Future's so bright gotta wear shades.

[thunderdownunder]

Re: Future's so bright gotta wear shades.

I had no idea it was dark satire - I always took it at face value.

A bit like California Bonds:rolleyes:

[Starving Steve]

Re: Future's so bright gotta wear shades.

I lived in California for 20 years. I speak only English. This was not my experience. English is supported as the dominate, and in some situations, only language. On the infrequent occassion I conducted business with a Spanish only person, we limped along on hand guestures, good humor and whatever English (usually at least a little) they knew. Any bi-lingual person could tell from looking at me a half block away that their best bet was to start any conversation with me in English. I don't recall anyone ever trying to strike up a conversation with me in Spanish and being surprised at my ignorance of their language.

Dear Ms. Cow:

The Republicans to-day, the Christian-right, and the American public school system to this day likes to pretend that English-only is still the way to success. If that were the case, the dollar would not be worth under $1100 to the ounce of gold, a level so low that it is barely par with the beaver buck now. Even the Mexican peso is gaining sharply against the greenback, English-only and all.

The last that I heard was that American schools now offer a science education that is 21st to the top by world standard and a math education that ranks 25th. So, I wouldn't even call American public schools, with their fixation on English-only and basic skills, ranking in the turd-world to-day.

The failure of the education system in America now underscores the message from the gold market and the peso market too.

[Glenn Black]

Re: Future's so bright gotta wear shades.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/op...brooks.html?hp

Last sentence of the column: "Surely a country with this much going for it is not going to wait around passively and let a rotten political culture drag it down."

I'm not so sure.

Without population control, there is no hope. Millions will be doomed, trapped in vast regions with infirtile soils, insufficient money to buy food, and can't walk out to go where there is food. Virtually all of Africa fits this description today. They would have to immediately drop to 0.5 babies per female to avoid the entrapment (long term stability is 1.5 babies per female).

US is far higher than this ideal. This is a good thing? One pie split between a family of 4 gives 2 meals with pie. What do you have with a family of eight? Nothing more than a taste.

Hasn't anybody heard of a Malthusian Disaster? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

[globaleconomicollaps]

Re: Future's so bright gotta wear shades.

Without population control, there is no hope. Millions will be doomed, trapped in vast regions with infertile soils, insufficient money to buy food, and can't walk out to go where there is food. Virtually all of Africa fits this description today. They would have to immediately drop to 0.5 babies per female to avoid the entrapment (long term stability is 1.5 babies per female).

US is far higher than this ideal. This is a good thing? One pie split between a family of 4 gives 2 meals with pie. What do you have with a family of eight? Nothing more than a taste.

Hasn't anybody heard of a Malthusian Disaster? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

Do you know Glenn that Malthus wrote that paper in 1798. Do I need to point out that he was wrong? Or do you think that being off by 200 years or so in your forecast is a reasonable margin of error? Maybe it would change your mind if I told you that he wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population as a political tract aimed at stopping a new poor law that was being voted on at the time. The booming success of pseudo-scientific right wing ideology has carried through right up to the present day.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Future's so bright gotta wear shades.

Without population control, there is no hope. Millions will be doomed, trapped in vast regions with infirtile soils, insufficient money to buy food, and can't walk out to go where there is food. Virtually all of Africa fits this description today. They would have to immediately drop to 0.5 babies per female to avoid the entrapment (long term stability is 1.5 babies per female).

US is far higher than this ideal. This is a good thing? One pie split between a family of 4 gives 2 meals with pie. What do you have with a family of eight? Nothing more than a taste.

Hasn't anybody heard of a Malthusian Disaster? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

While we have a Multhusian catastrophe unfolding throughout the world, especially in Islamic countries and especially in Africa, why is the standard of living now RISING in Mexico and RISING in Latin America? Meanwhile, the standard of living is falling in America, especially in the wake of English-only and "back-to-basics" in the U.S. public schools. Why is that?

As a teacher, I have my own answers, aside from the ongoing Multhusian wave of immigration northward. My answer is that English-only is not an important skill in the job market to-day, and the American public schools are out-of-touch with the signals coming from the job market, worldwide.

S.S.

[jtabeb]

Re: Future's so bright gotta wear shades.

Do you know Glenn that Malthus wrote that paper in 1798. Do I need to point out that he was wrong? Or do you think that being off by 200 years or so in your forecast is a reasonable margin of error? Maybe it would change your mind if I told you that he wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population as a political tract aimed at stopping a new poor law that was being voted on at the time. The booming success of pseudo-scientific right wing ideology has carried through right up to the present day.

Not wrong in concept, just wrong in execution (as in early).

Global resource constraints are very real. I think only an ignorant fool could argue otherwise.

Is the earth limitless? No, it's finite. Population growth needs to stabilize and not continue on an exponential trend.

Hopefully, we have progressed enough technologically, that we have some very effective tools to combat the effects of resource constraints.

The challenges will be many, but it's also an exciting time because so many ways of doing things will have to change. And that's speaking strictly from a resource constrained sense. There are chances now to fix things that no one would bother fixing before because things worked "good enough". That will not be the case going forward. EVERYTHING is going to have to change, because, we simply have no other rational choice. ( I don't consider depopulation a rational nor a moral choice, nor do I consider offing oneself a rational choice).

So that leaves adapt on overcome.

Lot of stuff to fix, best be think of how to do so.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Future's so bright gotta wear shades.

Is the earth limitless? No, it's finite. Population growth needs to stabilize and not continue on an exponential trend.

The limits which threaten us now are those of human understanding of such matters as how to conceptualize and organize human civilization.

I doubt that we're anywhere close to the human sustaining capacity of the planet, given optimal human organization (a given which is regrettably absurd.)

[Thailandnotes]

Re: Future's so bright gotta wear shades.

The limits which threaten us now are those of human understanding of such matters as how to conceptualize and organize human civilization.

What's your point? That if we get smarter, make breakthroughs, we can figure out to fit billions more on the planet?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Future's so bright gotta wear shades.

What's your point? That if we get smarter, make breakthroughs, we can figure out to fit billions more on the planet?

While, yes, we could fit more, that was not my point.

However you do well to ask what was my point, as I didn't actually state it . Let's see if I can remedy that deficiency.

I am not analyzing or responding to our problems as I would a classic resource shortage problem. I don't think of this like I would a population of deer being diminished by a drought.

Rather I seek to understand better the ways in which humans organize their civilization (and the fraud therein), the ways in which they understand what they do (and the errors therein) and the ways in which they present that understanding (and the lies therein.)

Such considerations are more valuable in understanding our situation than counting hectares or thermal units.