tummo wrote: Even if it crashes tomorrow and no jobs, it will be a good opportunity to go into a 10 year retreat and meditate like Milarepa.
ronnewmexico wrote:"Exponential growth also applies to the the human population. It begins growing very slowly, but over generations the growth rate increases more and more rapidly, similar to a snowball affect. It took the human population thousands of years to reach 1 billion in 1804. However, it took only 123 years for us to double to 2 billion by 1927. The population hit 4 billion in 1974 (only 47 years), and if we continue at our current rate, the human population will reach 8 billion in 2028. Doubling from our present count of 6.8 billion to 13.6 billion will have a much greater impact than our last couple doublings combined."
Population is increasing exponentially, not line wise.
kirtu wrote:The population is not actually increasing exponentially but seems to follow a logistic curve. The most explosive part of that curve is exponential but it then levels out. But the bad news is that the leveling out will be between 9-12+ billion, more likely around 10 billion people. This is not happy news.
Huseng wrote:kirtu wrote:The population is not actually increasing exponentially but seems to follow a logistic curve. The most explosive part of that curve is exponential but it then levels out. But the bad news is that the leveling out will be between 9-12+ billion, more likely around 10 billion people. This is not happy news.
There are various estimates concerning the global population. See this tidy graph:
We're going to collectively break the planet.
kirtu wrote:That's true even at 10 billion.
Huseng wrote:kirtu wrote:That's true even at 10 billion.
Might as well prepare for the worst then. There will be no ordinary life to lead in coming decades. Best to give up all worldly aims as the world ain't gonna put out.
justsit wrote:At $1724/oz.??
justsit wrote:Interesting (and sobering) prediction of future economic collapse here.
Finally, there has been a big change in the way that the spoils of economic success have been divvied up. Back when Nixon was berating the speculators attacking the dollar peg, there was an implicit social contract under which the individual was guaranteed a job and a decent wage that rose as the economy grew. The fruits of growth were shared with employers, and taxes were recycled into schools, health care and pensions. In return, individuals obeyed the law and encouraged their children to do the same. The assumption was that each generation would have a better life than the last.
Huseng wrote:I sense that a lot of baby boomers fail to realize this when discussing finances with young adults who might still be living at home or who seem to be financially inept. There is no more guarantee of getting a job at a decent salary, even if you're well educated, with the expectation that you will receive increments in salary as time goes on, thus facilitating reasonable assurances that paying off a loan for a home is possible. The reality for 20 something year olds now is entirely different.
kirtu wrote:Are people picking on your slacker friends or what? BTW - slacker goes back pretty far and at least three sub-generational cohorts have adopted the term to refer to their fellow cohort members ....
Huseng wrote:he whole promise before was get educated and get a good job, but it doesn't work like that anymore.
Namdrol wrote:Huseng wrote:he whole promise before was get educated and get a good job, but it doesn't work like that anymore.
This is because conservatives do not seem to understand that higher wages result in broader prosperity for all, not more investment.
I like Robert Reich's idea of a negative income tax.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests