Profile
Search
Register
Log in
American Apparel caught with unauthorized employees
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
TurnpikeGates



Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 517
Location: Bay Area
 Reply with quote  


Quote:

What about the massive overpopulation of this country? Infrastructure is taxed to its breaking point, we can't create enough energy to support half our population sustainably, and water. We're fucking out of water. How far do you go to help somebody before you slit your own wrist?

And that's not just for illegal immigrants, its for all immigrants. We just can't let anyone else on this sinking ship until we get this shit figured out.


Overpopulated? Can't create energy? CAN'T? No... won't. More to the point, we have a ruling class that's not very interested in doing so. Wind, Solar, Hydro, and Nuclear don't have geopolitical centers. If the world leaves petroleum behind, our military power won't translate into economic power as smoothly anymore. (That's part of the picture anyway. Main point is that there's no engineering/logistical barrier to energy independence for this country)

As for overpopulation... the U.S. is the 127th most densely populated country in the world. Can't fuck with you on water, cause I don't know much about it, but I'll give my stock analysis: Like the world, this country is not overpopulated, it's undershared.
Post Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:04 am
 View user's profile Send private message
note1



Joined: 10 Jul 2002
Posts: 1260
Location: providence
 Reply with quote  

Here in New England it's been raining for like 400 days straight.



I'm not good at counting things, but it seems that way.
Post Thu Jul 02, 2009 7:11 am
 View user's profile Send private message
WrathChild



Joined: 07 Jul 2004
Posts: 953
Location: Reno eNVy
 Reply with quote  

TurnpikeGates wrote:

Overpopulated? Can't create energy? CAN'T? No... won't. More to the point, we have a ruling class that's not very interested in doing so. Wind, Solar, Hydro, and Nuclear don't have geopolitical centers. If the world leaves petroleum behind, our military power won't translate into economic power as smoothly anymore. (That's part of the picture anyway. Main point is that there's no engineering/logistical barrier to energy independence for this country)

As for overpopulation... the U.S. is the 127th most densely populated country in the world. Can't fuck with you on water, cause I don't know much about it, but I'll give my stock analysis: Like the world, this country is not overpopulated, it's undershared.


Ok, we could create enough renewable energy, but it would take a long time, even if the powers that be threw their full weight behind it, we're talking decades. The power grid is living 30-40 years past it's engineered life expectancy. A massive overhaul needs to take place. Oh, and with the current water crisis, Nuclear probably isn't the best idea...

As for your overpopulation statement, couldn't be further from the truth. It's estimated the world can sustainably support 1 billion humans. We're over six. The US already imports more food than it produces. Borrowed time. The US has a balanced population point of 142,282,941. We are WAY over that. If you look at all the ails that humans cause to the environment almost all of them stem from overpopulation. Population density does not correlate with how many humans an area can support. The Antarctic has an incredibly low population density, why don't we move there?

EDIT: Here's an interesting study done in the 90's on sustainable populations.

Excerpt:

Quote:

The research demonstrates that any increase in the U.S. population above 174 (or even 275) million at the world's average FP, requires non-domestic capacities or substantial and continuous reductions in standard of living. In other words, any increase in the current U.S. population even assuming half the current standard of living, is further destabilizing and negatively impacts the global environment. Clearly, those compassionate worldly individuals advocating that the U.S. be a relief valve for the population dilemmas in other nations seriously need to reconsider this heartfelt position. Moreover, steadily impoverishing Americans, particularly the American poor and disadvantaged by immigration-driven population growth, will likely turn Americans inward and compel the otherwise generous American to reduce economic and other foreign aid.

Developing a prudent U.S. population policy that endeavors to achieve a sustainable U.S. population level as soon as practicable would appear in the world's best interest.


http://www.mnforsustain.org/erickson_d_determining_sustainable_population_levels.htm
Post Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:05 am
 View user's profile Send private message
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

note1 wrote:
Here in New England it's been raining for like 400 days straight.



I'm not good at counting things, but it seems that way.


Yeah no lack of water here at the moment.

I think it rained enough this morning alone to make enough drinking water for a year.
Post Thu Jul 02, 2009 8:53 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Confidential



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 2040
 Reply with quote  

I don't believe AA is coming from a place of generosity. Its a maquila. A maquila that does symbolic gestures toward their workforce, but really with no difference materially.

As a mexican/anti-racist, the populatation argument is a touchy subject because the burden usually falls on women of color/immigrant/third world peeps despite the first world affluent's disproportianately high contribution to environmental damage.

Imagine being the only mexican in an environmental program and the first reading they give us is Garret Hardin's "Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor."
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html

The argument that jobs should go to us citizens first doesn't take into account that many, if not most, are political (1980s) or economic (1990s) refugees that have been displaced by the reigning politcal-economic order AKA neoliberalism, which has privatised agrarian, often communal lands of the sending countries. There is no national loyalty in free trade. But working class angst that is leveraged against other workers rather than the bosses is much better for profit.

As for Latinos hating on undocumented, as a "latino" this is very troubling, but it is very complex, since we are not all coming from the same place. Much of it is due to internalized oppression, or the ideology of whiteness that led to other ethnic groups becoming white. Some of the older generation, having faced open racism for speaking spanish, felt learned that to succeed in America, you have to leave behind your culture or "assimilate." Some of the younger generation has learned this as well, though the message is transmitted more covertly.

We all have a cousin who is a latino republican, gotta love em anyway.
Post Tue Jul 14, 2009 10:59 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Charlie Foxtrot



Joined: 23 Jan 2008
Posts: 1379
Location: Rochester, NY
 Reply with quote  

TurnpikeGates wrote:

Like the world, this country is not overpopulated, it's undershared.


Wrong.


Quote:

Scientific estimates of the carrying capacity of Earth range between one and two billion people, depending on the values used in calculations


--Wikipedia

Of course the world (and this country) is undershared, but even if we shared everything equally, we'd still be facing widespread hunger and exhaustion of resources.
Post Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:51 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
TurnpikeGates



Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 517
Location: Bay Area
 Reply with quote  

WrathChild wrote:


Ok, we could create enough renewable energy, but it would take a long time, even if the powers that be threw their full weight behind it, we're talking decades. The power grid is living 30-40 years past it's engineered life expectancy. A massive overhaul needs to take place. Oh, and with the current water crisis, Nuclear probably isn't the best idea...

As for your overpopulation statement, couldn't be further from the truth. It's estimated the world can sustainably support 1 billion humans. We're over six. The US already imports more food than it produces. Borrowed time. The US has a balanced population point of 142,282,941. We are WAY over that. If you look at all the ails that humans cause to the environment almost all of them stem from overpopulation. Population density does not correlate with how many humans an area can support. The Antarctic has an incredibly low population density, why don't we move there?

EDIT: Here's an interesting study done in the 90's on sustainable populations.

Excerpt:

Quote:

The research demonstrates that any increase in the U.S. population above 174 (or even 275) million at the world's average FP, requires non-domestic capacities or substantial and continuous reductions in standard of living. In other words, any increase in the current U.S. population even assuming half the current standard of living, is further destabilizing and negatively impacts the global environment. Clearly, those compassionate worldly individuals advocating that the U.S. be a relief valve for the population dilemmas in other nations seriously need to reconsider this heartfelt position. Moreover, steadily impoverishing Americans, particularly the American poor and disadvantaged by immigration-driven population growth, will likely turn Americans inward and compel the otherwise generous American to reduce economic and other foreign aid.

Developing a prudent U.S. population policy that endeavors to achieve a sustainable U.S. population level as soon as practicable would appear in the world's best interest.


http://www.mnforsustain.org/erickson_d_determining_sustainable_population_levels.htm


Sorry-- never saw this post.

I'll grant you that it's unlikely 6 Billion is a sustainable population for the planet. I'll grant you, furthermore, that the equilibrium for the U.S. is going to have to be below its current population. But the argument you just quoted at me is complete and utter bullshit. It boils down to: "We can't let immigrants in because they will come here and achieve OUR standard of living which is already unsustainable and taxes global resources." The fact that the U.S. disproportionately uses world resources is not something to lay at the feet of present and future immigrants (citizens or otherwise). Our living standard (materially, that is) DOES probably have to decrease. My point is that the greater part of human misery is due to uneven distribution of world resources, not a global deficit of resources as such.

I'd love to see realistic (and recent) numbers done by less agenda-pushing theorists on sustainable population load, without the xenophobic argument.
Post Tue Jul 14, 2009 11:54 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Confidential



Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 2040
 Reply with quote  

Turnpike
Have you tried CWPE?
http://www.cwpe.org/resources

EDIT: They have their own agenda but its along the lines of your POV.
Post Wed Jul 15, 2009 11:58 am
 View user's profile Send private message
TurnpikeGates



Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 517
Location: Bay Area
 Reply with quote  

Charlie Foxtrot wrote:
TurnpikeGates wrote:

Like the world, this country is not overpopulated, it's undershared.


Wrong.


Quote:

Scientific estimates of the carrying capacity of Earth range between one and two billion people, depending on the values used in calculations


--Wikipedia

Of course the world (and this country) is undershared, but even if we shared everything equally, we'd still be facing widespread hunger and exhaustion of resources.


I guess I was a bit behind you in retracting my statement (see my above post). I will maintain, however, a distinction between carrying capacity and sustainable load. Obviously the Earth can hold 6 billion people because there are 6 billion people on the Earth. Carrying capacity calculations will depend "on the values used in calculations" such as standard of living, lifespan, nutritional bottom-line, etc. But more to my point, a carrying capacity of 1.5 billion (let's take your numbers as gospel) doesn't mean 4.5 billion people need to die. Right now we're working above our sustainable capacity because we're overtaxing resources, so 6 billion won't even be literally possible forever. But the fact is that we CAN overtax resources, and we just need to phase it out, with the accompanying population reduction.

I should have been more clear (or actually just more correct). Instead of saying that the world is NOT overpopulated but undershared, I said have said the PROBLEM is MORE that the world is undershared than it is overpopulation. Or to quote myself:
"My point is that the greater part of human misery is due to uneven distribution of world resources, not a global deficit of resources as such."

And a final point, reducing our consumption (and the resulting market demand) should come WAY before blaming immigrants and third-world countries for the depletion of world resources (even in future tense). Population is a serious issue, but it comes up most commonly as a dog whistle for first-world chauvinism and scapegoating of the poor.
Post Wed Jul 15, 2009 3:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
breakreep
homophobic yet curious


Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6627
Location: Fifth Jerusalem
 Reply with quote  

I had to work for my god damn right to be born in the US of Fuckin' A and I'll be god damned if some god damn immigrant thinks he has that same god damn right!
Post Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:36 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
breakreep
homophobic yet curious


Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6627
Location: Fifth Jerusalem
 Reply with quote  

god damn it
Post Thu Jul 16, 2009 6:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TurnpikeGates



Joined: 30 Jun 2003
Posts: 517
Location: Bay Area
 Reply with quote  

Confidential wrote:
Turnpike
Have you tried CWPE?
http://www.cwpe.org/resources

EDIT: They have their own agenda but its along the lines of your POV.


Word. I'm all for agendas... I just prefer ones that challenge power rather than stigmatize the powerless. Thanks for the link.
Post Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:39 am
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2014 1:26 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon