I want an untouched view from my mountain. No more people.
Democrats have left moderate voters behind
- Thread starter JamieDimonsBalls
- Start date
Not sure what you’re asking here.
Are you arguing for depopulation or maintaining current numbers? I’m against depopulation. As for the benefits of more people, more innovation is a major reason. Another reason is the alternative is very likely much worse, depopulation. For example, I’d much rather have 25 billion people on the planet in the year 2100 than 2 billion. I don’t think population trends are something governments can just turn off or on. Ideally, we would have a population rate of 2.1 to 2.5, but life isn’t ideal.
Also, you can’t have a debt based monetary system with depopulation. It will cause all sorts of societal issues. As Crazy pointed out above, someone needs to pay for his SS. The perfect example is Europe. They’re no longer growing enough through national birth rates or innovation, so they’re resorting to large immigration to bridge the gap. The problem is the immigrants aren’t net producers on average and it’s only going to compound the financial issues and add new societal issues. Unfortunately, governments are self serving and it’s the path they’ll choose. Biden’s administration already did it the past 4 years.
For the record, yes, Bitcoin does fix most of these issues, because it’s the best f#cking money ever invented by humans😁
In a resource-scarce environment - which is real life - there is no moral or ethical argument for a massive population boost. There is no argument for mass global population needing to increase as we get nothing for it except a faster drain on the scarce resources.
Capital markets won’t matter if WW3 breaks out over resources which it will assuredly do in a 25B population scenario.
Bitcoin doesn’t solve a food and water resource limitation. You’re tilting at windmills. The world is just fine somewhere between 4 and 8B people. If we can get low-income countries to reduce their bit to rate we approach a more optimal solution.
There is a moral argument for it: what is good is what increases human happiness. If human happiness=# of happiness utiles in the aggregate, then more people=more happiness=more good.
The Repugnant Conclusion
Abstract. Is it better if more people live? This chapter examines the effects of population growth on existing people, overpopulation, whether a decline in
academic.oup.com
Good decision. That’s how you get tentacle porn.
This conjecture on your part. You have no idea how much human life the world can sustain. It may be 8 billion, 25 billion, or 100 billion. Also, it seems you’re arguing more for maintaining population (I’m fine with by the way).
I was trying to help your argument out with mentioning Bitcoin. If we have depopulation the financial system will collapse on it's self with debt.
Last edited:
I strongly doubt an argument that fetuses are entitled to the protections of the 14th amendment will ever be accepted by the courts.
No less than Antonin Scalia publicly and explicitly scoffed at the idea.
Best case scenario on the current court is that it gets Thomas and Scalia. But I’m even skeptical of that.
The Roberts Court sent abortion to the states and I suspect they intend for it to remain there.
Fair point.
But, I have to say, I’ve always wondered what the practical upshot of that clause is. Has it ever been cited as playing an operative role in the interpretation and application of the law?
Which powers do we recognize as being reserved by “the people” and how do we exercise them?
I don't think it's ever been used, and I'm not sure it's been discussed much. I did read an article from several years ago which tried to make the case that it implied certain powers were kept from both the states and the feds, and delegated only to the people themselves, but that, ironically, under our system of government, the best way for the people to exercise those powers would be through the House of Representatives. That seems logically incoherent to me.
However, it seems to me that we can never dismiss a clause of the Constitution as superfluous. If, therefore, we accept that the the 10th Amendment explicitly keeps non-delegated powers out of the hands of the feds, then we also must accept that it also explicitly places some of those powers with the people, rather than the states, and that this distinction, whatever it actually is, must in some way be meaningful.
