It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tighten your belts, scientists tell the world's rich

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
This won't last much longer. Oil is getting harder to come by and as the price rises it puts pressure on food prices. People don't starve for lack of food, they starve for lack of money to buy that food. Even the "Arab Spring" was driven by high food prices. Every country in which food prices become prohibitively high have either fallen into civil war or revolution.

Without easy access to oil the whole game falls apart. The explosion in population can be traced to the discovery of oil. As oil use became more widespread population increased. We are going to see a rather large crash in the third world. There's no way around it.
edit on 2-5-2012 by antonia because: opps




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Survival Of The Fittest , the Ultimate Natural Law . Social Darwinism at it's Most Basic Level . Survive, Procreate , and in Man's Case , Conquer , then Die . Sounds Pretty Scientific to me Herr Professors..........

edit on 2-5-2012 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by knightwhosaysnih
reply to post by ollncasino
 


And then the scientists finish their work day and drive home in their luxury vehicles to their nice houses


From experience, an overwhelming majority of scientists live very modest lives. I've known a couple of people who drove low end BMW but that's more of an exception, and nobody really has luxury houses.

You don't know what you are talking about.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
This won't last much longer. Oil is getting harder to come by and as the price rises it puts pressure on food prices. People don't starve for lack of food, they starve for lack of money to buy that food. Even the "Arab Spring" was driven by high food prices. Every country in which food prices become prohibitively high have either fallen into civil war or revolution.

Without easy access to oil the whole game falls apart. The explosion in population can be traced to the discovery of oil. As oil use became more widespread population increased. We are going to see a rather large crash in the third world. There's no way around it.
edit on 2-5-2012 by antonia because: opps


I agree.

It doesn't take a lot of research to come up with a few shining examples of chaos surrounding the disparity of living conditions.

The French revolution
The Bolshevic Revolution
The revolution of the People's Republic of China
The Cuban Revolution...

All fought over food and unfair (and unbearable) living conditions...disparity.

Sadly, when people are desperate, they will agree to any idea that seems to fix the problem here and now....of those four examples, only the French seemed to have came out better than before...the other three...not so much.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
People don't starve for lack of food, they starve for lack of money to buy that food.


Do you know how markets work? Seriously? Read again what you just wrote here.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by antonia
People don't starve for lack of food, they starve for lack of money to buy that food.


Do you know how markets work? Seriously? Read again what you just wrote here.


Sure. Maybe you should read it again. Most areas experiencing starvation are not short on food. They are short on money to buy food. They don't have enough money hence they starve. There is plenty of food (at the moment) to feed people. When there are prices shocks the poor are the ones who starve because it goes out of their reach. I don't get how this suddenly goes against the market. Unless you'd like to enlighten my obviously stupid self here since you know everything.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Translation:
Since anthropogenic global warming isn't selling they are telling the US and Europe to be prepared to get by with far less so the undeveloped countries can share in progress ("global justice")

Rich is a code word for middle class, not the elites who intend to further widen the wealth gap in the name of helping poorer nations.

If one word sums up what they intend for us it would be this:

Austerity



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by fictitious
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Besides the obvious communist tones, feeding poor people makes them more fit to have even more children. Then those children have more children. Not that I'm all for letting starving people starve, but from a biological perspective, feeding them doesn't make any sense at all. It just exacerbates the problem.


Or we could help them have better opportunities so they will have more meaningful things to do in their loves to make them feel good about themselves other than having sex. If you're poor and ain't got nowhere to go, nothin to do, sex sure does pass the time and make you forget about how worthless your life actually is. Drugs and alcohol will do that, too... If you actually had a future to look forward to, you might spend more time planning for that future and bettering yourself.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
We have 300 million in America and lots of room to grow, so I think in countries like India/China/Africa we will see large de-population due to disease, or maybe even a pandemic sometime in the near future.

It would not take very much for the Human race to reset in size back post 1800s



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
There is plenty of food (at the moment) to feed people. When there are prices shocks the poor are the ones who starve because it goes out of their reach. I don't get how this suddenly goes against the market. Unless you'd like
to enlighten my obviously stupid self here since you know everything.


Well maybe it's I who's stupid. You seem to be describing a situation where supply is larger than demand, I quote "plenty of food". If there is indeed plenty, economics would suggest that these goods must be moved, shifted, whatever you call it, and if markets work, this dictates a drop in price.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Well maybe it's I who's stupid. You seem to be describing a situation where supply is larger than demand, I quote "plenty of food". If there is indeed plenty, economics would suggest that these goods must be moved, shifted, whatever you call it, and if markets work, this dictates a drop in price.


Markets don't work. You need only look at the insane amount of food wasted in the first world to know that.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Well maybe it's I who's stupid. You seem to be describing a situation where supply is larger than demand, I quote "plenty of food". If there is indeed plenty, economics would suggest that these goods must be moved, shifted, whatever you call it, and if markets work, this dictates a drop in price.


Markets don't work. You need only look at the insane amount of food wasted in the first world to know that.


Food waste doesn't mean a lot, it's just a manner of consumption. What it tells you exactly that the markets work -- food is aplenty and prices are down, so people buy at times more than they need.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


If it were still a supply and demand economy, we would track how many orders we place, to keep up with the numbers of supply. Now, my dad owns a restraunt and orders food based on his avg. per week. Cause that's when he orders. He's mostly always stocked, except for minor things like maybe onions or something. But Wendy's, McDonald's, places like that ALWAYS have food. At all times, everyday. So why, oh why the hell wouldn't we go get the overflow of food that Sonic just threw out? Supply and demand? Or not giving a flying # and just living your life trying to eat, that's why you work at sonic, for the money. Okay, these fast food chains get big trucks coming in everyday, at least In my small ass town. Think about the gas for travel to the panhandle, and back, to other stores delivering more food. There's like 5 McDonald's in the closest town to me. With 180,000 people. So! Texas has the lowest poverty rate in America. 1/5 below poverty. And I live in Texas, and you can definitely see it where I live. 40% of the jobs made in America were in Texas. Supply and demand? More like agreeable chaos. That's all I see today, chaos.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Except prices aren't down. They have been going up for at least the last 3 years. Food prices are heavily subsidized in the U.S. (through corn subsides) however, just looking at our population you can tell we are overfed. Why do we need more food here? Isn't that somewhat wasteful? So is the market inherently wasteful? I'd say waste is inefficient and large amounts of waste are signs of an inefficient system.

But, back to the central point-If you go to one of these famine stricken countries you can buy food-If you can afford it. It's still around. Did you see any Rich people in those countries starving? No,poor people just can't afford to buy it because they have no money and so they die.
edit on 3-5-2012 by antonia because: opps



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
But, back to the central point-If you go to one of these famine stricken countries you can buy food-If you can afford it. It's still around. Did you see any Rich people in those countries starving? No,poor people just can't afford to buy it because they have no money and so they die.


What I'm saying is that the prices are high when there is not enough to go around, is all.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Except there is enough to go around. That is the point many people are making. It's artificial scarcity. This might be one of those points where we just have to agree to disagree.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Except there is enough to go around. That is the point many people are making. It's artificial scarcity.


So, the food is piling up in undisclosed locations? Because if more is produced than is eaten, that's the only possible outcome.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Except there is enough to go around. That is the point many people are making. It's artificial scarcity.


So, the food is piling up in undisclosed locations? Because if more is produced than is eaten, that's the only possible outcome.


Oh those locations are disclosed-Try the landfill.

This is really about two different points of view in the end. I don't tend to view people starving as acceptable loss. I view more as a problem of allocation of resources. If you are a capitalist I concede this isn't going to be much of a conversation. (For the record I'm not a socialist or a capitalist)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
This is really about two different points of view in the end. I don't tend to view people starving as acceptable loss. I view more as a problem of allocation of resources. If you are a capitalist I concede this isn't going to be much of a conversation. (For the record I'm not a socialist or a capitalist)


I'm a socialist capitalist, if this helps


I understand that as a human, neither you or I or most people will never accept someone's death of hunger or lack of potable water as normal. But sometimes one needs to look reality in the eye and see that uncontrolled population growth will defeat all measures, no manner how well meant. It's in the math.

I don't agree with your "landfill solution", but let's again look at the numbers. Assume there are 300 million people in the US. Assume that they discard 50% of their food. Exact numbers don't matter, this is the ballpark.

Now, the discarded food will probably be enough to feed 500 million people in the third world. While this would be great, the "extra" population will reach 1 billion, then 2, then 3 and eventually there won't be enough resources for everyone. It's a matter of time. Besides, the water shortage will happen much, much sooner than that. And I'm not even talking about fuel.

So the only real solution is to curb population growth.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Oh I'm not arguing we don't need to do something about population. It's part of the large stress on the environment. I honestly don't think there is much that can be done about it though as there isn't a lot of political will to make that happen. The reality is these people will probably starve to death, die in a pandemic or die in wars over resources. The first world certainly isn't immune from these problems, but since out population growth has been much smaller compared to that of the third world I think we are in a better position to ride the storm out.
edit on 3-5-2012 by antonia because: opps



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join