Quote:
Originally Posted by PyramidScheme
I expect eventually the 1st world model will become unsustainable in 150-200 years, once the groceries stop getting food and water...most people in the first world will die
Quote:
Originally Posted by PyramidScheme
What it comes down to, is we are unable to support to many new people now. Because...
a)The World is overpopulated
b)Too many of those people already here are non-productive liberals who want themselves to be "taken care of" magically through government and then brag about their selfless nobility because they're also willing to let immigrants get taken care of through the power of magic too
-----
Instead of calling each other racist all the time we need to come up with serious solutions to reducing out population and preparing for the growing lack of importance of human manual labor. The Conservatives are ignoring this problem completely, and the Liberals just want to call everyone racist who is trying to protect their self interests during an obvious 1st World downfall
you have basic facts wrong here. the world is not overpopulated relative to food or other resources; humanity currently produces almost 3,000 calories of food per person per day, and the amount of calories of food we are producing is increasing per capita. which means that the rate of food production is faster than the rate of population growth, with no end in sight for increased food production (whereas population growth is leveling off).
the problem is not of resources, but of poverty and political instability. too much of the world is
poor and lives in non-democratic areas. but that'll be mostly fixed over the next 20-30 years as sub-saharan africa gets more investments, the countries drift towards democracy, and global poverty becomes largely eradicated:
you can see that the decline has already been precipitous, largely due to the abandonment of collectivization and the move towards free market economics in southeast asia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PyramidScheme
This is very economically liberal of me, but it might just be that we literally need to start giving everyone a base of "free money" where they might even be able to live comfortably without a job at all. We would still need to strike a balance between that so it is not so comfortable that the best and brightest or people who just want to be productive still have an incentive to work and produce. Not an easy thing to pull off. But we don't have the population requirements to even try that. Too much dead weight and leeches in the US. We need to fix overpopulation first, and sorry the answer isn't letting in MORE people. There is no overnight fix to this.
population size has nothing to do with this; its all relative. the social safety net right now is built upon an assessment of whether one needs the money: old, handicapped, unemployed, etc.
a basic income eliminates that test, and instead institutes an economic system we know is already a huge failure: collectivization.
universal income is a bad solution to a problem that does not exist.
also, you seem to think that immigration is a net negative on economic growth. it is a net positive. look to a country like japan which has a declining population and practically 0 immigration. it's a slow motion economic disaster.
just basic facts wrong in both of these posts.