Large Families, Care Of Children & World Population

[seriously honestly]

double post

Edited August 29, 2011 by seriously honestly

[Loran Blood]

There is a scientific basis for the way scientists use the term. Why not start there?

I'm claiming that there is not, as there is no quantifiable empirical basis within the concept. Its a concept that must be true at some, extreme theoretical point, but for which substantial uncertainties exist relative to its actual manifestation on a real world level.

2. The concept of the human species being "out of balance" with the ecosystem is, as well, is not a scientific but a philosophical conception. Its unintelligible in a scientific sense unless you can provide some rather precise quantifications of the conditions and dynamics involved in the human species actually reaching the point at which this conjectural condition would be applicable. Obviously, at some point, there would be, theoretically, simply too many people on earth for the planet to support. The problem is showing that this idea could ever actually be reached in the real world.

I fundamentally disagree with the parameters you claim need to be met in order for a discussion to be considered intelligible and scientific. There is little reason to even try talking about this topic if you poison the well at the outset like this.

Fascinating how you have here determined that philosophical dissent from your own ideas are now understood to be ad hominem attacks. Interesting. Are my propositions and observations above "well poisoning" against you, or against your beliefs? Can one poison the well against beliefs with which he disagrees? If so, how can there ever be anything remotely resembling critical debate?

Perhaps you should look up the word "if" in the dictionary. I'm not claiming that the number of people in China will double every 50 years indefinitely. Not only am I'm claiming it won't, I'm claiming it can't.

I don't believe it will either, or anywhere else, save those places that remain free markets, the rule of law, and property rights.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Calm]

Precisely my point.

Just making sure everyone is clear on the point.

[Calm]

That being said it takes a little over 2 acres of land just to support one person. That includes agricultural and non agricultural lands.

Is this on average over the earth and measured by today's standards? Is there anything preventing this from changing (for the better or the worse) such a better tech and choosing more efficient crops/product giving us higher yield per acre?

[Analytics]

I'm claiming that there is not, as there is no quantifiable empirical basis within the concept. Its a concept that must be true at some, extreme theoretical point, but for which substantial uncertainties exist relative to its actual manifestation on a real world level.

There are substantial uncertainties in much of Economics. In fact, there is at least as much uncertainty in your belief that Adam Smith's invisible hand will prevent overpopulation as there is in defining exactly what overpopulation means and what the limit is.

Fascinating how you have here determined that philosophical dissent from your own ideas are now understood to be ad hominem attacks. Interesting. Are my propositions and observations above "well poisoning" against you, or against your beliefs? Can one poison the well against beliefs with which he disagrees? If so, how can there ever be anything remotely resembling critical debate?

It was well poisoning against mainstream enviornmental scientists as a group. They think their models add insight, and you dismiss their entire field out of hand.

I don't believe it will either, or anywhere else, save those places that remain free markets, the rule of law, and property rights.

This is an article of faith in the superlative wisdom of rational decision makers in a world free of uncertainty. A similar argument can be made that in a world with free markets, the rule of law and property rights, there cannot be bubbles in equity markets.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A similar argument can be made that in a world with free markets, the rule of law and property rights, there cannot be bubbles in equity markets.

I don't think you want to go down this road.

Bubbles don't happen because of free markets.

[Analytics]

I don't think you want to go down this road.

Bubbles don't happen because of free markets.

Could you clarify what you mean? As an example, tech stocks experienced a bubble in the dot-com boom of the late 90's. Are you suggesting this phenomenon wasn’t caused by the decisions of people with property rights in a free market, protected by the rule of law?

[Ares]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Politics

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff