They're looking for beers ;)
Yeah there are idiots on both sides and we all lose because of them.
Closed system: model where energy is able to enter and exit but matter does not enter or leave
1) The earth is generally speaking a closed system.(fact)
2) The earth's population is growing exponentially.(fact)
3) An exponentially growing population cannot survive indefinitely in a closed system. (fact)
It's not a matter of if but when. If we want to have a future we have to address the sustainability of humanity. How people can fight so adamantly against this baffles me.
Also since 900+ million people are suffering from malnutrition today I would have to say the food predictions are at least partially correct.
Models for peak population before the decline have been forecasting downward for years. That's not taking into account the possibility of a pandemic, world war, or other major disaster that could rapidly reduce the world population in a matter of months.
Does that mean we have a sustainable amount of clean water, land and other resources to maintain a peaking population for a length of time before we start declining? I doubt it but I suspect we will figure out ways to rapidly reduce the population if pandemic or natural disasters don't do the trick.
Yeah that is true but they expect the population to reach 10 billion before it levels off around the year 2100.
Those massive population declines/pandemics/wars you mention will eventually happen though and I think we should be effectively working to prolong the time we have by investing heavily in scientific research. We spent 10 times more on our military than on research(711 billion to 70 billion) in 2012. I don't think were getting a very good return for our investment. Unfortunately, our political parties seem far more interested in their ideologies than actual solutions.
In the 70's they were crying about "Global Cooling" afraid we were going into an Ice Age. :rolleyes:
I am not advocating for no military but for 200 billion a year we would still have the biggest military in the world. Not to mention we are firm allies with France, Japan, Germany and England who are some of the other top spenders. Basically I support the approach the U.S used to use where we would arm and disarm before and after a war. If the military action is truly needed the people will see that and funding will pour in as was the case for WWII. It creates a litmus test for weather war is justified. Constantly funding a massive standing army just seems to create an excuse for politicians to get us involved in conflicts weather citizens support it or not.
As Eisenhower spoke, it seemed to Hughes that his contemplation was drawing to a close. Ike’s thoughts were now coalescing. The president stopped and, jaw set, stared out the window onto the South Lawn. The tiny speck of an F-86 Sabre buzzed across the sky.
In an instant his reverie broke, and he wheeled around. “Here is what I would like to say. The jet plane that roars over your head costs three quarter of a million dollars. That is more money than a man earning ten thousand dollars every year is going to make in his lifetime. What world can afford this sort of thing for long? We are in an armaments race. Where will it lead us? At worst to atomic warfare. At best, to robbing every people and nation on earth of the fruits of their own toil.
“Now, there could be another road before us—the road of disarmament. What does this mean? It means for everybody in the world: bread, butter, clothes, homes, hospitals, schools—all the good and necessary things for decent living. …”
I think that bold part shows the opposite of what you just claimed.