people cluttering up the oceans on megabarges.
We have a self-limiting culture, each one goes for his own, tend blahblah
Nothing you say here has anything to do with 'self-limiting', you realize that right?
TheRedComet
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2011
You think this a virtue?
Revised to what?

Pragmatic ethics allows for the practice of virtue ethics within its frame work. It is a misconception that only people with moral absolutes have virtues. When I find myself in a morale paradox I seek to rectify that the paradox using a scientific process.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2011
When I find myself in a morale paradox I seek to rectify that the paradox using a scientific process.

Isn't that special!

But you still must have an absolute good and absolute evil for a reference do you not?

If not, then there is nothing wrong with intentionally harvesting aborted babies for their stem cells. You could even pay the incubators for their services.
TheRedComet
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
@ ryggesogn2
If you use moral absolutes according to your past post on Iraq all murders are justifiable. You just cover these contradictions up with defence mechanisms. Or you are currently using pragmatic ethics which is very hypocritical.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 01, 2011
The fifth commandment is do not murder.
When is murder justifiable?
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
One has to make some moral assumptions initialy to separate good from evil. After that, one can use science and logic to derive other rules from the assumptions when constructing his moral system, but still, there is no proof that the initial assumptions are correct or not.

Most people dont think about these things for themselves, tough, and just blindly accept what society or some ideological bracket prescribes for them.
ShotmanMaslo
4 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2011
The fifth commandment is do not murder.
When is murder justifiable?


Define murder first, because different people often have different definitions for it.
TheRedComet
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
The fifth commandment is do not murder.
When is murder justifiable?

So you do use a combination of moral absolutes and Pragmatic ethics. Your defence mechanism is manifesting Narcissistic defences and Splitting.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2011
When is murder justifiable?
When you, your family, or your tribe are being threatened. Read the old testament for instructions.

Morals are BIOLOGICAL. They are based on the tribal dynamic of internal altruism in conjunction with external animosity. It is just as moral to kill the enemies of your tribe as it is immoral to kill members of your own tribe.

As god came from man, so also do morals come from man.
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

-For instance the actions of the mad norwegian are wholly understandable from this perspective. He had come to identify strongly with a tribe foreign to the one surrounding him. He viewed this real society as a critical threat to his new group, and therefore sought to destroy it.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2011
All religions are based on this 'us vs them' mentality. This is where Breivik GOT his perceptions. This is why there can be no peace in the world until religions are all ended.

The idea that one single religion could ever unite the world, is ludicrous.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
The fifth commandment is do not murder.
When is murder justifiable?

So you do use a combination of moral absolutes and Pragmatic ethics. Your defence mechanism is manifesting Narcissistic defences and Splitting.

I was asking you a question. You insinuated killing is murder. Is that what you believe?
TheRedComet
not rated yet Aug 01, 2011
When is murder justifiable?

My view of the deaths that occurred at the hands of American solders. During Operation Iraqi Freedom qualify as murder. Obviously you view it as sanctioned killing. Im unable to broadly answer your question as it is subject to scientific realism.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2011
Let me try and oversimplify this, if you will allow.

As female education rises, birth rates decrease. As knowledge grows in an individual, reason and moderation follow. These, of course, are generalities and take time. For the first time on this planet, it won't have to wait for multiple generations.

The Internet will be our savior. It will finally show enough of us that we are all one tribe. Those that refuse to accept this truth will be eliminated, in many ways. We've hijacked evolution since we've been able. This is merely a logical continuation.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
Well Red, if you live by the state, they you must live with it's decisions. The invasion and liberation of Iraq was sanctioned and supported by leading 'progressives' in Congress and in the UN.

Just wondering if you accused the Stalinist Saddam Husein of murder for not buying food with the oil he sold, or the French and others who aided and abetted the corrupt oil for food program?

And if you are really Jewish, how do you support and defend Muslims who murder Jews?

Killing those who would murder others or have committed murder is not murder.

Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2011
The invasion and liberation of Iraq was sanctioned and supported by leading 'progressives' in Congress and in the UN.


Yes. Yes. We must blame the duped for the action of a SINGULAR PERSON. Yes. When discussing the morality of A SINGLE DECISION, we ought consider the NON ACTION of a group INCAPABLE of affecting the decision. Your bias could not be better exemplified.

Killing those who would murder others ... is not murder.


How do you know "WHO would murder others?" Justify that total bullshit.

IMO, this perfectly boils down the liberal/conservative dichotomy. Most conservatives believe we are inherently flawed and incapable of self-improvement. Most liberals believe we can ALL be rehabilitated. Both are delusional.
Telekinetic
3.8 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2011
It won't be 7 billion for long if the so called bilderberg group have there way.


indeed the illuminati have a difrent plan the a clueless demmographics resercher has

population reduction to 500 million is there target
as inscribed by them in stone at gerorgia guide stones

i take its prety serious since its writen in stone


I see you belong to a group called the "Illiterati."
TheRedComet
5 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2011
Killing those who would murder others or have committed murder is not murder.

"Death is the solution to all problems. No man - no problem." Joseph Stalin
TheRedComet
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2011
Just wondering if you accused the Stalinist Saddam Husein of murder for not buying food with the oil he sold, or the French and others who aided and abetted the corrupt oil for food program?

Pushing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait was absolutely necessary but mistakes where made. Both sides are to blame for those deaths but Saddam bares most of the blame.

And if you are really Jewish, how do you support and defend Muslims who murder Jews?

Jews kill, Muslims kill, Christians kill, everybody kills hooray!
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2011
Most conservatives believe we are inherently flawed and incapable of self-improvement

You are half right.
Skultch
5 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2011
Most conservatives believe we are inherently flawed and incapable of self-improvement

You are half right.


You half communicate. Which part?

I anxiously await your irrelevant or self-defeating quote mine.....
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2011
My view of the deaths that occurred at the hands of American solders. During Operation Iraqi Freedom qualify as murder.
This qualifies you as a posturing imbecile. Congratulations.

Next question - how do you feel about the Red Guards murdering their own teachers on stage during school assemblies? Just curious.
As female education rises, birth rates decrease. As knowledge grows in an individual, reason and moderation follow.
You are correct this is oversimplification. Moslem women are well educated as to their proper place in society and to the evils that western education pose. Their education emphasizes the need to churn out babies for allah.

Red Guards were well educated also as to the decadence of western mores.

Thrasymaccous is well educated as to the vital importance of classic philosophy to the future of civilization. I do not know how this has affected his ability to conceive, or the relative causal relationship between either. Or. One can only speculate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2011
Just wondering if you accused the Stalinist Saddam Husein of murder for not buying food blahblah
Saadddam was installed to manage an artificial nation composed of portions of shiite, sunni, and kurd pops which were desperately trying to outreproduce one another. Kurds still have the highest repro rate of any group in the mideast.

Sadammm pursued enlightened Campaigns of growth restriction which included draining the swamps infested with marsh arabs, chem warfare against kurds, and a very clever 11yr shiite/shiite war against iran which did little besides reducing pops by about 2M and stressing the remainder.

He further continued by justifying western sanctions against his country, which only ever affect the people and their ability to propagate; and by inviting ruination upon his forces TWICE.

One might conclude from these Actions that his Service was undeniably to the western concerns who had INSTALLED him there to BEGIN with. Those concerns ostensibly being GBR and France.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2011
Jews kill, Muslims kill, Christians kill, everybody kills hooray!
And lets not forget communists with their pseudo-religionist dogma specifically designed for decimation.
TheRedComet
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2011
This qualifies you as a posturing imbecile. Congratulations.

Its not posturing if it is how I live my life with respect and reverence for all sentient and non-sentient beings. Not to say that I resemble Gandhi or Martin Luther King but I adhere to the belief that violence breeds violence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2011
This qualifies you as a posturing imbecile. Congratulations.

Its not posturing if it is how I live my life with respect and reverence for all sentient and non-sentient beings. Not to say that I resemble Gandhi or Martin Luther King but I adhere to the belief that violence breeds violence.
Snore. Well gautama, you dont mind if the rest of us defend ourselves when we're threatened do you? Thanks I appreciate it.

Martyrs. They do not last very long in the wild.

'If you go carryin pictures of chairman mao...' etc
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2011
violence breeds violence.

Then you would not defend yourself from a violent attack? You might have to commit a violent act to save your life or the life of a family member.
What a dilemma!
TheRedComet
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2011
Then you would not defend yourself from a violent attack?

I have respect for all sentient and non-sentient beings I include my self in that category. Iraqs problems will not be solved with violence.
TheRedComet
not rated yet Aug 02, 2011
Martyrs. They do not last very long in the wild.

Neither does the warrior class.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 02, 2011
Martyrs. They do not last very long in the wild.

Neither does the warrior class.
I am hearing the sound of one hand slapping.

You're a student perhaps? Taliban means 'students' - something like that. Red Guards were students. They're the easiest group to manipulate. So ... EAGER to CHANGE things. Matters little from what to what. They prefer being told this.

Or perhaps you just never grew up?

The Pleistocene left us with only 2 classes - the warriors and the officers. Warriors decrepitated from working the fields and eating the grass they grew.

The Officers only got Better at what They did.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2011
Then you would not defend yourself from a violent attack?

I have respect for all sentient and non-sentient beings I include my self in that category. Iraqs problems will not be solved with violence.

Then you would not defend yourself or your family if attacked by either sentient or non-sentient beings.
TheRedComet
not rated yet Aug 03, 2011
Is otto the only one who understands that RELIGION is the cause of all this? RELIGIONS all mandate that the world be filled up with more of their adherents and fewer of the infidels next door. RELIGION prevents 3rd world cultures from being educated on family planning and living within ones means.

Or perhaps you just never grew up?

Im a atheist who advocates non violence I see no reason for conflict between are views.
TheRedComet
not rated yet Aug 03, 2011
Then you would not defend yourself or your family if attacked by either sentient or non-sentient beings.

I have the right to life just as any other creature I dont believe that I would be able to control that primitive of instinct. like I said Im no Gandhi.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2011
Then you would not defend yourself or your family if attacked by either sentient or non-sentient beings.

I have the right to life just as any other creature I dont believe that I would be able to control that primitive of instinct. like I said Im no Gandhi.

Progress.
So you would commit violence to defend yourself. What is primitive about using violence to defend one's right to life?
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Aug 03, 2011
So you would commit violence to defend yourself. What is primitive about using violence to defend one's right to life?

That depends on whether you consider 'thinking as an individual' more primitive than 'thinking as a species'.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2011
So you would commit violence to defend yourself. What is primitive about using violence to defend one's right to life?

That depends on whether you consider 'thinking as an individual' more primitive than 'thinking as a species'.

Who seriously thinks as a species?
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Aug 03, 2011
Who seriously thinks as a species?

In some countries group-think is very common (many parts of Asia, India, ... ). Some individuals even blow themselves up 'for the good of the group'. Not that that demonstrates particularly un-primitive thinking.

Just saying: Putting the group before the individual isn't a style of thought that is entirely uncommon on this planet.

Now, whether that is more primitive or not is another debate (or whether the problems in many of the group-think systems are due to group-think - or whether all the problems in individualistic societies are due to individualism, for that matter).

One thing seems certain, though: A species where the individuals take a 'species first' approach is, in the long run, more likely to survive than one where the individuals act on a 'me first' basis.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2011
A species where the individuals take a 'species first' approach is, in the long run, more likely to survive than one where the individuals act on a 'me first' basis.

Why?
The 'species' first approach enables the murder by the 'society' to 'save' the species. Logan's Run, for example.
Respecting every individual's right to life mitigates such tyranny.
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2011
The application of violence in the defense of any right or class of rights tends to become less effective as the capacity for violence increases. This is because people inevitably overreach in their determination of their rights, and when one uses violence to defend a claim to a right no one else would support you or anyone else possessing, one inevitably infringes upon the real rights of others. The efficacy and scope of real rights can only be maintained and expanded on the basis of mutual respect. The "right to life" is meaningless if it can only be maintained by killing or the threat of killing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2011
The application of violence in the defense of any right or class of rights tends to become less effective as the capacity for violence increases... to a right no one else would support you or anyone else possessing, one inevitably infringes upon the real rights of others.
Blah?
The efficacy and scope of real rights can only be maintained and expanded on the basis of mutual respect. The "right to life" is meaningless if it can only be maintained by killing or the threat of killing.
Huh. So as settlers on the north American continent fought their way west, supplanting indigenes by force, they were only establishing temporary or pseudo-rights for themselves and acquiring real property that in reality was only illusory?

If Israelis are forced to tear down illegal settlements on palestinian-owned land does this mean US citizens will need to move out of Boston?

I'm confused. Perhaps if you sourced your spaghetti instead of cooking it up yourself it would help?
Thrasymachus
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2011
If violence is the basis of one's claim on a thing, then violence can be the basis of rejecting that claim. The very people who used violence to push Native Americans off the land they were living on in turn had violence used against them to rob them of the land they had claimed from the Indians, and not just by the Indians, but by their own fellow members of their societies. Rights exist, persist and are expanded or diminished on the basis of social agreements on claims, grounded in mutual respect. Claims grounded in violence or the threat of violence are not rights, because the application of violence or its threat can easily go the other way. Claims grounded in the mutual respect for a fellow human being are rights, in part because the application of mutual respect cannot justify any willy-nilly distribution of claims, as the application of violence can.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2011
Ooh heres one; I suppose all those Frenchmen who fought and died to establish egalitè, fraternité, and theotherthing, were only establishing rights which were of the ersatz variety?

Let me point something out to you dear sir. The efficacy of what you say depends little upon how well you say it, or how well you THINK you say it.
Skultch
not rated yet Aug 03, 2011
Respecting every individual's right to life mitigates such tyranny.


This coming from the guy who said:

Killing those who would murder others ... is not murder.


smh Still waiting on your justification for that one.....
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2011
It's called self defense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2011
Claims grounded in the mutual respect for a fellow human being are rights, in part because the application of mutual respect cannot justify any willy-nilly distribution of claims, as the application of violence can.
So Frenchmen retain the rights they won in their revolution to this day only because they expressed some sort of respect for Louis XIV as they were lopping off his head? I see.
antialias_physorg
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2011
Why?
The 'species' first approach enables the murder by the 'society' to 'save' the species.

Well, the species survives. In a 'me first' approach it is possible that an individual would make a decision that favors himself in the short run but dooms the species in the long run. Such a decision would be impossible in a 'species first' type of society.

Not saying that we should endorse the latter. I think a healthy mix should be applied (since a pure 'species first' approach could lead to a species that survives indefinitely in a state of abject misery).
Skultch
not rated yet Aug 03, 2011
It's called self defense.


No, it's called ignorantly judging thought crime and claiming clairvoyance. Ever heard of "innocent until PROVEN guilty?" Or, are you limiting your "killing morality" to war zones where due process isn't applicable?

Why can't you simply say that you were slightly wrong? We all make mistakes. It's ok. You'd receive a lot more respect with a little humility. Your convoluted butt-covering is pathetically transparent.
Skultch
not rated yet Aug 03, 2011
Self defense first, species second. How could there be another way? We are extremely limited in our ability to comprehend all perspectives and predict consequences. So, when in doubt, help yourself then help the species when you can. Also, many of the most important decisions need to be made very quickly. In those situations, we have evolved or adapted nearly automatic responses. There is no morality there. It's just what we are, and judgement of that is unfair.
Thrasymachus
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2011
I do believe you mean Louis the XVI, not Louis the XIV. The Sun King died in his bed at 76. A society is constantly working out the claims that can be justified through mutual respect, and when there is an impasse, whenever agreement on claims or the nature of the respect owed is not possible, people almost inevitably regress to violence to overcome the impasse. This does not mean that the claims they gain through the use of violence are rights, nor that rights are ultimately grounded on the use or threat of violence. Rights only exist within a society, and a human society is only sustainable on the basis of mutual respect between the members. The French did not gain rights through the execution of their king, neither did they lose them in being conquered by Napoleon years later. A society can only gain or lose rights by changing the possibility of claims that can be made, or by changing the cultural conception of what respect for fellow human beings entails.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2011
I do believe you mean Louis the XVI, not Louis the XIV.
I do believe whatever. TH if you were here I'd tickle you until you threw up. What a little mensch you are.

respect between the members.
I do believe you mean among the members -? Heehee
A society is constantly working out the claims that can be justified through mutual respect
-You mean like saddamm was mutually respecting his Kurd citizens as he was dropping gas bombs on them? Haha this is fun. For about 10 seconds.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2011
Well, the species survives. In a 'me first' approach it is possible that an individual would make a decision that favors himself in the short run but dooms the species in the long run. Such a decision would be impossible in a 'species first' type of society.
That's because tribe is the highest concern an individual may have. An individual has no concept of 'species'. His biological concerns are for his offspring and for the tribe he depends upon on as protection and as a source of most desirable generic material.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2011
That's because tribe is the highest concern an individual may have. An individual has no concept of 'species'.

What stops anyone from acknowledging the species as one's tribe?
Is there a natural limit to the size of a tribe? And if so: what is it and why?

Currenly we face global dangers so we are reliant on the protection of everyone - and the entire global population can be a source of 'most desirable' genetic material.

E.g.: There's more than a few guys out there who dig asian chicks.
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2011
Some humans are most certainly capable of extending tribe to species and even beyond. However psychedelics are usually required.
that_guy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 03, 2011
While I agree with your sentiment antialias, I think that the 'tribal' size is more biological than philosophical. Although I think that certain philosophies such as humanism, buddhism, confuscism will certainly help society move more smoothly overall (Look at how well they all work together in japan) I think everyone will always have a bias towards a certain group as being their own, and be at least somewhat biased against other groups. it's not inherently bad, and it is inherently necessary. What's necessary is that we understand this and ourselves and temper our actions to outsiders accordingly.

This is just my opinion, but I think we have spheres -family closest friends of 10 to 20 - 'local tribal unit' our aquaintances and regular friends of a few hundred, and progressively less personal affiliations of larger and larger groups.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Aug 03, 2011
it's not inherently bad, and it is inherently necessary.

I agree tha this is not inherently bad, but _inherently_ necessary? Why?

In this day and age where you communicate with acquaintances a continent away as easily as with the person next door (and most of us probably more frequently with the former than with the latter) I see no real point in keeping that bias around just because someone belongs to some other (e.g. ethnic) group.

There is a tribal element in our history, no doubt, but I think it's rapidly losing its meaning.
jamesrm
not rated yet Aug 03, 2011
"No, it's called ignorantly judging thought crime and claiming clairvoyance.

Sounds like Pre-Crime to me?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2011
Look at how well they all work together in japan

How well DO they work together?
Skultch
not rated yet Aug 03, 2011
Let me try and oversimplify this, if you will allow.

As female education rises, birth rates decrease. As knowledge grows in an individual, reason and moderation follow. These, of course, are generalities and take time. For the first time on this planet, it won't have to wait for multiple generations.

The Internet will be our savior. It will finally show enough of us that we are all one tribe. Those that refuse to accept this truth will be eliminated, in many ways. We've hijacked evolution since we've been able. This is merely a logical continuation.


Sorry. I was a little drunk when I put this together. I'm usually much better at avoiding online forums in that state of mind. There wasn't a whole lot of substance or detail there.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Aug 04, 2011
How well DO they work together?

If you look at pictures of the damage before the Kobe earthquake and the same sites a year later then you might be in for a shock.

These guys are good.

Compare that to disaster arease anywhere else in the world and you will see the power of group action vs. uncoordinated/individualistic action.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.