Another One Goes Off The Deep End...lol.

[Book]

http://loopylettuce.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/panic_attack2.jpg

http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php/topic,71360.msg1111647.html#msg1111647

:o

[Ponce]

Thanks Book, that was a fun read..........at least I now know that I am not the only crazy one.

[Book]

http://briconcounseling.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/group_therapy.21293226.jpg

LATOC has a whole Section devoted to post like this:

http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php/board,7.0.html

:)

[Phoenix]

http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php/topic,71360.msg1111647.html#msg1111647


First reply in that thread, in its entirety:

"fu*k you."

LOL

[old steel]

I will take BigGreenFrog's advice and pray for ya'll while i try to save myself. ;D

[Ponce]

You go infront of me with your Bible and I'll go behind you with my gun........

[jetgraphics]

All humor aside, there is something to the notion that we had better change.
But I don't think that focusing attention to immediate survival is wise. It would be better to plan for the seventh generation.

"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."
—Great Law of the Iroquois

Based on the population doubling every 40-50 years, we might better consider how to support a quadrupled population in 2110.

[oldmansmith]

All humor aside, there is something to the notion that we had better change.
But I don't think that focusing attention to immediate survival is wise. It would be better to plan for the seventh generation.

"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."
—Great Law of the Iroquois

Based on the population doubling every 40-50 years, we might better consider how to support a quadrupled population in 2110.




Not going to happen. Bacteria in a petri dish will double every some many minutes...until they all die.

[jetgraphics]

All humor aside, there is something to the notion that we had better change.
But I don't think that focusing attention to immediate survival is wise. It would be better to plan for the seventh generation.

"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."
—Great Law of the Iroquois

Based on the population doubling every 40-50 years, we might better consider how to support a quadrupled population in 2110.




Not going to happen. Bacteria in a petri dish will double every some many minutes...until they all die.

Perhaps you consider yourself bacteria.
I do not.
Coincidentally, in speculative fiction, the typical world population that is touted as "overpopulation" that results in "overcrowding" and "ecological destruction" has been routinely scaled upwards, each generation. In the 19th century, "hundreds of millions" was considered "too many". Then one billion was "too many". Then three billion was "too many". Or that seven billion was "too many".**

At the current doubling rate of 40 - 50 years, the world population of 2050 may reach 10 - 12 billions. And in 2100, we may see 20 - 25 billions.

Frankly, human ingenuity has the capacity to overcome the natural limitations. Unfortunately, it lacks the capacity to overcome predatory humans and their depredation.

Just look at the development trends - destroying arable land - building sprawl.

Instead, we should be actively planning for the world of our children's children, and consolidate population in cities, and preserve and expand arable land.

Environmental preservation is lunacy. We need environmental amplification - building more multitstory human habitat (not skyscrapers!) - and engineering the earth to increase the life bearing volume it can sustain.

See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ring_life

**Reference note:
Make Room! Make Room! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_Room%21_Make_Room%21 is a 1966 science fiction novel written by Harry Harrison exploring the consequences of unchecked population growth on society.The novel was the basis of the 1973 science fiction movie Soylent Green, although the movie changed much of the plot and theme, and introduced cannibalism as a solution to feeding people.
Set in then-future August 1999, the novel explores trends in the proportion of world resources used by the United States and other countries compared to population growth, depicting a world where the global population is seven billion, subject to overcrowding, resource shortages and a crumbling infrastructure.

Current world population estimate is 6.9 billion. (2010)
Does it look like "Soylent Green" yet?
Will it look like "Soylent Green" when we reach 14 billion? 28 billion?

[woodman]

All humor aside, there is something to the notion that we had better change.
But I don't think that focusing attention to immediate survival is wise. It would be better to plan for the seventh generation.

"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."
—Great Law of the Iroquois

Based on the population doubling every 40-50 years, we might better consider how to support a quadrupled population in 2110.




Not going to happen. Bacteria in a petri dish will double every some many minutes...until they all die.

Perhaps you consider yourself bacteria.
I do not.
Coincidentally, in speculative fiction, the typical world population that is touted as "overpopulation" that results in "overcrowding" and "ecological destruction" has been routinely scaled upwards, each generation. In the 19th century, "hundreds of millions" was considered "too many". Then one billion was "too many". Then three billion was "too many". Or that seven billion was "too many".**

At the current doubling rate of 40 - 50 years, the world population of 2050 may reach 10 - 12 billions. And in 2100, we may see 20 - 25 billions.

Frankly, human ingenuity has the capacity to overcome the natural limitations. Unfortunately, it lacks the capacity to overcome predatory humans and their depredation.

Just look at the development trends - destroying arable land - building sprawl.

Instead, we should be actively planning for the world of our children's children, and consolidate population in cities, and preserve and expand arable land.

Environmental preservation is lunacy. We need environmental amplification - building more multitstory human habitat (not skyscrapers!) - and engineering the earth to increase the life bearing volume it can sustain.

See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ring_life

**Reference note:
Make Room! Make Room! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_Room%21_Make_Room%21 is a 1966 science fiction novel written by Harry Harrison exploring the consequences of unchecked population growth on society.The novel was the basis of the 1973 science fiction movie Soylent Green, although the movie changed much of the plot and theme, and introduced cannibalism as a solution to feeding people.
Set in then-future August 1999, the novel explores trends in the proportion of world resources used by the United States and other countries compared to population growth, depicting a world where the global population is seven billion, subject to overcrowding, resource shortages and a crumbling infrastructure.

Current world population estimate is 6.9 billion. (2010)
Does it look like "Soylent Green" yet?
Will it look like "Soylent Green" when we reach 14 billion? 28 billion?


Way too many people already. You want a world with more people and you're going to get it. It will get more hellish every year though. With less elbow room comes less freedom and less choices in life. Like the crowded roads? They'll be worse next year and so will the myriad laws to corrall the myriad people. The oceans are dying as are many never to be replaced species. Our pets alone are enough to degrade the ecosystem. I listen to cornucopians and laugh. They can't hear me laughing because their heads are (buried in the sand is a nice way to put it). We will certainly die off in mass quantities. Wars will take many. Intentional ecosystem poisoning will take many more. Chernobyl was just the beginning. Look at a graph of population growth and the full extent of what is happening becomes clear. People are no more important than bacteria to the forces of reality.

I predict a campaign by the elite, through our government and health system, to vaccinate women with a compound that will cause their bodies to reject unnaproved pregnancies. It's coming. The future sucks because of human irresponsibility and failure to see what is staring us in the face. The future looks like Soylent Green.

[TPTB]

Now who doesn't love Soylent Green Chips straight from the Keebler ovens?

[jetgraphics]

Way too many people already. You want a world with more people and you're going to get it. It will get more hellish every year though. With less elbow room comes less freedom and less choices in life. Like the crowded roads? They'll be worse next year and so will the myriad laws to corrall the myriad people. The oceans are dying as are many never to be replaced species. Our pets alone are enough to degrade the ecosystem. I listen to cornucopians and laugh. They can't hear me laughing because their heads are (buried in the sand is a nice way to put it). We will certainly die off in mass quantities. Wars will take many. Intentional ecosystem poisoning will take many more. Chernobyl was just the beginning. Look at a graph of population growth and the full extent of what is happening becomes clear. People are no more important than bacteria to the forces of reality.

I predict a campaign by the elite, through our government and health system, to vaccinate women with a compound that will cause their bodies to reject unnaproved pregnancies. It's coming. The future sucks because of human irresponsibility and failure to see what is staring us in the face. The future looks like Soylent Green.

With no personal animus intended, your reply illustrates the victory of the propaganda ministry. They have carefully crafted information so as to make you receptive to "their" agenda (Malthusian "finite pie" and Machiavellian "the end justifies the means").

Frankly, humans are not the problem, but the solution. To illustrate, we know that the planet has a finite surface area. Therefore to have more lifeforms, we need more life bearing surface area. Among the creatures on this planet, man has the greatest capacity for thickening the life bearing volume of the planet. Unfortunately, the power structure throttles any attempt at making such solutions. But that is not the fault of mankind.

Another example - between 1890 and 1920, the USA built the largest network of electrified rail track systems (streetcars and interurbans), and 90% of the people used them instead of private cars. But a conspiracy destroyed the urban rail system http://saveourwetlands.org/streetcar.htm, as did progressive taxation and regulation. Blame the congested roads on them and their greed, not on humanity.

I stipulate that under current socialist dogma, there aren't many viable solutions, but that's not resolved by destroying a large portion of mankind. In fact, any biological group that successfully practices ZPG will be swiftly replaced by their neighbors who do not.

In Bio-war, progeny determines the future generation. The losers tend to go extinct.

Don't jump to the conclusion that high population density equates to catastrophe. There are plenty of examples of good and bad in both extremes.

But if you're convinced that you need "elbow room", consider relocating to Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density
People per square mile
Macau 48,003.479
Hong Kong 16,442.905
S Korea 1,260.840
Netherlands 1,036.803
India 932.297
Belgium 918.604
Japan 873.077
Philippines 796.017
United Kingdom 659.608
China 361.254
USA 83.307
New Zealand 41.318
Russia 21.499
Australia 7.534

World Cities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_proper_by_population_density
People per square mile
Manila, Philippines 111,576
Paris, France 54,415
Athens, Greece 49,560
Seoul, S Korea 44,778
Moscow, Russia 25,300
London, UK 12,331

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density
People per square mile
NYC 26,402.9
Chicago 12,750.3
Philadelphia 11,233.6
Miami 10,160.9

The question is - what makes Paris, at twice the population density of NYC, a more desirable place to live?

[Skirnir]

Your argument did not take into account certain limiting factors in population growth which humans are already brushing up against, namely arable land, access to potable water, and most importantly energy.

[jetgraphics]

Your argument did not take into account certain limiting factors in population growth which humans are already brushing up against, namely arable land, access to potable water, and most importantly energy.

[] If faced with the choice of ending suburban sprawl, and reclaiming land for agriculture versus killing off a large portion of the next generation, I choose the former.
[] Potable water is all around - nature's distilled vintage - rain water (for non-arid areas). More rain water should be collected, don't you agree? (I am pro-water impoundment: Dam the torpedoes, full stream ahead!)
[] There's no energy shortage. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. There is a fuel shortage, as well as a shortage for conversion devices that transform energy into useful forms. There's plenty of waste, too.
=====================
Some of the aberrations in American development can be traced to the rise in petroleum production. Prior to the ascendancy of petroleum, many "positive" strategies were in place:

Population consolidation in villages, towns, and cities,
Electric Traction rail mass transit,
Local production, and
Real Capitalism - private ownership of the means of production


Much changed as the progressive / collectivist ideologues infiltrated American governments and institutions. Now, we're burdened with the huge dead weight of bureaucratic overhead, red-tape, regulatory abuse, and socialist parasites. We see government rising in power and speed, while industry is slowly ground down, or expatriates. I do not see much hope under the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America. Which does reinforce the premise of the original post.

Personally, I'd prefer that 51% of Americans volunteer out of national socialism. But the repercussions would be dire - as the surety backing the FRNs would evaporate. Not only would the socialist administration implode, but foreign trade would be interrupted - perhaps for a long time - until a new equitable trade system is worked out.

[Book]

All humor aside, there is something to the notion that we had better change. But I don't think that focusing attention to immediate survival is wise. It would be better to plan for the seventh generation.



http://www.prestiva.com/lv/images/Sex%2520and%2520the%2520City%2520main.jpg

http://glamtings.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/friends.jpg

You might start a thought-provoking thread about this jetgraphics. Hollywood and Teevee glorify the childless, unmarried existence. The few children who are now actually born into America are facing the National Debt, exhausted resources and infrastructure, and polluted water and land. The Social Security and Medicare ponzi schemes alone define the game. Grandpa and grandma partied hardy intentionally leaving the catering bill to their grandchildren.

It would take seven generations to pay off our National Debt.

:o

[k-os]

Regarding the OP, Book, really what do you expect from a site called "doomers.us"? :)

I think you'd have a lot to chuckle about over there. The doom here is just bonus.

[Ponce]

Book? it will take seven generations for the US to recover and that's without paying off the National Debt.

[the riot act]

I emailed the poster over there some xanax.

[jetgraphics]

I suspect that the PTB will foment a [redacted] between the [censored] with which to divide and conquer the [excised].

And that's the truth!

(No, the public debt can never be paid off. The lawful amount of gold bullion required would take 87,000 years to mine - at current mining rates - and if the debt was frozen RIGHT NOW. Since that will not happen, it is safe to conclude that we're [expletive deleted] ! )

[jetgraphics]

I've been aware of the imminent economic collapse, since 1989, when I authored "In God We Trust - In Tax We Bust". I could extrapolate the debt curve, and see that we're getting deeper into red ink.

However, the nature of that collapse is not dramatic. But it is visible. The data points are based on how much one has to work to acquire basic necessities. Or how inequitable the marketplace is. Thanks to the socialist theft system, the population is dividing into the recipients versus the providers. And as the providers are constrained more and more, the system is stressed to the breaking point.

Eventually, the portion that is enjoying the benefit of another's labor will not tolerate any rationing or reduction. And those doing the hard work will balk at paying more. That's when the civilized veneer will flake off.

(I've caused a stir on another forum, when I asked if recipients would willingly give up their pensions in order to save the nation. The wholly negative response was typical. Those who believed they "fought for freedom" did not hesitate to impose upon others to pay their pensions and benefits.)

[Book]

I've caused a stir on another forum, when I asked if recipients would willingly give up their pensions in order to save the nation. The wholly negative response was typical.



http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/news_images/2006/homeless_woman.jpg

Yeah...kick grandma off her Social Security to save AIG and Goldman Sachs and Pentagon spending...lol.

:oo-->

[TheNocturnalEgyptian]

(I've caused a stir on another forum, when I asked if recipients would willingly give up their pensions in order to save the nation. The wholly negative response was typical. Those who believed they "fought for freedom" did not hesitate to impose upon others to pay their pensions and benefits.)



Interesting point of view, I think most of us here would sacrifice almost "everything" to "save the nation" if it guaranteed results, however I do sympathize with those who replied in the negative - they're merely exercising their right to contract, correct? They have a contract and they expect the opposing party to follow through....it's not quite as parasitical in nature as you paint at the individual level. On the grand level, the entire system certainly is parasitical, designed to be constantly foreclosing on people, constantly increasing debt, etc. We all know this. But on the individual level I don't really think it's fair to fault people for merely completing their contracts.

[jetgraphics]

I do sympathize with those who replied in the negative - they're merely exercising their right to contract, correct? They have a contract and they expect the opposing party to follow through....

This may shock you, but there is no CONTRACT for entitlements.
In response to a request for info, the Congressional Research Service stated that there is no PROPERTY RIGHT (contract) for entitlements. They are entirely at the discretion of Congress. They are synonymous with "gifts" (from the public treasury).

Of course, most enumerated socialist peons didn't realize that they were actually signing up to be paupers at law - eligible for CHARITY from the public treasury.

So, let's be clear - you all have been SCAMMED by the world's best Congress bribery can buy.

Coincidentally, before 1935, one had to swear the Pauper's Oath to be eligible for "Freebies" from the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauper%27s_oath
Pauper's oath -
Historically, especially during the Great Depression, the pauper's oath was required as a prerequisite for receiving welfare or other forms of government relief in the United States.
One pauper's oath used when establishing indigent status under United States Federal law is as follows:
" I do solemnly swear that I have not any property, real or personal, exceeding $20*, except such as is by law exempt from being taken on civil process for debt; and that I have no property in any way conveyed or concealed, or in any way disposed of, for my future use or benefit. So help me God."

After 1935, and national socialism, "everybody" with a "number" was a pauper at law. No one had any lawful money (all gold coin was stolen by FDR in 1933) to pay their debts. And only enumerated Americans are "eligible" for entitlements under FICA / Social Security.

Welcome to the United Socialist States of America - soon to be renamed the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America.
----------
*$20 is the trigger point for a right to the RULES of the COMMON LAW, pursuant to the 7th amendment. If you had $21 or more - or the controversy was so valued, you could demand a jury trial and common law rules. Anything less, and you had no recourse to the common law.

In short, since 1933, without lawful money in circulation, America devolved.

[jetgraphics]

I've caused a stir on another forum, when I asked if recipients would willingly give up their pensions in order to save the nation. The wholly negative response was typical.



http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/news_images/2006/homeless_woman.jpg

Yeah...kick grandma off her Social Security to save AIG and Goldman Sachs and Pentagon spending...lol.

:oo-->

What led you to conclude that dismantling the socialist system would not also dismantle the usurer welfare administration and the cannon fodder for tyranny department?

[Book]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3107/2533279463_cd86d067f5.jpg

You tell 'em jetgraphics!






(just don't mention raising taxes on billionaires)

:D

[Phoenix]

national socialism


I challenge you to explain how America has "National Socialism."

Have Jews been purged from academia, government, and the media?

Has Jewish usury banking been outlawed?

Has interracial marriage been abolished?

[jetgraphics]

You tell 'em jetgraphics!
(just don't mention raising taxes on billionaires)


The joke is on anyone who thinks he is a billionaire if he holds custody (not ownership) of a billion Federal Reserve notes (no par value).

If Bill Gates has an account and number, he's legally worth a MINUS 13 trillions, like everyone else with the number and account. That's why enumerated socialists have to pay their tribute in order to enjoy the benefits of impaired legal status.

Based on current gold bullion price of $1210 FRNs/ ounce, and the outstanding obligation of $13.2 Trillion, requiring 660 billion ounces, Bill Gates, et al, would need
798600000000 dollar bills.

That's 798 trillion... Congress would have to borrow, to authorize printing up new currency.

M1 is only 1.7 T!

Crank up the printing press!

[jetgraphics]

It is certain that free societies would have no easy time in a future dark age. The rapid return to universal penury will be accomplished by violence and cruelties of a kind now forgotten. The force of law will be scant or nil, either because of the collapse or disappearance of the machinery of state, or because of difficulties of communication and transport. It will be possible only to delegate authority to local powers who will maintain it by force alone....
Roberto Vacca, The Coming Dark Age

I am assuming that the bulk of America will NOT learn of their plight, will NOT restore their sovereignty, and will NOT be prepared for the inevitable collapse.

What will YOU do for yourself and your loved ones?

In the fictional "Lucifer's Hammer" (Niven, Pournelle), people devolved into predatory gangs, and some devolved into cannibalistic predatory gangs.

So do YOU have your stocked and fortified village / compound ready?
Because when the SHTF, the socialist / usurer "safety net" will be as functional as New Orleans in the middle of the Katrina disaster.