Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: 13 Predictions Made On Earth day 1970

  1. #21
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,565
    Quote Originally Posted by quantum View Post
    I have a better one:

    I get stopped about 3 times a month at the PATH "bag inspection station", while Middle Easterners walk right on by. Me - the Irish looking guy with a Jets jacket, and 51 yo.

    I'm thinking they pick people who won't have bombs, because if they checked people who might actually, the police would get hurt or there would be lots of paperwork.

    Irish guy with Jets jacket?

    They're looking for beers

  2. #22
    Yeah there are idiots on both sides and we all lose because of them.

    Consider;
    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.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetset21 View Post
    Yeah there are idiots on both sides and we all lose because of them.

    Consider;
    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.
    No. 2 is not a fact, world population growth is slowing and will peak and start declining. Russia and China along with Europe, Japan and the US already have fertility rates below replacement rate. India's birth rate per women is in decline as it is in most of the third world.

    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.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 05-02-2013 at 08:29 AM.

  4. #24
    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.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetset21 View Post
    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.
    Actually we are getting a great return on our investment. Try being a weak country invaded by a country looking to take our resources and enslave our people. It won't be all kumbya then.

    Every day you are free, thank a soldier.

  6. #26
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,323
    In the 70's they were crying about "Global Cooling" afraid we were going into an Ice Age.

  7. #27
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,323
    Quote Originally Posted by shakin318 View Post
    Yet the ever-growing list of leading scientists finally having the balls to categorize global warming as a crock...those are the ones that are blackballed, ostracized and defunded.
    Absolutely right..

  8. #28
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Parsippany, NJ
    Posts
    3,679
    Quote Originally Posted by chesapeakejet View Post
    I bet they're afraid of racial profiling. PC is going to get us K-I-L-L-E-D.
    Profiling wouldn't have helped in Boston.

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by GandWFan View Post
    Actually we are getting a great return on our investment. Try being a weak country invaded by a country looking to take our resources and enslave our people. It won't be all kumbya then.

    Every day you are free, thank a soldier.
    The military is not actually a good investment. Even Dwight. D. Eisenhower was worried about how much our military spent. This is jobs created for each billion spent. Lets say we flipped our spending between military and education. So education goes from 98 billion to 711 billion. That would create 9,501,500 more jobs than the military generates. 9.5 million more jobs and the most educated workforce in the world. What would that do for the economy compared to how we currently spend that money. Hell you could take 10% of our military spending and we could have free college for every citizen(We spent 60 billion on tuition in 2012). Im not saying we should do that but its important to point out just how expensive our military is.


    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.

  10. #30
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetset21 View Post
    The military is not actually a good investment. Even Dwight. D. Eisenhower was worried about how much our military spent. This is jobs created for each billion spent. Lets say we flipped our spending between military and education. So education goes from 98 billion to 711 billion. That would create 9,501,500 more jobs than the military generates. 9.5 million more jobs and the most educated workforce in the world. What would that do for the economy compared to how we currently spend that money. Hell you could take 10% of our military spending and we could have free college for every citizen(We spent 60 billion on tuition in 2012). Im not saying we should do that but its important to point out just how expensive our military is.


    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.
    Ike wasn't concerned with the cost spent on military. He was concerned with our military being influenced by outside influences.

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by 24 View Post
    Ike wasn't concerned with the cost spent on military. He was concerned with our military being influenced by outside influences.
    "More than a week after Stalin’s death, Eisenhower was talking with speechwriter Emmet Hughes about the address. “Look, I am tired—and I think everyone is tired—of just plain indictments of the Soviet regime,” Ike said. “I think it would be wrong—in fact, asinine—for me to get up before the world now to make another one of those indictments. Instead, just one thing matters. What have we got to offer the world?”

    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.

  12. #32
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,323
    Quote Originally Posted by Jetset21 View Post
    "More than a week after Stalin’s death, Eisenhower was talking with speechwriter Emmet Hughes about the address. “Look, I am tired—and I think everyone is tired—of just plain indictments of the Soviet regime,” Ike said. “I think it would be wrong—in fact, asinine—for me to get up before the world now to make another one of those indictments. Instead, just one thing matters. What have we got to offer the world?”

    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.
    Here he is certainly referring to the Global Elites. But either way, same outcome. Semantics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us