Thread: New World Order, is it needed, What would be the benefits

The current financial collapse has the West hearing phrases not heard before: “exploding deficits” and “devastating inflation,” with the situation possibly getting “worse than the Great Depression.” In the end, the “magnitude of the debacle” may cause the situation to “fragment disastrously” on a global level.

Perhaps the most profound statement heard is that “nations will be redefined and their futures fundamentally altered,” uttered by Rupert Murdoch.

As one commentator put it, “We are all in trouble.”

These are sobering times. Uncertainty grips every level of Western civilization.

Families are uncertain whether they will keep their homes. Housing values have plummeted. Headlines of lost jobs are almost daily. Sudden unemployment is knocking on the doors of fathers and mothers with young mouths to feed.

Companies are scrambling to keep solvent, as stocks tumble and opportunities dry up. Many reported near-devastating losses from 2008. Well-known businesses that have thrived for decades are suddenly laying off employees, reporting losses and, in some cases, staring down the barrel of fatal bankruptcy. Icons of Western culture, thought to always exist, may soon be reduced to relics of history.

Financial institutions are caving in. Having already sought funds from their governments, many are in need of more assistance to survive. Some banks are being nationalized to protect the world economy from collapsing.

Governments are racing to assess the economic situation within their countries. Every option is on the table, with many nations passing bills of unprecedented proportion. Unrest is growing, with some expecting protests and riots to break out.

This madness cannot continue I think the world needs to change,
Tell me what you think.

I think you are front runner for the newly instituted The Science Forum Pessimist of the Month award.

Thanks John your input is always interesting.

Is there anywhere that I can vote for that?

The problem with Mankind, is that it is not Kind The human race needs to be guided . To achieve its destiny it needs to speak with one voice
How many years have been wasted with war. and waste, we should forget about the little country's needs and start working as one. Mankind might have a chance.
to show its potential. Gene Roddenberry had the greatest vision for mankind. A Future.?

Change into what? Change just for the sake of changing won't help matters very much. Who is going to be in charge, will they be elected or just take control somehow? What if the person becomes a tyrant and only uses the power to help themselves and their alliances? Many questions about having only one world government because I fear it would only be a mirror image of what we already have, greed, inaction and few at the top making all the money.

You're dreaming of a utopia. Mankind has endured a tremendous amount of adversity that we have inflicted upon ourselves, but this has grown us and made us stronger, even though it may not be readily apparent. War has ravaged many lives, but also been the driving force behind many great inventions.

Also, what is our destiny?

Originally Posted by Genesis

To achieve its destiny it needs to speak with one voice

Assuming we have a "destiny".

Gene Roddenberry had the greatest vision for mankind.

You mean go out and turn evreywhere into another USA?
Hmm...

Originally Posted by Genesis

To achieve its destiny it needs to speak with one voice

Aside from the 'destiny problem' you have already been asked about... What would that one voice say?
Humans do not always agree with eachother. And that lack of agreement is our greatest resource for success.
Which brings us back to the destiny problem: We do not know what the future holds.
Our survival, til now, has been a selection of the "fit." That is, if you're fit enough to survive til breeding age- you made the grade.
But we have not survived- we are currently surviving.
That is a detail that many people seem to neglect. And we are breeding in odd patterns, our medicine has improved to the point of retaining traits that otherwise would slowly be bred out as unfavorable prospect.
The future of our species is not wondrous nor beautiful- It is more of the same. Survive and try to survive some more.

The diversity of ideas allows the most success for the human species since many ideas will be investigated, rather than "One Voice."
Our diversity and individualism is one of our greater assets.

Originally Posted by Genesis

Gene Roddenberry had the greatest vision for mankind. A Future.?

Oh, come off of it.
Roddenberry's "Vision" consisted of making money off of a television show. He used that show with a unique setting in order to expose racial and social issues of the day. Yes, he had political ideas, but he did not have a "Vision."
He had hopes for the show and even penned ideas for future authors to use for the show back in the 1960's. But the show ended up getting cancelled and Roddenberry moved on to other projects.
Incidentally, Roddenberry was behind another very good television show; "Have Gun, Will Travel."

When the trek fanbase really took off and Paramount wanted to take part in the film success of Star Wars, Roddenberry was more than happy to jump back into the mix so that he could cash in, as well.

And the writers of Trek are not above inside jokes.

Remember what Cochran said when Riker mentioned Cochrans "Vision..."
"You want to know what my vision was? Money!"

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Genesis

To achieve its destiny it needs to speak with one voice

Aside from the 'destiny problem' you have already been asked about... What would that one voice say?
Humans do not always agree with eachother. And that lack of agreement is our greatest resource for success.
Which brings us back to the destiny problem: We do not know what the future holds.
Our survival, til now, has been a selection of the "fit." That is, if you're fit enough to survive til breeding age- you made the grade.
But we have not survived- we are currently surviving.
That is a detail that many people seem to neglect. And we are breeding in odd patterns, our medicine has improved to the point of retaining traits that otherwise would slowly be bred out as unfavorable prospect.
The future of our species is not wondrous nor beautiful- It is more of the same. Survive and try to survive some more.

The diversity of ideas allows the most success for the human species since many ideas will be investigated, rather than "One Voice."
Our diversity and individualism is one of our greater assets.

Originally Posted by Genesis

Gene Roddenberry had the greatest vision for mankind. A Future.?

Oh, come off of it.
Roddenberry's "Vision" consisted of making money off of a television show. He used that show with a unique setting in order to expose racial and social issues of the day. Yes, he had political ideas, but he did not have a "Vision."
He had hopes for the show and even penned ideas for future authors to use for the show back in the 1960's. But the show ended up getting cancelled and Roddenberry moved on to other projects.
Incidentally, Roddenberry was behind another very good television show; "Have Gun, Will Travel."

When the trek fanbase really took off and Paramount wanted to take part in the film success of Star Wars, Roddenberry was more than happy to jump back into the mix so that he could cash in, as well.

And the writers of Trek are not above inside jokes.

Remember what Cochran said when Riker mentioned Cochrans "Vision..."
"You want to know what my vision was? Money!"

Gene Roddenberry had the greatest vision for mankind.
It doesn't matter what caused Star Trek, all that matters is the subject matter and the subject matter no matter if it's there under false pretenses (created for profit), it's still there and true. The subject matter details a great vision of what could be.

I believe all this mayhem is due to serious overpopulation. The simple fact that we are making babies that could fill the population of a country back in the early 1900's is astounding. approximately 500 million new people (or rats, sorry but we are akin to rats in a small cage reproducing non stop) who would be doomed to be a typical person (in terms of society, an average Joe especially with the failing school systems in the US and around the world) every ten years.

Science is a double edged sword, it can be used for both good and bad. It all depends on who is in charge and who gets the keys to the kingdom to use it.

Originally Posted by Japith

It doesn't matter what caused Star Trek, all that matters is the subject matter and the subject matter no matter if it's there under false pretenses (created for profit), it's still there and true. The subject matter details a great vision of what could be.

Yeah:

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

You mean go out and turn evreywhere into another USA?
Hmm...

Originally Posted by Japith

It doesn't matter what caused Star Trek, all that matters is the subject matter and the subject matter no matter if it's there under false pretenses (created for profit), it's still there and true. The subject matter details a great vision of what could be.

True, but I want to clear up a point- The perfect utopian society often depicted in Star Trek (Exception being Deep Space Nine) was something that formed slowly over the authorship of various writers, it was not Roddenberry's Pure Vision.
In fact, in the original series, they had money (Referred to as "credits") and Scottie was shown as being a brilliant engineer who couldn't balance his finances.
What you said is accurate, but it is for the (dead) mans sake I point out what has been associated as his is not necessarily his.

Originally Posted by Japith

I believe all this mayhem is due to serious overpopulation. The simple fact that we are making babies that could fill the population of a country back in the early 1900's is astounding. approximately 500 million new people ](or rats, sorry but we are akin to rats in a small cage reproducing non stop) who would be doomed to be a typical person](in terms of society, an average Joe especially with the failing school systems in the US and around the world)

I do not even remotely disagree on us being vastly over-populated although this is my own opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the neuro-typical society.

I believe that what we need is more personal accountability and responsibility, less big government and let the population Darwin Award ourselves into a stronger and less numerous species. Sadly, this contradicts most peoples "ethics or morality" and religious ideals.
Some are all for Utopia while I'm all for anarchist Armageddon.

I would like to share some videos relevant to the subject of this thread. The videos are labeled as "Commanding Heights" each episode's duration is around two hours.
PBS Documentary - Commanding Heights - YouTube

Commanding Heights is a 6-hour television documentary television series made by PBS in 2002. The series is based off of a book called "Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy" written by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw in 1998. In short, the documentary attempts to document the rise of the free-market economy which reigns in most countries today. The series kicks off at the beginning of WWI in 1914. After a most dreadful war, the economies of most countries are nonexistent. Capitalism comes to rise, but these markets are soon trumped by Hitler and others with their communist and fascist ideas. WWII takes place and after the disintegration of communism, economies are stagnant once again. Things changed when Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan came into power during the 1980's. Both leaders disowned a central planning idea, and adopted ideas of free-market economies with little government regulation. Many countries adopted the free-market idea, and as a result, prospered overall. However, Yergin and Stanislaw, the authors of the book, argue that the era of globalization didn't really begin until 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. As the documentary reaches an end, Yergin and Stanislaw argue the improbability of a globalized, free-market economy existing forever. They argue that many third world countries do not have the resources needed to support such economies, and this will lead to a decline of yet another era of globalization. Watch the series and brush up on your economics!

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Change into what? Change just for the sake of changing won't help matters very much. Who is going to be in charge, will they be elected or just take control somehow? What if the person becomes a tyrant and only uses the power to help themselves and their alliances? Many questions about having only one world government because I fear it would only be a mirror image of what we already have, greed, inaction and few at the top making all the money.

What we need is a true United Nations where all country's have a say and democracy should prevail, Where country's like Russia and china cannot Vito the majority and stop a united
nations intervening in places like Syria, All that blood shed could of been stopped, and all the tyrants like margarbe would no there time was limited

If you look at the UN , it is not a very good thing at all. America , primarily , helps with the patrolling of trouble spots and adds its military muscle whenever the UN has disputes between countries. Then the security council is another problem where one member can prevent any hostile actions against a friend of theirs.

To many problems already exist with funding of such an organization as well for America is burdened with billions it is to "contribute" into funding the UN General Assembly and take care of the building too. The money goes into the pockets of so called "representative's" who sit there most of the time debating where to eat lunch and with whom. Few countries can contribute money that is needed to fund a well armed UN military and that's because many countries are broke or doing very poorly.

The UN has been remarkably effective at providing data, support training to impoverished nations--a big part of the remarkably rise of nearly every quality of life measure over the past five decades across the globe.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The UN has been remarkably effective at providing data, support training to impoverished nations--a big part of the remarkably rise of nearly every quality of life measure over the past five decades across the globe.

Along with many other charitable organizations from many countries across the world.

a lot of problems are man made. how many billions got pumped into rescueing banks, who live by paying insane money to investment; the higher the risk, the more they pay.
when they make a huge plus, they pay them huge, which is a loss of tax money or raising wages for the lower paid employes. when they fail the gov saves them, while everyone else loses.

government should just say 'tough luck' and use the money to help the ppl keeping their home or small business instead, with loans.

and if ppl would have listened to UN, the iraq war wouldn't have happened.

Few countries can contribute money that is needed to fund a well armed UN military and that's because many countries are broke or doing very poorly.

Hang on. The "UN military" consists of troops / units / facilities donated or lent to the UN for specific purposes by countries which, separately, decide for themselves, by themselves, whether they want to participate. Or am I missing something?

Where exactly can I order a new World? As the one I currently inhabit seems to be out of order or otherwise broken beyond repair.

One thing is for sure, if we don't fix it, it'll fix it'self and with no regard for any specific organism ie Homo sapiens.

First, there is no technical reason for having a crappy quality of life, humans have the technical capacity to provide healthy enjoyable life for all humans. Overpopulation might be an issue eventually but not now. Some might say the crap is man made, yes, but I would nuance and say its organizational, the way society is organized is the problem, its a systemic problem. We are born and raised to believe the system is normal (thats the way it is) and are not even critical about aspects we are used to, and think that symptoms of the system's failures are the problems. If theres a hole in the hull, water is problematic, but you can chuck buckets of water out all you like it is a symptom of the gaping hole in the hull, you need to seal the whole.

Imo, a Resource Based Economy as described by groups such as the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement is a good place to start for solutions, there are aspects I do not agree with, but its closer to an intelligent organization of human activity. Our present system was good enough when we were ignorant barbarians ruled by ruthless feudal warlords, but now its no longer good enough, we can do better.

The monetary system is flawed, it fosters inherent conflicts of interest (that are mitigated by other benefits in a medieval setting but not in the 21st century), hierarchic organizations and secrecy/control of information are also big sources of the systemic crap.

Unfortunately, a better organization has not been designed and tested/improved yet, it will fall upon our generation and the next to emerge from the primitive dark age we have been living in.


The UN has positive aspects but I hate the idea of a One World Government (specially as we know them today with the potential for unrepresentativeness of the population as opposed to powerful groups, and potential for detached bureaucrats ruling over situations they have no clue about), what we should strive for imo is Local Governance that enables great diversity of lifestyles/choices set in a global network that enables greater coordination/voluntary collaboration.

(In Canada the Federal governement is already detached from reality and growing like a cancer with parkinson's law, we need doctors providing direct medical services but the resources go towards bureaucrats that organize commitiees to review studies of commisions based of recomendations by groups of appointed consultants that gather papers about the effects of surveys on health of people without pet monkeys, but to do that they need secretaries and computers, but the computers need IT professionals, then you need to manage the offices, and you cant have all those people without more HR Human Resource professionals, but in turn [insert circus music] ... and of course, if someone in this fine group finds out that people are DYING because of a toxic leak caused BY the Federal government, hush hush, afterall never mind the purpose is supposed to be for the health of the people, we have an opaque closed non-democratic Hierarchy here, and anyone blowing the whistle will in fact loose their Job, the population whose lives will be saved will not vote on the person saving them being canned, heck even the people working for the organization will not vote to kick the person, a hierarchic superior will, and if he doesnt he will be)

This being said, a Resource Based Economy is hard to digest and evaluate, it takes time and reflection(thinking) over time to wrap your head around it because we are in the box, and its hard and non intuitive to think outside the box.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by Genesis

To achieve its destiny it needs to speak with one voice

Aside from the 'destiny problem' you have already been asked about... What would that one voice say?
Humans do not always agree with eachother. And that lack of agreement is our greatest resource for success.

It's ok for us all to disagree about some things and agree about others.

I would like if humanity could come together and agree that scarcity is our biggest common enemy, that everyone ought to be helping to contribute to that fight together.

If people want to disagree about other stuff, then fine. But they shouldn't disagree about that.

Which brings us back to the destiny problem: We do not know what the future holds.
Our survival, til now, has been a selection of the "fit." That is, if you're fit enough to survive til breeding age- you made the grade.
But we have not survived- we are currently surviving.
That is a detail that many people seem to neglect. And we are breeding in odd patterns, our medicine has improved to the point of retaining traits that otherwise would slowly be bred out as unfavorable prospect.
The future of our species is not wondrous nor beautiful- It is more of the same. Survive and try to survive some more.

And what happens if the way you manage to survive is just by climbing to the top of the heap in a crumbling third world economy, and in the process you made that economy 10 times worse?

I think fit people are the ones that contribute to the war on scarcity. We should never allow fitness to be defined any other way.

Of course loss prevention is part of that, so we still need security guards. They're contributors too. But Cartels, Yakuza, and Mafia are not contributors. We should just get rid of them.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

Imo, a Resource Based Economy as described by groups such as the Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movement is a good place to start for solutions, there are aspects I do not agree with, but its closer to an intelligent organization of human activity. Our present system was good enough when we were ignorant barbarians ruled by ruthless feudal warlords, but now its no longer good enough, we can do better.

In a resource based economy, rather than a money based economy, you would more clearly be able to see how badly overpopulated the world is.

The money based economy creates the illusion that there are plenty of resources to go around but people can't afford them. If you clearly understood the money system, then you'd see through that illusion and understand that the reason people can't afford them is because there are not plenty of them to go around.

If we removed that illusion today, there'd be a lot of new wars from that. The illusion is there to prevent panic. It would be a highly justified panic, too.

I have no faith in the world, with all of its nation states, coming together to solve the over-population problem. But it will get solved. I probably won't see the resolution but you younger folks may have the misfortune to witness the self-correcting ability of nature. That's a depressing thought, I know. But don't worry about the Earth -- it abides.

In a resource based economy, rather than a money based economy, you would more clearly be able to see how badly overpopulated the world is. The money based economy creates the illusion that there are plenty of resources to go around but people can't afford them. If you clearly understood the money system, then you'd see through that illusion and understand that the reason people can't afford them is because there are not plenty of them to go around. If we removed that illusion today, there'd be a lot of new wars from that. The illusion is there to prevent panic. It would be a highly justified panic, too.

This is malthousian baloney

I dont have time explain everything, i recommend zeitgeist moving forward for a few leads/clues, but lets just say there is gargantuan waste on a massive scale inherent to the economic system, theres massive waste of human activity on a collosal scale, theres hoarding of knowledge and solutions that would emperil profits relying on the existance of the problems/inefficency. There are many technical solutions, alternatives/substitutes, plus theres a propaganda industry (marketing) to fabricate bogus artificial desires to keep the consumer orgy going. It doesnt sound you have understood the most recent Zeitgeist movement movie(s), but thats normal, we are so brainwashed that we wrongly interpret what is said(outside the box), it took me a while to get it as well.

~remember folks! 1% controlled corporate mainstream media wants you to remember that the system is ok, the problem is over population! Yeah, thats the ticket~
Theres no over population, the system is bullshit, like monarchy the king is not going to say it sucks, dont expect media to say it sucks either, the media will mislead you with the overpopulation narrative.

i really have no clue if overpopulation is an issue or not, but as long as countries can dumb tons of food for substitutional profit and creating the fear of being 'run over' by its own species, it leaves a taste of weighting humans vs profit in my mouth.

Originally Posted by icewendigo

In a resource based economy, rather than a money based economy, you would more clearly be able to see how badly overpopulated the world is. The money based economy creates the illusion that there are plenty of resources to go around but people can't afford them. If you clearly understood the money system, then you'd see through that illusion and understand that the reason people can't afford them is because there are not plenty of them to go around. If we removed that illusion today, there'd be a lot of new wars from that. The illusion is there to prevent panic. It would be a highly justified panic, too.

This is malthousian baloney

I dont have time explain everything, i recommend zeitgeist moving forward for a few leads/clues, but lets just say there is gargantuan waste on a massive scale inherent to the economic system, theres massive waste of human activity on a collosal scale,

What makes you think this species is capable of operating without some waste? Would we even be human if we could do that?

The question is what is wasted and how much?

theres hoarding of knowledge and solutions that would emperil profits relying on the existance of the problems/inefficency.
There are many technical solutions, alternatives/substitutes

The knowledge eventually becomes public domain. If the costs associated with research hadn't been invested, the knowledge wouldn't exist. If the costs aren't recovered, then the next round of research won't even be done to begin with.

However, what will our max resources be when the research is all done? You can't get more than 100% of what was there to begin with. Maybe we're getting 37% now, and we'll move up to 51%. Fine, but that's still a ceiling. 63% might happen in another 30 years. Then 71%....... (100% doesn't technically ever happen. You just get closer and closer by degrees.)

, plus theres a propaganda industry (marketing) to fabricate bogus artificial desires to keep the consumer orgy going. It doesnt sound you have understood the most recent Zeitgeist movement movie(s), but thats normal, we are so brainwashed that we wrongly interpret what is said(outside the box), it took me a while to get it as well.

You see, from my perspective, the propaganda machine is the one selling everyone this snake oil. Telling them the cure to all ills is just one funded research project away from happening.

It keeps people content and unafraid of losing their access to material resources, so the financial players can get those things out from under them. The easiest way to get someone to sell something cheaper than they should is to brainwash them into thinking it's not worth as much as it is. Tell them it's not scarce. Tell them they can get more later.

Theres no over population, the system is bullshit, like monarchy the king is not going to say it sucks, dont expect media to say it sucks either, the media will mislead you with the overpopulation narrative.

I think all the same things about the under-population narrative. TV/Car/House makers know their sales volume can't grow unless the population grows because once everyone has a car/house/TV, all that's left is demand from gradual turnover (like when their car dies, or their house needs an upgrade.)

Very wealthy people realize that overpopulation creates desperation, which empowers them. Desperate workers will work harder and expect less. They'll see all their peers who have even less than they do, and be grateful for a handful of grain.

Deleted - Double Post

If the world isn't over populated now ( I think it is, massively) then it certainly will be if we continue to increase our numbers at an ever increasing rate.It's just simple maths I'm afraid.

Oh yes, I forgot, hmm, of course, the techno fix, silly me.

I've watched an interesting video where B. Gates said that we need to put some poison to vaccines and kill some % of World population. Great idea!

Anyway, when NWO would come, control of society would be....u can't even imagine, but u may look:

If the world isn't over populated now ( I think it is, massively) then it certainly will be if we continue to increase our numbers at an ever increasing rate.It's just simple maths I'm afraid.

We're not increasing "our numbers at an ever increasing rate". The average number of births per woman - worldwide - is now down to just over 2. The problem is the population bulge from 30-40 years ago.

Hans Rosling: Religions and babies | Video on TED.com The numbers for increases in total population are demonstrated quite neatly from 10.15 onwards.

OK, agreed that, for the total world population, the rate of increase is no longer increasing, however the actual numbers are still increasing. That is, the population continues to grow albeit at a decreasing rate. Is this a cause for celebration? I think not.

Originally Posted by Jeaunse23

If the world isn't over populated now ( I think it is, massively) then it certainly will be if we continue to increase our numbers at an ever increasing rate.It's just simple maths I'm afraid.

Oh yes, I forgot, hmm, of course, the techno fix, silly me.

We you do tie interesting ideas together. Population isn't really the problem, our current modern way of life is. Just based on load to the planet for example, an American with two children should feel more guilt than many other nation's families with a half dozen (though those are becoming rather uncommon...as family has declined dramatically all over the world).

Technology offers ability to extract more resources improved efficiencies while using those resources and the communication and physical infrastructure to move those resources as well as their products around. We're only really in trouble if the developing world doesn't leap frog over the inefficient forms of industy and lifestyles that powered the growth of last century.

I don't see much of that in India currently. What I do see here is rapid loss of biodiversity and unchecked and illegal pollution from rapidly expanding dirty industries and in the cities at least, exponential increases in car use. And as far as the majority of Indian industry is concerned 'Green' is just another buzz word for use in marketing. It's not a particularly encouraging prospect from where I'm sitting in Mumbai....

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

You're dreaming of a utopia. Mankind has endured a tremendous amount of adversity that we have inflicted upon ourselves, but this has grown us and made us stronger, even though it may not be readily apparent. War has ravaged many lives, but also been the driving force behind many great inventions.

Also, what is our destiny?

Mankind has also grown weaker through the tremendos strain we have placed on ourselves.

War has ravaged many lives, but also been the driving force behind many great inventions.

Such as WMD? Hmmmm

Originally Posted by Genesis

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Change into what? Change just for the sake of changing won't help matters very much. Who is going to be in charge, will they be elected or just take control somehow? What if the person becomes a tyrant and only uses the power to help themselves and their alliances? Many questions about having only one world government because I fear it would only be a mirror image of what we already have, greed, inaction and few at the top making all the money.

What we need is a true United Nations where all country's have a say and democracy should prevail, Where country's like Russia and china cannot Vito the majority and stop a united
nations intervening in places like Syria, All that blood shed could of been stopped, and all the tyrants like margarbe would no there time was limited

Where would you find such a democracy that can suite everone? We do not have one now, not every one thinks democracy can work for them.

Originally Posted by adelady

If the world isn't over populated now ( I think it is, massively) then it certainly will be if we continue to increase our numbers at an ever increasing rate.It's just simple maths I'm afraid.

We're not increasing "our numbers at an ever increasing rate". The average number of births per woman - worldwide - is now down to just over 2. The problem is the population bulge from 30-40 years ago.

Hans Rosling: Religions and babies | Video on TED.com The numbers for increases in total population are demonstrated quite neatly from 10.15 onwards.

The average number of births for some culture are exploding.

Originally Posted by Therapy

The average number of births for some culture are exploding.

Which cultures? Are they a significant part of the world population? Source? Did you watch the vid which IS based on hard statistics?

Originally Posted by Therapy

The average number of births for some culture are exploding.

This is a science forum. You just can't make a statement without backing it up with some data. It's not like you gave an opinion, something like "I like guns"; you made a statement of (what you think is) truth. And it may be, but you have to back claims up with evidence. That's how science works. And just supplying a bunch of links is not the best method: take the small amount of time to list a few of these "cultures".

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Therapy

The average number of births for some culture are exploding.

This is a science forum. You just can't make a statement without backing it up with some data. It's not like you gave an opinion, something like "I like guns"; you made a statement of (what you think is) truth. And it may be, but you have to back claims up with evidence. That's how science works. And just supplying a bunch of links is not the best method: take the small amount of time to list a few of these "cultures".

Global White Population to Plummet to a Single Digit - YouTube
Future world demographic problem - YouTube
http://www.africanglobe.net/afri...


Hope this helps

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Therapy

The average number of births for some culture are exploding.

Which cultures? Are they a significant part of the world population? Source? Did you watch the vid which IS based on hard statistics?

Can you give me a link.

Here it is again. Hans Rosling: Religions and babies | Video on TED.com

Originally Posted by adelady

Here it is again. Hans Rosling: Religions and babies | Video on TED.com

Thanks

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by Therapy

The average number of births for some culture are exploding.

This is a science forum. You just can't make a statement without backing it up with some data. It's not like you gave an opinion, something like "I like guns"; you made a statement of (what you think is) truth. And it may be, but you have to back claims up with evidence. That's how science works. And just supplying a bunch of links is not the best method: take the small amount of time to list a few of these "cultures".

The top 5 countries are Niger, Mali, Somalia, in that order. All countries in Africa. Each with an average births-per-woman of 6.0 or greater. You might see that in a Mormon family in the USA sometimes. Of course I'm relying on the CIA factbook for that. Don't know how reliable it is. I usually don't use it.

The first non-African country on the list is Afghanistan at #8. 5.54 births per woman.



https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2127rank.html

Originally Posted by adelady

If the world isn't over populated now ( I think it is, massively) then it certainly will be if we continue to increase our numbers at an ever increasing rate.It's just simple maths I'm afraid.

We're not increasing "our numbers at an ever increasing rate". The average number of births per woman - worldwide - is now down to just over 2. The problem is the population bulge from 30-40 years ago.

Hans Rosling: Religions and babies | Video on TED.com The numbers for increases in total population are demonstrated quite neatly from 10.15 onwards.

Yeah, but where are the births happening?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Therapy

The average number of births for some culture are exploding.

Which cultures? Are they a significant part of the world population? Source? Did you watch the vid which IS based on hard statistics?

If they're not significant now, then they will be.

Natural selection guarantees that if by luck or effort, there ever is a majority of the population that voluntarily chooses not to over reproduce --- they won't be the majority for very long.

I'm also a little bit skittish about seeing the demographic shift. Uneducated people growing in number while the numbers of educated people declines. Maybe the two things balance out now. Doesn't mean they'll continue to balance out.

Anyone familiar with the famous Wheat and Chessboard problem?

Wheat and chessboard problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by The Story in Wiki

When the creator of the game of chess (in some tellings an ancient Indian mathematician, in others a legendary dravidavellalar named Sessa or Sissa) showed his invention to the ruler of the country, the ruler was so pleased that he gave the inventor the right to name his prize for the invention. The man, who was very wise, asked the king this: that for the first square of the chess board, he would receive one grain of wheat (in some tellings, rice), two for the second one, four on the third one, and so forth, doubling the amount each time. The ruler, arithmetically unaware, quickly accepted the inventor's offer, even getting offended by his perceived notion that the inventor was asking for such a low price, and ordered the treasurer to count and hand over the wheat to the inventor. However, when the treasurer took more than a week to calculate the amount of wheat, the ruler asked him for a reason for his tardiness. The treasurer then gave him the result of the calculation, and explained that it would take more than all the assets of the kingdom to give the inventor the reward. The story ends with the inventor becoming the new king. (In other variations of the story the king punishes the inventor.)

Any population with 5 or more births per woman, and a reasonable sized death rate would be doubling its population about every 20 -40 years.

Originally Posted by kojax

I'm also a little bit skittish about seeing the demographic shift. Uneducated people growing in number while the numbers of educated people declines. Maybe the two things balance out now. Doesn't mean they'll continue to balance out.

Sounds like the plot for a movie: Idiocracy (2006) - IMDb

Tagline: In the future, intelligence is extinct.

The movie premise is about a drop in intelligence in the future, but sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between ignorance and stupidity

Originally Posted by Therapy

Originally Posted by adelady

Here it is again. Hans Rosling: Religions and babies | Video on TED.com

Thanks

I found it very interesting. I noticed it covered the relation between poverty and religion, however I am not so sure it covered all the reasons.

Originally Posted by PumaMan

Originally Posted by kojax

I'm also a little bit skittish about seeing the demographic shift. Uneducated people growing in number while the numbers of educated people declines. Maybe the two things balance out now. Doesn't mean they'll continue to balance out.

Sounds like the plot for a movie: Idiocracy (2006) - IMDb

Tagline: In the future, intelligence is extinct.

The movie premise is about a drop in intelligence in the future, but sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between ignorance and stupidity

Ignorance and stupidity are both hereditary. Just by different means. One is (mostly) genetic. The other is based on the environment and conditions where a child is raised - which is determined by the environment and conditions that their parents are able to offer them.