Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
With China moving to renewables faster than any other country on Earth, Europe doing so slightly slower, and the USA soon to Follow... Then Iran and Saudi Arabia will be losing stability, and without any reliable secular alternative, they will likely resort to Islamist crutches as well, to prop up a growing disenfranchised population.
The situation between Turkey and the Kurds is ridiculous. As it is between the Kurds and Arabs.
And the loss of artifacts from ISIS's "Cultural cleansing" is just heartbreaking. Before too long, no one will have to worry about damaging anything of value in the war with them.
Of course, maybe the Middle East needs for this to happen to cull the male population that cannot be supported, leaving a population that is more "manageable???" which is a pretty sick thing to consider.
BeAfraid wrote: Of course, maybe the Middle East needs for this to happen to cull the male population that cannot be supported, leaving a population that is more "manageable???" which is a pretty sick thing to consider.
I think the deaths of 90% of the population in the Middle East dying would be a step in the right direction. But I think that about Europe, Asia, and the America's too.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Links to other articles about DaIsh on the site are good reading too.
In part:
Spoiler:
The problem, however, lies not in chronicling the successes of the movement, but in explaining how something so improbable became possible. The explanations so often given for its rise—the anger of Sunni communities, the logistical support provided by other states and groups, the movement’s social media campaigns, its leadership, its tactics, its governance, its revenue streams, and its ability to attract tens of thousands of foreign fighters—fall far short of a convincing theory of the movement’s success.
But many other insurgent groups, quite different from ISIS, often seemed to have been in a much stronger position to have become the dominant vehicles of “Sunni anger.” Sunnis in Iraq initially had minimal sympathy with Zarqawi’s death cult and with his movement’s imposition of early medieval social codes. Most were horrified when Zarqawi blew up the UN headquarters in Baghdad; when he released a film in which he personally sawed off the head of an American civilian; when he blew up the great Shia shrine at Samarra and killed hundreds of Iraqi children. After he mounted three simultaneous bomb attacks against Jordanian hotels—killing sixty civilians at a wedding party—the senior leaders of his Jordanian tribe and his own brother signed a public letter disowning him. The Guardian was only echoing the conventional wisdom when it concluded in Zarqawi’s obituary: “Ultimately, his brutality tarnished any aura, offered little but nihilism and repelled Muslims worldwide.”
Other insurgent groups also often seemed more effective. In 2003, for example, secular Baathists were more numerous, better equipped, better organized, and more experienced military commanders; in 2009, the militia of the “Sunni Awakening” had much better resources and its armed movement was more deeply rooted locally. In 2011, the Free Syrian Army, including former officers of the Assad regime, was a much more plausible leader of resistance in Syria; and so in 2013 was the more extremist militia Jabhat-al-Nusra. Hassan Hassan and Michael Weiss show in ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, for example, that al-Nusra formed far closer links to tribal groups in East Syria—even marrying its fighters to tribal women.
Such groups have sometimes blamed their collapse and lack of success, and ISIS’s rise, on lack of resources. The Free Syrian Army, for example has long insisted that it would have been able to supplant ISIS if its leaders had received more money and weapons from foreign states. And the Sunni Awakening leaders in Iraq argue that they lost control of their communities only because the Baghdad government ceased to pay their salaries. But there is no evidence that ISIS initially received more cash or guns than these groups; rather the reverse.
Full article is decent.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
BeAfraid wrote: Of course, maybe the Middle East needs for this to happen to cull the male population that cannot be supported, leaving a population that is more "manageable???" which is a pretty sick thing to consider.
I think the deaths of 90% of the population in the Middle East dying would be a step in the right direction. But I think that about Europe, Asia, and the America's too.
Are you leading the march to the death camps, Baron? Or are you part of the "good" 10% that gets to live? I mean I recall being an angsty teen too, but come on.
BeAfraid wrote: Of course, maybe the Middle East needs for this to happen to cull the male population that cannot be supported, leaving a population that is more "manageable???" which is a pretty sick thing to consider.
I think the deaths of 90% of the population in the Middle East dying would be a step in the right direction. But I think that about Europe, Asia, and the America's too.
Are you leading the march to the death camps, Baron? Or are you part of the "good" 10% that gets to live? I mean I recall being an angsty teen too, but come on.
I wanted to say something to that effect but I watched Shindler List last night so I was a bit irked on that comment. Thanks Dark
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
BeAfraid wrote: Of course, maybe the Middle East needs for this to happen to cull the male population that cannot be supported, leaving a population that is more "manageable???" which is a pretty sick thing to consider.
I think the deaths of 90% of the population in the Middle East dying would be a step in the right direction. But I think that about Europe, Asia, and the America's too.
Are you leading the march to the death camps, Baron? Or are you part of the "good" 10% that gets to live? I mean I recall being an angsty teen too, but come on.
I'm pretty sure the comment was sarcasm designed to match the incredulous of the post he was responding to.
BeAfraid wrote: Of course, maybe the Middle East needs for this to happen to cull the male population that cannot be supported, leaving a population that is more "manageable???" which is a pretty sick thing to consider.
I think the deaths of 90% of the population in the Middle East dying would be a step in the right direction. But I think that about Europe, Asia, and the America's too.
Are you leading the march to the death camps, Baron? Or are you part of the "good" 10% that gets to live? I mean I recall being an angsty teen too, but come on.
I'm pretty sure the comment was sarcasm designed to match the incredulous of the post he was responding to.
Maybe. Maybe not. Baron's posting history makes me wonder if he wasn't actually serious.
Besides, with no overt attempt to show sarcasm it is hard not to take the statement at face value.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: Are you leading the march to the death camps, Baron? Or are you part of the "good" 10% that gets to live? I mean I recall being an angsty teen too, but come on.
I was actually thinking a flat 1 in 10 for everyone, yours truly included. it's a very extreme outlier, but it's one option.
A 90% reduction in the overall human population would do wonders for humanities long term survival prospects. The planet can only support a finite number of people, and it doesn't look like they're going anyplace else anytime soon. At the rate that resources are being consumed, you're looking at wars for resources beyond oil within the next two generations.
It's not angst, insanity, or any particular 'ism'. It's just cold, hard reality. I know a lot of people try hard not to think about it, or claim that science will save us, etc. I put the odds on that slightly ahead the return of Christ bailing us out. No democracy in the world will pass laws limited breeding, or restraining corporate interests from despoiling everything that they can reach for a quick buck. So, what do you do?
ATM part of my job is to sit at the bottom of a very deep hole, that part of the US government puts its records into in the event of the apocalypse.. (Oh, Bureaucracy, do you know no bounds?) it gives you plenty of time to think about this gak while you watch the 50 megaton rated blast doors open and close each day.
I want all of you to look at Syria very hard. That's the the whole world, eventually, unless steps are taken. What those steps might be, well, we're still at the stage where there are options.
Some are far more palatable than others.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
We can't survive a 90% reduction without falling back to pre-industrial technology levels.
Really, about a 25% reduction is the worst we could afford (in the developed world) and still manage to keep the world running.
But even that is a pretty horrific outcome to wish for.
We DO HAVE a bit of a problem with a rather sizable portion of the world's population (an estimated 500,000,000 people) who are either way too sympathetic to Islamists like ISIS, or they are actively a part of Islamist causes like ISIS (see the Pew Research 2014/15 Islamic Attitudes Surveys of the Muslim world, which show a roughly 30% of the Muslim global population completely supportive of ISIS - or similar groups).
And a rather significant problem with that 30% of the population is that they are NOT the poor, disenfranchised populations, but the Muslim populations of countries like England, France, or the UAE (which are wealthy). A similar survey showed that most of the Muslims in Europe who are traveling to the Middle East to join ISIS are highly educated, and affluent Muslims who have rather a lot to lose by joining ISIS.
That tends to indicate some sort of ideological disconnect with modern civilization, and the Enlightenment from which it sprang (not to mention surveys of Islamist Literature are trying to revise history pretty aggressively as well, in an attempt to paint the Enlightenment as the cause of European Imperialism).
But, yes.... I recognize that the issues with ISIS and the Middle East are serious, and that one possible outcome of that MIGHT BE the "amputation" of a significant fraction of the world's population.
Of course, it might not be the west who does it.
If Islamists in China continue to grow as a problem, the Chinese might step in.
I'm interested to see a link to that study. I've found one that gives a net favourable response of 16% (3% very and 13% somewhat) for French Muslims, but then Germany is at 2% and Great Britain is at 7%. But I can't find how reliable the study is. So if you're going to throw around big numbers like that, provide the source as well rather than just waving your hand in that direction, it's polite after all.
I have a 2011 pew poll saying that muslim americans think that there is a 21% net favourable for extremists in the muslim america population, but that seems wide open to influence from the same mainstream media that sees ISIS flags at gay pride rallies, so I'd call that number suspect.
And one from 2014 showing that the middle east countries are predominantly anti-Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. So while it doesn't mention ISIS, the negative opinion of extremism in the region, worries about extremism, etc, certainly don't make me think if they'd asked about ISIS they'd have gotten a response of "oh those guys nah they're sweet, love 'em"
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/28 06:15:52
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
BeAfraid wrote: We can't survive a 90% reduction without falling back to pre-industrial technology levels.
Not really. The US had a population about 10% of current well past the Industrial revolution. it was only about 20% of current at the start of the 20th century. Manufacturing processes have become less labor intensive since then, not more.
I don't think that you understand how large the population really is now.
But even that is a pretty horrific outcome to wish for.
It beats a lot of the alternatives by a long shot. The extinction of humanity (near or otherwise) is not a desirable outcome. Eventually, someone is going to try and save their own ass. And, possibly, the collective assess of the public they supposedly serve. And it's not going to be by saving mankind from itself. Think about it; how do you take everyone esles resources without using up your own? Simple answer: biological warfare.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/28 09:09:30
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
motyak wrote: I'm interested to see a link to that study. I've found one that gives a net favourable response of 16% (3% very and 13% somewhat) for French Muslims, but then Germany is at 2% and Great Britain is at 7%. But I can't find how reliable the study is. So if you're going to throw around big numbers like that, provide the source as well rather than just waving your hand in that direction, it's polite after all.
I have a 2011 pew poll saying that muslim americans think that there is a 21% net favourable for extremists in the muslim america population, but that seems wide open to influence from the same mainstream media that sees ISIS flags at gay pride rallies, so I'd call that number suspect.
And one from 2014 showing that the middle east countries are predominantly anti-Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. So while it doesn't mention ISIS, the negative opinion of extremism in the region, worries about extremism, etc, certainly don't make me think if they'd asked about ISIS they'd have gotten a response of "oh those guys nah they're sweet, love 'em"
Then I guess the date we're getting is saying two completely different things. For example that site have Hamas and their activities as being supported by 89% of Palestinians, whereas http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/01/concerns-about-islamic-extremism-on-the-rise-in-middle-east/ has only 35% supporting. So I guess this is going to be the sort of thing we can each reference web pages until our eyes bleed but will in the end go with the ones that support our view points.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
I would say, 35% is a VERY large amount of support for an insurgent/terror organization.
Hell, if Westboro could garner 1% support they would be doing phenomenally better.
Your poll does show a good trend. But the numbers in favor of these groups and more importantly belief that violence is justified for things like cartoonists drawing good ol' Mohamed are way too high. Heck your poll shows that Turkey, a NATO nation, has 24% support for suicide bombings for Islam. Yeah it is 'good' it is ONLY 24%, but that is a big damned group of people.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
BeAfraid wrote: We can't survive a 90% reduction without falling back to pre-industrial technology levels.
Not really. The US had a population about 10% of current well past the Industrial revolution. it was only about 20% of current at the start of the 20th century. Manufacturing processes have become less labor intensive since then, not more.
I don't think that you understand how large the population really is now.
But even that is a pretty horrific outcome to wish for.
It beats a lot of the alternatives by a long shot. The extinction of humanity (near or otherwise) is not a desirable outcome. Eventually, someone is going to try and save their own ass. And, possibly, the collective assess of the public they supposedly serve. And it's not going to be by saving mankind from itself. Think about it; how do you take everyone esles resources without using up your own? Simple answer: biological warfare.
The past population had a totally different infrastructure to support.
During the Industrial Revolution, for instance, there was no interstate highway, there were no nuclear weapons, there was no Global Information System upon which almost all travel other than by road is dependent.
There were no massive arsenals of weapons that could be seized by radicals to them hold a smaller population hostage, for instance.
I pretty completely understand how large the population is.
I have lived in countries with a population density about five times that of Europe (India and Japan).
7 Billion people is a lot of people, but we have ample resources and money to support all of them. The distribution of those resources is not equal though, and there is considerable gaming of that distribution by factions within different demographics.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: I'm interested to see a link to that study. I've found one that gives a net favourable response of 16% (3% very and 13% somewhat) for French Muslims, but then Germany is at 2% and Great Britain is at 7%. But I can't find how reliable the study is. So if you're going to throw around big numbers like that, provide the source as well rather than just waving your hand in that direction, it's polite after all.
I have a 2011 pew poll saying that muslim americans think that there is a 21% net favourable for extremists in the muslim america population, but that seems wide open to influence from the same mainstream media that sees ISIS flags at gay pride rallies, so I'd call that number suspect.
And one from 2014 showing that the middle east countries are predominantly anti-Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. So while it doesn't mention ISIS, the negative opinion of extremism in the region, worries about extremism, etc, certainly don't make me think if they'd asked about ISIS they'd have gotten a response of "oh those guys nah they're sweet, love 'em"
It beats a lot of the alternatives by a long shot. The extinction of humanity (near or otherwise) is not a desirable outcome. Eventually, someone is going to try and save their own ass. And, possibly, the collective assess of the public they supposedly serve. And it's not going to be by saving mankind from itself. Think about it; how do you take everyone esles resources without using up your own? Simple answer: biological warfare.
Don't you worry though.... Once Google gets Skynet up and running, everything will be OK
A 90% reduction in the overall human population would do wonders for humanities long term survival prospects. The planet can only support a finite number of people, and it doesn't look like they're going anyplace else anytime soon. At the rate that resources are being consumed, you're looking at wars for resources beyond oil within the next two generations.
It's not angst, insanity, or any particular 'ism'. It's just cold, hard reality. I know a lot of people try hard not to think about it, or claim that science will save us, etc. I put the odds on that slightly ahead the return of Christ bailing us out. No democracy in the world will pass laws limited breeding, or restraining corporate interests from despoiling everything that they can reach for a quick buck. So, what do you do?
So, what do you do?
Emigrate to Mars.
I'll take scientific optimism over your misanthropy any day.
BeAfraid wrote: And I recall no ISIS Flag at a Gay Pride Parade.
It had penises on it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/28 15:34:26
CNN or MSNBC, or Faux News... one of them reported from the scene of a Pride parade in, I think it was San Fran that there was an ISIS flag....
It WAS a black flag with a white circle in the middle of it, and some rather squiggly looking lines.... However, all of the lines in the "letters" were actually phalluses... It was, quite literally a dick flag
CNN or MSNBC, or Faux News... one of them reported from the scene of a Pride parade in, I think it was San Fran that there was an ISIS flag....
It WAS a black flag with a white circle in the middle of it, and some rather squiggly looking lines.... However, all of the lines in the "letters" were actually phalluses... It was, quite literally a dick flag
Can we air drop crates of those flags into ISIS territory? Some of the more illiterate jihadis might not know the difference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/28 15:42:11
The past population had a totally different infrastructure to support.
During the Industrial Revolution, for instance, there was no interstate highway, there were no nuclear weapons, there was no Global Information System upon which almost all travel other than by road is dependent.
There were no massive arsenals of weapons that could be seized by radicals to them hold a smaller population hostage, for instance.
Well, two things 'seizing' is different from 'able to use'. A nuclear weapon is not a pistol, just having it does not make you able to use it. ISIS, as an example, could seize a nuclear missile sub, and I would not lose one moments sleep. Why? Because they'd be more likely to blow themselves up in a premature rocket fuel ignition than to actually successfully detonate a nuclear device. Let alone program one to hit a particular target.
Two: are interstate highways, nuclear weapons, and the internet (never minding the internet can continue to run with the loss of 99% of humanity) defining elements of civilization? Do you need them to have industrial civilization? I seem to recall a time before them. We had factories and such and they ran just fine without. Your talking about maintaining a level of infrastructure beyond what would be needed at that point. And, again, the internet was designed to be usable despite the loss of most of the cities on earth in a nuclear firestorm. I'm willing to bet even a very small population could keep that one running just fine.
BeAfraid wrote: The distribution of those resources is not equal though, and there is considerable gaming of that distribution by factions within different demographics.
Do you think that gamesmanship will magically go away as resources become more difficult to acquire?
The past population had a totally different infrastructure to support.
During the Industrial Revolution, for instance, there was no interstate highway, there were no nuclear weapons, there was no Global Information System upon which almost all travel other than by road is dependent.
There were no massive arsenals of weapons that could be seized by radicals to them hold a smaller population hostage, for instance.
Well, two things 'seizing' is different from 'able to use'. A nuclear weapon is not a pistol, just having it does not make you able to use it. ISIS, as an example, could seize a nuclear missile sub, and I would not lose one moments sleep. Why? Because they'd be more likely to blow themselves up in a premature rocket fuel ignition than to actually successfully detonate a nuclear device. Let alone program one to hit a particular target.
Two: are interstate highways, nuclear weapons, and the internet (never minding the internet can continue to run with the loss of 99% of humanity) defining elements of civilization? Do you need them to have industrial civilization? I seem to recall a time before them. We had factories and such and they ran just fine without. Your talking about maintaining a level of infrastructure beyond what would be needed at that point. And, again, the internet was designed to be usable despite the loss of most of the cities on earth in a nuclear firestorm. I'm willing to bet even a very small population could keep that one running just fine.
Thats assuming the Internet doesn't get wiped by all the EMP that will be floating around. Any surviving net will be a fraction of what it was. Granted the important stuff is likely shielded, but as far as regular people using it would be out of the question.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Thats assuming the Internet doesn't get wiped by all the EMP that will be floating around. Any surviving net will be a fraction of what it was. Granted the important stuff is likely shielded, but as far as regular people using it would be out of the question.
Galactus could tear all of North America from the planet, and the internet might suffer a few seconds delay as it routed around it. It's THAT tough. It was specifically designed to survive World War 3. Even if there was no one left to use it. (and wide area EMPs require you to waste nukes, as to get a really powerful EMP, you have to detonate way above airburst ranges. A nuke used for EMP effects would have little to no impact on targets on the ground, it'd be that high up.)
That said, we weren't talking specifically about nuclear war, but rather about the human population being reduced to 10% of current. The supposition was that it would shut off without anyone maintaining it. While, as far as electric supplies go, this is correct, the fact is as long as electricity would be maintained, it would happily truck on for years without any human intervention at all. One would assume that as populations began to condense in various former cities, the internet would be among the services that would be serviced. It's actually less labor intensive than the telegraph, and that was put in when humanity was at about that 10% point.
For some reason, it seems that some people think that whole areas of infrastructure (and, indeed, whole cities) would be maintained despite having no actual use at that point.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/28 22:06:59
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
Two: are interstate highways, nuclear weapons, and the internet (never minding the internet can continue to run with the loss of 99% of humanity) defining elements of civilization? Do you need them to have industrial civilization? I seem to recall a time before them. We had factories and such and they ran just fine without. Your talking about maintaining a level of infrastructure beyond what would be needed at that point. And, again, the internet was designed to be usable despite the loss of most of the cities on earth in a nuclear firestorm. I'm willing to bet even a very small population could keep that one running just fine.
Agreed... look at even just the US, pre-Interstate system. The economy was still quite regional, there were little to no national brands, outside of a few key industry. Produce was, by and large "local" to at least a region of the us (it wasn't grown in California, Arizona or the like, and shipped up to Maine and NY, like we have now) The national level companies that we did have, were transported and sold locally by small one-off shops, or regional retailers
IF there were a sudden decrease in population, I would think we'd fairly quickly revert back into that "regional" style economy.
Remember Ensis. We in WA are due for a 9.0 and over quake that's been delayed. Think we're like 321 years from the last one...........every 300 years.....100 ft Tsunami wave coming for Seattle......I'm over 200 ft at sea level......
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Produce was, by and large "local" to at least a region of the us (it wasn't grown in California, Arizona or the like, and shipped up to Maine and NY, like we have now) The national level companies that we did have, were transported and sold locally by small one-off shops, or regional retailers
IF there were a sudden decrease in population, I would think we'd fairly quickly revert back into that "regional" style economy.
Let me just pop open a cold one. You like
or
But maybe beer is a major industry? How about some hot dogs?
or fresh vegetables?
You know that refrigerated box cars first entered service in 1851, or, a time when the US had less than 10% of it's current population? The interstate system only came around after WW2. Local retailers selling your national brands was the norm until about 30 years ago, though more commonly for non perishable goods (Ball mason jars anyone?). Even Sears, who had stores in most major cities also sold via local shops and via THE MAIL!. It wasn't until the rise of Wal-Mart that you saw that sort of thing die away.
According to more than a few studies, that 'local' regional economy you mention also tends to elevate the middle class and improve your overall economy. One of the downsides of the current system is it actually creates economic dead zones as demand changes.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/29 00:43:26
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
It beats a lot of the alternatives by a long shot. The extinction of humanity (near or otherwise) is not a desirable outcome. Eventually, someone is going to try and save their own ass. And, possibly, the collective assess of the public they supposedly serve. And it's not going to be by saving mankind from itself. Think about it; how do you take everyone esles resources without using up your own? Simple answer: biological warfare.
Don't you worry though.... Once Google gets Skynet up and running, everything will be OK
Apple.
Skynet will be iTunes.
iTunes will control the world.
The App Store will be the means by which it controls the world.
A 90% reduction in the overall human population would do wonders for humanities long term survival prospects. The planet can only support a finite number of people, and it doesn't look like they're going anyplace else anytime soon. At the rate that resources are being consumed, you're looking at wars for resources beyond oil within the next two generations.
It's not angst, insanity, or any particular 'ism'. It's just cold, hard reality. I know a lot of people try hard not to think about it, or claim that science will save us, etc. I put the odds on that slightly ahead the return of Christ bailing us out. No democracy in the world will pass laws limited breeding, or restraining corporate interests from despoiling everything that they can reach for a quick buck. So, what do you do?
So, what do you do?
Emigrate to Mars.
I'll take scientific optimism over your misanthropy any day.
BeAfraid wrote: And I recall no ISIS Flag at a Gay Pride Parade.
It had penises on it.
I DO recall a black flag that had dildos and butt-plugs on it, which looked superficially like an ISIS Flag.
MB
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/29 00:55:07
But maybe beer is a major industry? How about some hot dogs?
or fresh vegetables?
You know that refrigerated box cars first entered service in 1851, or, a time when the US had less than 10% of it's current population? The interstate system only came around after WW2. Local retailers selling your national brands was the norm until about 30 years ago, though more commonly for non perishable goods (Ball mason jars anyone?). Even Sears, who had stores in most major cities also sold via local shops and via THE MAIL!. It wasn't until the rise of Wal-Mart that you saw that sort of thing die away.
According to more than a few studies, that 'local' regional economy you mention also tends to elevate the middle class and improve your overall economy. One of the downsides of the current system is it actually creates economic dead zones as demand changes.
As I said, you didn't really have many national retailers... I DID say we had national companies. But, when have you ever heard of a "Budweiser Store" ? As I pointed out, the majority of national brands, Levi's Denim, Busch, Miller, Ford, Dodge, Chevy, etc. all rely on local and regional retailers to survive. And, even with refrigerated train cars, all that really allowed you to do was take lettuce or other "fresh" produce from say, Ohio, to NY; or California to Washington and vice versa. You didn't have the system in place, like today where Lettuce is grown mostly in California and Arizona, and then shipped across the entire country.
My point was that companies like Sears, even though they've been around for a long time, and at a national level, aren't the norm in the sort of regional economy. and if what you say is true about local/regional economies being better for the middle class, I would hope we could somehow "return" to that.
Jihadin wrote: Remember Ensis. We in WA are due for a 9.0 and over quake that's been delayed. Think we're like 321 years from the last one...........every 300 years.....100 ft Tsunami wave coming for Seattle......I'm over 200 ft at sea level......
We're also somewhat due for Yellowstone to hit the reset button too...
And Mount Rainier to blow its top...
Oh, and Vesuvius is due a repeat performance of 79 AD...
Plus the San Andreas has been far too quiet, because you know, 'The BIG! One' and all that hype...
Oh yeah, and Iceland's largest volcano is also supposedly gearing up since the smaller unpronounceable one went back in 2010...
And we're still waiting this whole "Global Warming is going to Kill US ALL!!!!" non-sense that the eco nutters have been preaching endlessly since 2000 or so...
Whatever way it comes, I think I'll just grab some popcorn, watch the festivities ensue, and at least content myself to die a delicious death.
