171–180 of 190 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just look at African or South American countries by GDP and see which ones are at the top of the list
You are aware that all South and Central American countries were colonized by Western Powers right?
How do all these people immigrate to the US? Is it all family-based? I work in technological field with many more opportunities in the US and have researched how to move there but it seems almost impossible. I know an American who applied for jobs in my country, got an offer and was over within a few months but that doesn't work the other way round.
You fly over and overstay your visa (indefinitely.) Neglecting any discussion of the legal ramifications, that is largely how it happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the end of the day the Earth's resources are very much finite. We simply can't have indefinite growth, so it doesn't make sense to use it as a metric.
> finite Sure, everything is finite, but 8 billion is too little. Earth can fit 8 trillion and more, all we need is more science.
Less people can keep up with more production. Less people means less impact on the environment. Less people means more nature. At least personally I rather have less people on the planet at any given moment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the end of the day the Earth's resources are very much finite. We simply can't have indefinite growth, so it doesn't make sense to use it as a metric.
> finite Sure, everything is finite, but 8 billion is too little. Earth can fit 8 trillion and more, all we need is more science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.bmj.com/content/381/bmj.p1234
5 years is truly a big kill. looks like its a reaction to 99% of them refusing to send money back home and invest in Nigeria, preferring to buy-US and -Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At the end of the day the Earth's resources are very much finite. We simply can't have indefinite growth, so it doesn't make sense to use it as a metric.
> finite Sure, everything is finite, but 8 billion is too little. Earth can fit 8 trillion and more, all we need is more science.
For instance energy: petrol -> pollution, nuclear energy-> tchernobil, danger currently in Ukraine with the war, ...
Food : fertilizer -> water pollution and eutrophication
Housing: more home -> less free soil to retain water, insane flooding.
And so on, and so on.
Anyway by the time we reach 8 trillion, a nuclear war surely would have already started and wiped us all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> finite Sure, everything is finite, but 8 billion is too little. Earth can fit 8 trillion and more, all we need is more science.
science is very much limited by human ability to not regress to violence when limited when h^n meets the l*r there be carnage without modifications .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> finite Sure, everything is finite, but 8 billion is too little. Earth can fit 8 trillion and more, all we need is more science.
Maybe, but what's the point ? If science improves shouldn't we aim for less population? Less people can keep up with more production. Less people means less impact on the environment. Less people means more nature. At least personally I rather have less people on the planet at any given moment.
Sure I want less people and more earth to myself too, but if everyone [overall] wants as many free kids as they can afford, how on earth are you going to end up with having less people?
A girl's maximum happiness is directly correlated with the number of children she has. regardless of how much free capital and brainwashing received
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> finite Sure, everything is finite, but 8 billion is too little. Earth can fit 8 trillion and more, all we need is more science.
That's a very optimistic way to think. But every new technology brings its set of failure and danger. For instance energy: petrol -> pollution, nuclear energy-> tchernobil, danger currently in Ukraine with the war, ... Food : fertilizer -> water pollution and eutrophication Housing: more home -> less free soil to retain water, insane flooding. And so on, and so on. Anyway by the time we reach 8 trillion, a nuclear wa…
Then what you need is moar science. 10x, 100x, 999999
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Enforcing ubi ensures that there's a reasonable bottom to how low you can bid on labour. Enforcing minimum wage however is problematic because it is an artificial level. It simply further creates two classes of people, the hired and the unhired.
Enforcing an understanfing of economics, motivation and thinking beyond a first order effect usually ensures people understand why ubi os a bad idea....