How long do you honestly think humans as a species will last?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] 30% of earth>texas. And there is no problem with resources. Even if there was an overpopulation problem it would adjust itself. It's a theory from the 19th century, I forgot what's it called, that says if the population grows too large it will adjust itself with famine and stuff like that to keep the population in control. So potential overpopulation won't end the human species at all. kuraimenSo you think famine is not a problem? Also Earth ground covered surface 148 940 000 km2 (not all livable) Texas area 696 241 km2 = 148 940 000 / 696 241 = 213.92018 So we can accommodate 214 people in an area like Texas in the whole world and that's assuming all ground area is livable.
What?? No your calculation says the population could increase with 21300% without there being overpopulation. Assuming all ground areas are livable.
Also Earth ground covered surface 148 940 000 km2 (not all livable) Texas area 696 241 km2 = 148 940 000 / 696 241 = 213.92018 So we can accommodate 214 people in an area like Texas in the whole world and that's assuming all ground area is livable.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] So you think famine is not a problem?themajormayor
What?? No your calculation says the population could increase with 21300% without there being overpopulation. Assuming all ground areas are livable.
Wtf? I'm dividing the Earth ground area with Texas area to see how many times Texas fits.[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Also Earth ground covered surface 148 940 000 km2 (not all livable) Texas area 696 241 km2 = 148 940 000 / 696 241 = 213.92018 So we can accommodate 214 people in an area like Texas in the whole world and that's assuming all ground area is livable.kuraimen
What?? No your calculation says the population could increase with 21300% without there being overpopulation. Assuming all ground areas are livable.
Wtf? I'm dividing the Earth ground area with Texas area to see how many times Texas fits. So if texas fits 214 times in earth and texas can accommodate the entire population of earth then earth itself can accommodate 214 times our current population. That's assuming texas can accommodate the entire population of earth
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]Wtf? I'm dividing the Earth ground area with Texas area to see how many times Texas fits. So if texas fits 214 times in earth and texas can accommodate the entire population of earth then earth itself can accommodate 214 times our current population. That's assuming texas can accommodate the entire population of earthWhat?? No your calculation says the population could increase with 21300% without there being overpopulation. Assuming all ground areas are livable.
themajormayor
Ok lets see how accurate is that every person in the world could live in a landmass the size of Texas. We are 7,000,000,000 in an area of 696,241km2 That means 10.054 people by km2. maybe we could fit like tunas. But then again you're not counting the resources. And famine IS a problem yes
So if texas fits 214 times in earth and texas can accommodate the entire population of earth then earth itself can accommodate 214 times our current population. That's assuming texas can accommodate the entire population of earth[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Wtf? I'm dividing the Earth ground area with Texas area to see how many times Texas fits.kuraimen
Ok lets see how accurate is that every person in the world could live in a landmass the size of Texas. We are 7,000,000,000 in an area of 696,241km2 That means 10.054 people by km2. maybe we could fit like tunas. But then again you're not counting the resources. And famine IS a problem yes
I never said it was accurate. It was not me who brought up this example. Still it says quite alot that everyone could fit inside Texas and have quiet alot of space and it's only 1/214 of the earths surface. And compared to present countries this would only be the 3rd most densely populated country in the world! What's the problem with resources? Yes famine is a problem? I never said anything else.
we are only a threat to are selfs. well besides the sun...
If we are implying that no random catastrophic event will happen, then I'd say around a couple thousand years. Our Sun's temperature will rise as it gets hotter and will have a dangerous impact on our bodies and will vaporize the ocean and water supply.
If we are implying that no random catastrophic event will happen, then I'd sayaround a couple thousand years. Our Sun's temperature will rise as it gets hotter and will have a dangerous impact on our bodies and will vaporize the ocean and water supply.
RadecSupreme
It will take alot longer for that to happen
Since the probability distribution for the time period during which any one person finds themself alive is of the same form as the world population as a function of time, and assuming that the earth's population will ultimately be wiped out over a fairly short timescale, it's probable that the human race doesn't have much time left
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] 30% of earth>texas. And there is no problem with resources. Even if there was an overpopulation problem it would adjust itself. It's a theory from the 19th century, I forgot what's it called, that says if the population grows too large it will adjust itself with famine and stuff like that to keep the population in control. So potential overpopulation won't end the human species at all. sonicareSo you think famine is not a problem? soylent green. Ah... Brings back memories. What a bizarre film that was. Turning corpses into food(excuse me for spoilers, but if you haven't watch it yet, that's entirely your fault).
[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Then? with what? whatever it is it will become worse as long as the population keeps increasing.kuraimenI'll admit I'm not knowledgeable about this specific subject but since you're making the claim the burden of proof is on you. My guess though is that it has more to do with politics than population size. Europe's population has increased yet people are much healthier and there is no starvation practically anywhere. Compare this to hundred years ago. My guess it has more to do with governments/guerrillas closing roads, confiscating property, war etc. you see Africa are not just a big dessert there are plentiful of natural resources. Probably much more than europe. It's politics that's the problem. Also they're not as technologically advanced. With increasing technology there is more reason to use more land. Well I think that a big part of what makes Europe's population keep that standard of living is that Europe gets lots of their food and materials from developing countries. The thing is the level of consumption in developed nations like Europeans and the US can-t be mantained by everyone. That means Europe and the US need poor countries that sell them cheap materials and food. The minute these nations become developed they will need the same amount of resources and then the thing becomes unsustainable more than it is now. Unless people in developed countries are prepared to live with less (which they are not I'm sure) such sustainability will not be possible.
It's not in the way you're implying. Yes Europe gets higher standard of living from trading with ALL countries they trade with cause trading is practically always mutually beneficial. But I get the sense you're implying this is because Europe has depleted its own resources which is wrong. The reason why Europe gets cheap stuff like clothes and such from developing countries is because Europe has a comparative disadvantage in producing clothes! Let's imagine they stopped trading. Europe wouldn't suddenly have no food or clothes but they would lose the benefits from trading and they would simple have to replace some of the production of more expensive goods such as computers with production of cheaper goods such as clothes. This has nothing to do with overpopulation or depletion of resources. Also I'm pretty sure Europe trades more within itself and with developed countries such as USA & Japan than with developing countries.
I'm pretty sure it's sustainable, it would be for the better of the world and your hypothetical overpopulation problem would be solved. When they get higher technology it means they can use their own land more efficiently so I don't see the problem.
Well I think that a big part of what makes Europe's population keep that standard of living is that Europe gets lots of their food and materials from developing countries. The thing is the level of consumption in developed nations like Europeans and the US can-t be mantained by everyone. That means Europe and the US need poor countries that sell them cheap materials and food. The minute these nations become developed they will need the same amount of resources and then the thing becomes unsustainable more than it is now. Unless people in developed countries are prepared to live with less (which they are not I'm sure) such sustainability will not be possible.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="themajormayor"] I'll admit I'm not knowledgeable about this specific subject but since you're making the claim the burden of proof is on you. My guess though is that it has more to do with politics than population size. Europe's population has increased yet people are much healthier and there is no starvation practically anywhere. Compare this to hundred years ago. My guess it has more to do with governments/guerrillas closing roads, confiscating property, war etc. you see Africa are not just a big dessert there are plentiful of natural resources. Probably much more than europe. It's politics that's the problem. Also they're not as technologically advanced. With increasing technology there is more reason to use more land.themajormayor
It's not in the way you're implying. Yes Europe gets higher standard of living from trading with ALL countries they trade with cause trading is practically always mutually beneficial. But I get the sense you're implying this is because Europe has depleted its own resources which is wrong. The reason why Europe gets cheap stuff like clothes and such from developing countries is because Europe has a comparative disadvantage in producing clothes! Let's imagine they stopped trading. Europe wouldn't suddenly have no food or clothes but they would lose the benefits from trading and they would simple have to replace some of the production of more expensive goods such as computers with production of cheaper goods such as clothes. This has nothing to do with overpopulation or depletion of resources. Also I'm pretty sure Europe trades more within itself and with developed countries such as USA & Japan than with developing countries.
I'm pretty sure it's sustainable, it would be for the better of the world and your hypothetical overpopulation problem would be solved. When they get higher technology it means they can use their own land more efficiently so I don't see the problem.
I really would like to see where will Europe be without all the stuff they have taken from developing nations. Where do you think all the raw material will come from? Europe has been deforested almost completely like 7 times already during its history. I remember when I was living in Germany I loved this little shrimps they sold at the supermarket a friend told me that those things were fished locally but they sent them to African countries to take off their shell because it was much cheaper and then they came back to sell them in Germany. Europe wouldn't survive without a massive drop on quality of life if it weren't for their trade with poor countries.
With current technology it is impossible for everyone to live as Europeans do... That's his point.It's not in the way you're implying. Yes Europe gets higher standard of living from trading with ALL countries they trade with cause trading is practically always mutually beneficial. But I get the sense you're implying this is because Europe has depleted its own resources which is wrong. The reason why Europe gets cheap stuff like clothes and such from developing countries is because Europe has a comparative disadvantage in producing clothes! Let's imagine they stopped trading. Europe wouldn't suddenly have no food or clothes but they would lose the benefits from trading and they would simple have to replace some of the production of more expensive goods such as computers with production of cheaper goods such as clothes. This has nothing to do with overpopulation or depletion of resources. Also I'm pretty sure Europe trades more within itself and with developed countries such as USA & Japan than with developing countries.
I'm pretty sure it's sustainable, it would be for the better of the world and your hypothetical overpopulation problem would be solved. When they get higher technology it means they can use their own land more efficiently so I don't see the problem.
themajormayor
[QUOTE="imaps3fanboy"]
I don't know. Transitioning from a type 0 civilization into a type 1 civilization is going to be a scary time for humans.
We are witnessing the birth pangs of this transition right now
tenaka2
is thata Banks reference?
Hmm? I don't know what that is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
that's what I was talking about
Given humans ability to adapt to anything, I'd say a long, long, long time. Much longer than our species have existed to this date.
[QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"][QUOTE="z4twenny"]Every single person in the world could live in a theoretical landmass the size of Texas. We don't have overpopulation problems, yet. Except that 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered in water and the not all the ground cover is "livable". We also have the resources to think about. Yes there is definitely an overpopulation problem.i give it a couple hundred more years. the issue is that we'll soon have overcrowding and people living too long.
kuraimen
Malthus thought the same thing, and was wrong. If he wasn't, most of us posting here would be dead right now. He didn't factor in human ingenuity.
People have a tendency to be ingenious in creating better way to use resources. That's how our species has been so successful.
Except that 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered in water and the not all the ground cover is "livable". We also have the resources to think about. Yes there is definitely an overpopulation problem.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="ChampionoChumps"] Every single person in the world could live in a theoretical landmass the size of Texas. We don't have overpopulation problems, yet.SpartanMSU
Malthus thought the same thing, and was wrong. If he wasn't, most of us posting here would be dead right now. He didn't factor in human ingenuity.
People have a tendency to be ingenious in creating better way to use resources. That's how our species has been so successful.
Who says he didn't factor human ingenuity? Although ingenuity can sometimes ease the pressure of such growth you can't expect for it to do it always and forever. There can be a time where the gorwth of population outpaces ingenuity, in fact that happens right now considering the amount of malnourishment in the world. The growth in population has been exponential since last century, it has increased at a pace never before seen, so this in definitely a new challenge for us since we never have been in the verge of depleting the resources of the entire planet until now.
[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Except that 70 percent of the Earth's surface is covered in water and the not all the ground cover is "livable". We also have the resources to think about. Yes there is definitely an overpopulation problem.kuraimen
Malthus thought the same thing, and was wrong. If he wasn't, most of us posting here would be dead right now. He didn't factor in human ingenuity.
People have a tendency to be ingenious in creating better way to use resources. That's how our species has been so successful.
Who says he didn't factor human ingenuity? Although ingenuity can sometimes ease the pressure of such growth you can't expect for it to do it always and forever. There can be a time where the gorwth of population outpaces ingenuity, in fact that happens right now considering the amount of malnourishment in the world. The growth in population has been exponential since last century, it has increased at a pace never before seen, so this in definitely a new challenge for us since we never have been in the verge of depleting the resources of the entire planet until now.Because if he did, he would have never came up with that prediction...which turned out to be completely false. You're doing the exact same thing right now. You assume that everything stays constant. It doesn't.
Also, the population of the planet will not always be increasing. As more countries become developed, the need to have a lot of children will decrease. In fact, most developed countries populations are stagnate or increasing slightly. Some are even decreasing. To assume that the US and Europe will have a lower standard of living as more countries become developed is to assume that wealth is finite. It isn't. There are resources among us right now that we have yet to have any use for, but there will be use for them in the future.
I'm pretty sure the standard of living has increased while malnourishment has decreased since the beginning of modern humans...
Who says he didn't factor human ingenuity? Although ingenuity can sometimes ease the pressure of such growth you can't expect for it to do it always and forever. There can be a time where the gorwth of population outpaces ingenuity, in fact that happens right now considering the amount of malnourishment in the world. The growth in population has been exponential since last century, it has increased at a pace never before seen, so this in definitely a new challenge for us since we never have been in the verge of depleting the resources of the entire planet until now.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]
Malthus thought the same thing, and was wrong. If he wasn't, most of us posting here would be dead right now. He didn't factor in human ingenuity.
People have a tendency to be ingenious in creating better way to use resources. That's how our species has been so successful.
SpartanMSU
Because if he did, he would have never came up with that prediction...which turned out to be completely false. You're doing the exact same thing right now. You assume that everything stays constant. It doesn't.
Also, the population of the planet will not always be increasing. As more countries become developed, the need to have a lot of children will decrease. In fact, most developed countries populations are stagnate or increasing slightly. Some are even decreasing. To assume that the US and Europe will have a lower standard of living as more countries become developed is to assume that wealth is finite. It isn't.
I'm pretty sure the standard of living has increased while malnourishment has decreased since the beginning of modern humans...
You assume a lot too, you assume wealth is infinite. Who told you that? That's one of the greatest dogmas in capitalism and now we are realizing it is not the case, unchecked growth of wealth is what creates the problems we have now, lots of virtual money that have no tangible assets, then speculation gows rampant and that's when huge banks begin to drop like flies because they starting messing with wealth that wasn't there in the first place. You also assume countries can all become developed, who told you that? If all countries become developed there will be no developing countries from where to get cheap raw materials and labor, so that translates into a decreasing quality of life for developed countries. All developed countries came to be in large part by exploiting poor countries for materials and labor, if there are no poor countries developed countries can't come to be. The only developed country with a decreasing population is Japan all the rest have increasing populations.[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Who says he didn't factor human ingenuity? Although ingenuity can sometimes ease the pressure of such growth you can't expect for it to do it always and forever. There can be a time where the gorwth of population outpaces ingenuity, in fact that happens right now considering the amount of malnourishment in the world. The growth in population has been exponential since last century, it has increased at a pace never before seen, so this in definitely a new challenge for us since we never have been in the verge of depleting the resources of the entire planet until now.kuraimen
Because if he did, he would have never came up with that prediction...which turned out to be completely false. You're doing the exact same thing right now. You assume that everything stays constant. It doesn't.
Also, the population of the planet will not always be increasing. As more countries become developed, the need to have a lot of children will decrease. In fact, most developed countries populations are stagnate or increasing slightly. Some are even decreasing. To assume that the US and Europe will have a lower standard of living as more countries become developed is to assume that wealth is finite. It isn't.
I'm pretty sure the standard of living has increased while malnourishment has decreased since the beginning of modern humans...
You assume a lot too, you assume wealth is infinite. Who told you that? That's one of the greatest dogmas in capitalism and now we are realizing it is not the case, unchecked growth of wealth is what creates the problems we have now, lots of virtual money that have no tangible assets, then speculation gows rampant and that's when huge banks begin to drop like flies because they starting messing with wealth that wasn't there in the first place. You also assume countries can all become developed, who told you that? If all countries become developed there will be no developing countries from where to get cheap raw materials and labor, so that translates into a decreasing quality of life for developed countries. All developed countries came to be in large part by exploiting poor countries for materials and labor, if there are no poor countries developed countries can't come to be. The only developed country with a decreasing population is Japan all the rest have increasing populations.More and more countries are getting closer and closer to the developed stage, so you're wrong. I think you need a lesson on what wealth actually is. Wealth isn't money, nor is it "virtual money". Seriously, educate yourself. We don't have free market capitalism in the West. Our government policies are created on Keynesian principles, which causes the problems you see today.
"All developed countries came to be in large part by exploiting poor countries for materials and labor". This couldn't be further from the truth. Developed countries trade with other developed countries because of comparative advantage. Again, educate yourself on what that is. When more countries become developed, they are going to become specialized in certian areas, and trade will increase, benefiting everyone. Globalization is a good thing, just like trade between the states within the US and trade within the countries in Europe is a good thing. It is no different between countries developing around the world. Productivity of labor wil continue to increase as it becomes more efficient.
A lot of developed countries have a decreasing fertility rate or stable fertility rate. Population only increases because of immigration from other countries.
You assume a lot too, you assume wealth is infinite. Who told you that? That's one of the greatest dogmas in capitalism and now we are realizing it is not the case, unchecked growth of wealth is what creates the problems we have now, lots of virtual money that have no tangible assets, then speculation gows rampant and that's when huge banks begin to drop like flies because they starting messing with wealth that wasn't there in the first place. You also assume countries can all become developed, who told you that? If all countries become developed there will be no developing countries from where to get cheap raw materials and labor, so that translates into a decreasing quality of life for developed countries. All developed countries came to be in large part by exploiting poor countries for materials and labor, if there are no poor countries developed countries can't come to be. The only developed country with a decreasing population is Japan all the rest have increasing populations.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]
Because if he did, he would have never came up with that prediction...which turned out to be completely false. You're doing the exact same thing right now. You assume that everything stays constant. It doesn't.
Also, the population of the planet will not always be increasing. As more countries become developed, the need to have a lot of children will decrease. In fact, most developed countries populations are stagnate or increasing slightly. Some are even decreasing. To assume that the US and Europe will have a lower standard of living as more countries become developed is to assume that wealth is finite. It isn't.
I'm pretty sure the standard of living has increased while malnourishment has decreased since the beginning of modern humans...
SpartanMSU
More and more countries are getting closer and closer to the developed stage, so you're wrong. I think you need a lesson on what wealth actually is. Wealth isn't money, nor is it "virtual money". Seriously, educate yourself. We don't have free market capitalism in the West. Our government policies are created on Keynesian principles, which causes the problems you see today.
"All developed countries came to be in large part by exploiting poor countries for materials and labor". This couldn't be further from the truth. Developed countries trade with other developed countries because of comparative advantage. Again, educate yourself on what that is. When more countries become developed, they are going to become specialized in certian areas, and trade will increase, benefiting everyone. Globalization is a good thing, just like trade between the states within the US and trade within the countries in Europe is a good thing. It is no different between countries developing around the world. Productivity of labor wil continue to increase as it becomes more efficient.
A lot of developed countries have a decreasing fertility rate or stable fertility rate. Population only increases because of immigration from other countries.
What countries are becoming more and more developed? What is the percentage of developed countries vs non developed ones? If you count wealth as material possesions and resources then how can you say they are infinite? it seems kind of ironic that you ask me to educate myself when you don't even know that materials in this world are finite. Again where did you get that wealth is infinite? Where do you think developed countries get raw materials and cheap labor from. Not from other developed countries but from developing ones! The US an Europe has been using raw materials and labor from Africa and America throughout their history now China is doing the same. You're delusional if you think developed countries didn't need poor countries to become what they are.This is such a tough question. There is not a single person on the planet that can give any kind of accurate estimate with any degree of certainty. There are just too many unforeseen events that could happen that would just completely wipe us out.
1. Major asteroid or comet strike- If a comet like Shoemaker-Levy9 hit earth it would make the impact that took out the dinosaurs look like a little firecracker.
2. Gamma-Ray Burst- If this happened it would be game over plain and simple. Not a single person would survive.
3.Wandering Black Hole enters the solar system- Like with the GRB if this happened there wouldn't be a damn thing we could do. Not a single person could survive.
4. Supervolcano- This would be absolutely devastating to civilization, but there is a strong likelihood some people would survive.
5. Full scale nuclear war- Probably the most likely event I've listed here to actually happen, though like the supervolcano, there is a high probability that some would survive.
6. Pandemic- This event is actually fairly likely to happen at some point. Depending on the disease, billions could die. Some people will naturally be immune, but further sicknesses and diseases would spread due to the pile up of all the rotting corpses.
7. Sun changes- The sun is only about half way into its life so it'll be around for a good 5 billion more years. HOWEVER, the Sun's energy output is NOT stable and indeed fluctuates. Humans have not been around long enough to observe and fully understand the behavior of a star throughout the course of its entire life. It is very conceivable that the Sun's energy output could change dramatically in the course of just a few decades or centuries. Depending on the severity of those changes humans could be screwed.
8. Terminator Scenario - Don't think I need to explain this one though the likely hood of it happening is questionable.
9. Aliens - If aliens did indeed exist and for some reason wanted to kill us ala ID4 style. I seriously doubt there would be a damn thing we could do to stop them.
Those are just a few things off the top of my head that could (MOST PROBABLY WONT) happen that would really screw us over. Im sure there are countless more threats out there that no one has even considered yet.
[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] You assume a lot too, you assume wealth is infinite. Who told you that? That's one of the greatest dogmas in capitalism and now we are realizing it is not the case, unchecked growth of wealth is what creates the problems we have now, lots of virtual money that have no tangible assets, then speculation gows rampant and that's when huge banks begin to drop like flies because they starting messing with wealth that wasn't there in the first place. You also assume countries can all become developed, who told you that? If all countries become developed there will be no developing countries from where to get cheap raw materials and labor, so that translates into a decreasing quality of life for developed countries. All developed countries came to be in large part by exploiting poor countries for materials and labor, if there are no poor countries developed countries can't come to be. The only developed country with a decreasing population is Japan all the rest have increasing populations. kuraimen
More and more countries are getting closer and closer to the developed stage, so you're wrong. I think you need a lesson on what wealth actually is. Wealth isn't money, nor is it "virtual money". Seriously, educate yourself. We don't have free market capitalism in the West. Our government policies are created on Keynesian principles, which causes the problems you see today.
"All developed countries came to be in large part by exploiting poor countries for materials and labor". This couldn't be further from the truth. Developed countries trade with other developed countries because of comparative advantage. Again, educate yourself on what that is. When more countries become developed, they are going to become specialized in certian areas, and trade will increase, benefiting everyone. Globalization is a good thing, just like trade between the states within the US and trade within the countries in Europe is a good thing. It is no different between countries developing around the world. Productivity of labor wil continue to increase as it becomes more efficient.
A lot of developed countries have a decreasing fertility rate or stable fertility rate. Population only increases because of immigration from other countries.
What countries are becoming more and more developed? What is the percentage of developed countries vs non developed ones? If you count wealth as material possesions and resources then how can you say they are infinite? it seems kind of ironic that you ask me to educate myself when you don't even know that materials in this world are finite. Again where did you get that wealth is infinite? Where do you think developed countries get raw materials and cheap labor from. Not from other developed countries but from developing ones! The US an Europe has been using raw materials and labor from Africa and America throughout their history now China is doing the same. You're delusional if you think developed countries didn't need poor countries to become what they are.ugh... you need to learn basic microeconomics. Specifically; trade is mutually benefital and countries produce goods in which they have a comparative advantage in. When developing countries becomes developd they'll specialize in something other than clothes, cheap labour etc which they specialize now. And in fact I'm pretty sure trade will increase. For example Europe trades alot with US, Japan and within EU more than developing countries.
I imagine a huge volcano could erupt, like Yellowstone, or an asteroid could hit us. But that may very well be tens of thousands or millions of years in the future. I like to think that we'll have long since built space stations, colonized other moons and planets in our solar system, and that sort of thing.
I think we'll be around forever.
[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] You assume a lot too, you assume wealth is infinite. Who told you that? That's one of the greatest dogmas in capitalism and now we are realizing it is not the case, unchecked growth of wealth is what creates the problems we have now, lots of virtual money that have no tangible assets, then speculation gows rampant and that's when huge banks begin to drop like flies because they starting messing with wealth that wasn't there in the first place. You also assume countries can all become developed, who told you that? If all countries become developed there will be no developing countries from where to get cheap raw materials and labor, so that translates into a decreasing quality of life for developed countries. All developed countries came to be in large part by exploiting poor countries for materials and labor, if there are no poor countries developed countries can't come to be. The only developed country with a decreasing population is Japan all the rest have increasing populations. kuraimen
More and more countries are getting closer and closer to the developed stage, so you're wrong. I think you need a lesson on what wealth actually is. Wealth isn't money, nor is it "virtual money". Seriously, educate yourself. We don't have free market capitalism in the West. Our government policies are created on Keynesian principles, which causes the problems you see today.
"All developed countries came to be in large part by exploiting poor countries for materials and labor". This couldn't be further from the truth. Developed countries trade with other developed countries because of comparative advantage. Again, educate yourself on what that is. When more countries become developed, they are going to become specialized in certian areas, and trade will increase, benefiting everyone. Globalization is a good thing, just like trade between the states within the US and trade within the countries in Europe is a good thing. It is no different between countries developing around the world. Productivity of labor wil continue to increase as it becomes more efficient.
A lot of developed countries have a decreasing fertility rate or stable fertility rate. Population only increases because of immigration from other countries.
What countries are becoming more and more developed? What is the percentage of developed countries vs non developed ones? If you count wealth as material possesions and resources then how can you say they are infinite? it seems kind of ironic that you ask me to educate myself when you don't even know that materials in this world are finite. Again where did you get that wealth is infinite? Where do you think developed countries get raw materials and cheap labor from. Not from other developed countries but from developing ones! The US an Europe has been using raw materials and labor from Africa and America throughout their history now China is doing the same. You're delusional if you think developed countries didn't need poor countries to become what they are.Google: Wealth zero-sum fallacy. You still clearly don't understand what wealth is.
What countries are becoming more and more developed? What is the percentage of developed countries vs non developed ones? If you count wealth as material possesions and resources then how can you say they are infinite? it seems kind of ironic that you ask me to educate myself when you don't even know that materials in this world are finite. Again where did you get that wealth is infinite? Where do you think developed countries get raw materials and cheap labor from. Not from other developed countries but from developing ones! The US an Europe has been using raw materials and labor from Africa and America throughout their history now China is doing the same. You're delusional if you think developed countries didn't need poor countries to become what they are.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]
More and more countries are getting closer and closer to the developed stage, so you're wrong. I think you need a lesson on what wealth actually is. Wealth isn't money, nor is it "virtual money". Seriously, educate yourself. We don't have free market capitalism in the West. Our government policies are created on Keynesian principles, which causes the problems you see today.
"All developed countries came to be in large part by exploiting poor countries for materials and labor". This couldn't be further from the truth. Developed countries trade with other developed countries because of comparative advantage. Again, educate yourself on what that is. When more countries become developed, they are going to become specialized in certian areas, and trade will increase, benefiting everyone. Globalization is a good thing, just like trade between the states within the US and trade within the countries in Europe is a good thing. It is no different between countries developing around the world. Productivity of labor wil continue to increase as it becomes more efficient.
A lot of developed countries have a decreasing fertility rate or stable fertility rate. Population only increases because of immigration from other countries.
themajormayor
ugh... you need to learn basic microeconomics. Specifically; trade is mutually benefital and countries produce goods in which they have a comparative advantage in. When developing countries becomes developd they'll specialize in something other than clothes, cheap labour etc which they specialize now. And in fact I'm pretty sure trade will increase. For example Europe trades alot with US, Japan and within EU more than developing countries.
No offense but it is obvious that you know little to nothing about developing countries. I'm not saying the US doesn't trade with developed countries, I'm just saying there's no way developed countries came to be this rich without exploiting developing ones. It has happened in each and every instance.What countries are becoming more and more developed? What is the percentage of developed countries vs non developed ones? If you count wealth as material possesions and resources then how can you say they are infinite? it seems kind of ironic that you ask me to educate myself when you don't even know that materials in this world are finite. Again where did you get that wealth is infinite? Where do you think developed countries get raw materials and cheap labor from. Not from other developed countries but from developing ones! The US an Europe has been using raw materials and labor from Africa and America throughout their history now China is doing the same. You're delusional if you think developed countries didn't need poor countries to become what they are.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]
More and more countries are getting closer and closer to the developed stage, so you're wrong. I think you need a lesson on what wealth actually is. Wealth isn't money, nor is it "virtual money". Seriously, educate yourself. We don't have free market capitalism in the West. Our government policies are created on Keynesian principles, which causes the problems you see today.
"All developed countries came to be in large part by exploiting poor countries for materials and labor". This couldn't be further from the truth. Developed countries trade with other developed countries because of comparative advantage. Again, educate yourself on what that is. When more countries become developed, they are going to become specialized in certian areas, and trade will increase, benefiting everyone. Globalization is a good thing, just like trade between the states within the US and trade within the countries in Europe is a good thing. It is no different between countries developing around the world. Productivity of labor wil continue to increase as it becomes more efficient.
A lot of developed countries have a decreasing fertility rate or stable fertility rate. Population only increases because of immigration from other countries.
SpartanMSU
Google: Wealth zero-sum fallacy. You still clearly don't understand what wealth is.
If you want to give me a definition of wealth then just say it. Saying I don't know what wealth means and not providing a definition yourself hints that you yourself have no idea what you're saying. Here, you said wealth isn't money but money is considered wealth as well as resources and material possesions....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth
The concept of wealth, or its increase, is of significance in all areas of economics, and clearly so for growth economics and development economics. Yet the meaning of wealth is context-dependent and there is no universally agreed upon definition. At the most general level, economists may define wealth as "anything of value" which captures both the subjective nature of the idea and the idea that it is not a fixed or static concept. Various definitions and concepts of wealth have been asserted by various individuals and in different contexts.[2] Defining wealth can be a normative process with various ethical implications, since often wealth maximization is seen as a goal or is thought to be a normative principle of its own.[3][4] ...
wealth can be described as an abundance of items of economic value, or the state of controlling or possessing such items, usually in the form of money, real estate and personal property. An individual who is considered wealthy, affluent, or rich is someone who has accumulated substantial wealth relative to others in their society or reference group. In economics, net wealth refers to the value of assets owned minus the value of liabilities owed at a point in time.
So, according to you what's wealth? Also I don't see where it says that wealth is infinite as you claim.
[QUOTE="themajormayor"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] What countries are becoming more and more developed? What is the percentage of developed countries vs non developed ones? If you count wealth as material possesions and resources then how can you say they are infinite? it seems kind of ironic that you ask me to educate myself when you don't even know that materials in this world are finite. Again where did you get that wealth is infinite? Where do you think developed countries get raw materials and cheap labor from. Not from other developed countries but from developing ones! The US an Europe has been using raw materials and labor from Africa and America throughout their history now China is doing the same. You're delusional if you think developed countries didn't need poor countries to become what they are.kuraimen
ugh... you need to learn basic microeconomics. Specifically; trade is mutually benefital and countries produce goods in which they have a comparative advantage in. When developing countries becomes developd they'll specialize in something other than clothes, cheap labour etc which they specialize now. And in fact I'm pretty sure trade will increase. For example Europe trades alot with US, Japan and within EU more than developing countries.
No offense but it is obvious that you know little to nothing about developing countries. I'm not saying the US doesn't trade with developed countries, I'm just saying there's no way developed countries came to be this rich without exploiting developing ones. It has happened in each and every instance. Well obviously because of the first rule of microeconomics: TRADE IS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL. How many times do I have to say it??? If the developing countries would become developed they would continue to "exploit" each others because TRADE IS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]No offense but it is obvious that you know little to nothing about developing countries. I'm not saying the US doesn't trade with developed countries, I'm just saying there's no way developed countries came to be this rich without exploiting developing ones. It has happened in each and every instance. Well obviously because of the first rule of microeconomics: TRADE IS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL. How many times do I have to say it??? If the developing countries would become developed they would continue to "exploit" each others because TRADE IS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL.ugh... you need to learn basic microeconomics. Specifically; trade is mutually benefital and countries produce goods in which they have a comparative advantage in. When developing countries becomes developd they'll specialize in something other than clothes, cheap labour etc which they specialize now. And in fact I'm pretty sure trade will increase. For example Europe trades alot with US, Japan and within EU more than developing countries.
themajormayor
For a country to become developed the beneficial part has to be heavily one sided. Honduras is not going to become developed by trading with Guatemala they would eventually have to find a much weaker trade partner that they can exploit and rip the most benefit. There's a reason why Europe became so powerful when they had colonies and the US when it had slave labor from Africa and raw materials from the rest of the american continent. They get much more benefit than those they exploit which will hardly happen it they are in equal terms.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment