It's just not going to happen that way.

You're using Newtonian models of endless expansion here and they don't work anymore, if they ever did, except in small localized cases. We barely know how nature functions and yet we're releasing genetically engineered plants and organisms into our environment. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing when it's based on profit only. We're not using the advances made by Quantum physics which should have warned us what we were getting into, environmentally, economically and socially.

There's no way the human population will increase; not with the degradation of the environment,the poisoning of the rivers and oceans, the death of the land and the increasing ferocity of the weather. Wimmin's and other female animal's fertility will drop off precipitously, even in "developing countries".

It really IS the end times for the mammalian population of the earth. We had our chance in the 60's and 70's with the possibility of reining in the patriarchy/capitalism but, I swear, the Christains/capitalists and TPTB would rather kill the earth for another drop of oil than allow wimmin equal rights and say over human destiny. And that really was the only way to turn this around in time.

Sorry for the pessimism in that spirit, I say "Cha lalalala live for today"

We're not going to make 2050

AS LONG AS i'M HERE....

just a quick thought on the state of the deteriorating social safety nets, etc. For all the jive I hear about the charity of the wealthy and for that matter even the charity of folks like me. I am most curious as to why the $1200 I give a year to the poor is worht less on my tax deduction then somone making twice as much as me? Isn't $1200 the same either way? Talk about the working class getting the shaft.

But its even deepe then that. Think about the sheer wealth of all the worlds churches combined and if its true that the catholic church has $$$enough to supposedly feed a nation then I say its high frikin' time they start showing some charity on a mass scale or loose the tax exempt status.

...the song goes somthin' like

Tax the churches

tax the mosques

tax the synagougues

tax 'em all

they kicked me out oh yes they did

for to question sunday and then come monday

they could not recall the word of the day before

I think we will have to do away with food as we now know it & move to something like a 'nutrient pill' that we take 1-3 times a day to give us our energy & nutrients. But the overpopulation problem may be very overstated as I have read a study that said we could fit everyone in th USA in France & they would have about 920 ft of standing room each. Now that may or may not be true but there are literally millions of unpopulated square miles on the planet.

What we need is a Hitleresque type figure in power that doesn't like repubes & then we could atleast start working towards some sort of solution to the problem once we got rid of them all! Now! Now! I am only kidding!

All those people could either lead to a police state or could be a good catalyst for a great revolution to tear down the controlling power structures all over the world?

I thought I saw Roger Ailes hand up Scott Walker's ( we call Scott 'Skippy' in these parts) back over the weekend. Naw, must be David Koch's or Rupert Murdoch's.

i hope it wont be another asteriod belt by 2050

New Kicks, Le Tigre

Favorite anti-war song:

Bomb the World (Michael Franti & Spearhead)

"...we can bomb the world to pieces, but we can't bomb it into peace."

"POWER TO THE PEACEFUL"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICL-4Onk0PA

I heard you trying to find out facts of the "deficit" and I found this information I thought I would pass along...

In a memo issued by the Legislative Fiscal Bureau on January 31, 2011 (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb/Misc/2011_01_31Vos&Darling.pdf), it is indicated that WI will end the year with a general gross fund balance of $121.4 million and a net balance of $56.4 million. It was only after Walker came into office that the deficit was created.

-Amy

The Great Mandella (The Wheel of Life) by Peter, Paul and Mary - very poignant song about father and son discussion on going to war.

Tom, I’m afraid that there is bigger picture in Wisconsin involved here other than the obvious in the attack on unions and basic human rights’, you are correct in that there is a hidden agenda for the big corporations which require our continued participation in the illegal global trade environment, known as the WTO. We the people,’ not big business’ cannot compete with countries that illegally lower their value of currency, unfair trade in balance, and the unfair tax incentive that is awarded to businesses outsourcing our manufacturing base. Big business seems to be content with the destruction of the middle as long as it is not at their expense. We now find our Democratic President and his advisors ‘ who seem to favor business in past negotiation efforts’ in the middle having decide which road to take, one being to address the illegal actions by several member countries of the WTO and enforcing the current rules that are already on the books plus addressing the unfair tax and trade imbalance or and I say or because it seems to be going in another direction, which is continued involvement with the countries that are illegally operating within the WTO and turn the attention inward toward the American working class meaning lowering the wages of the middle class that have been all but gutted to be able to compete with the 3rd world countries. It starts with allowing member countries into the WTO that operate illegally to benefit not only their country but the large business exec’s that negotiated the deal at the expense of our own working class. Talk about no regulation or oversight that has to be the ultimate in treason

I would like to go on the air to speak about this.

Vince

REPUBLICANS ARE SOCIAL DARWINISTS -- they believe the government should help the rich live long and prosper! THE government should let the rich exploit the working classes until they die from hard work and exhaustion!! AND should let the poor die off from starvation and disease because they will never amount to anything and are a drain on society!!!

""Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and later received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection.

According to Darwin's evolutionary theory, nature is a "kill-or-be-killed" system. Those that cannot keep up are either left behind or cut off. The strong survive, and those best suited to survival will out-live the weak.

The seeds of Social Darwinism were actually planted before the publication of Darwin's "The Origin of Species"(though of course the name didn't originate until after). Herbert Spencer, the father of Social Darwinism as an ethical theory, was thinking in terms of elitist, "might makes right" sorts of views long before Darwin published his theory. The concept of adaptation allowed Spencer to claim that the rich and powerful were better adapted to the social and economic climate of the time, and the concept of natural selection allowed him to argue that it was natural, normal, and proper for the strong to thrive at the expense of the weak. Whether it be humans, races, or the state, Spencer's thoughts were clear: "If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they die." In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the theory of "the strong survive," even in human issues.It is the application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. According to Social Darwinism, those with economic, physical, and technological strength flourish and those without are destined for extinction. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them.

Social Darwinism was used to justify numerous exploits which we classify as of dubious moral value today. Colonialism was seen as natural and inevitable; people saw natives as being weaker and more unfit to survive, and therefore felt justified in seizing land and resources. Finally, it gave the ethical nod to brutal colonial governments who used oppressive tactics against their subjects.

At its worst, the implications of Social Darwinism were used as scientific justification for the Holocaust. The Nazis claimed that the murder of Jews in World War II was an example of cleaning out inferior genetics. This view embraced the assumption that the strong were superior, and thus ordained to prevail. Social Darwinism applied to military action as well; the argument went that the strongest military would win, and would therefore be the most fit. Casualties on the losing side, of course, were written off as the natural result of their unfit status. Thus, if two countries were to make war on each other, the victor was biologically superior to the loser. It was therefore right and proper for that victor to subjugate or even eliminate the inferior opponent. Not only was survival of the fittest natural, but it was also morally correct. Indeed, some extreme Social Darwinists argued that it was morally incorrect to assist those weaker than oneself, since that would be promoting the survival and possible reproduction of someone who was fundamentally unfit.

A second way pseudo-evolutionary concepts were applied to human interaction was in the development of cut-throat capitalism in the United States. Here the ideology was that the cream naturally rose to the top; the successful made a lot of money simply because they were superior to the unsuccessful. Those who found themselves in poverty were poor because they were intrinsically inferior. It provided a justification for the more exploitative forms of capitalism in which workers were paid sometimes pennies a day for long hours of backbreaking labor. Social Darwinism also justified big business' refusal to acknowledge labor unions and similar organizations, and implied that the rich need not donate money to the poor or less fortunate, since such people were less fit anyway. This political philosophy resisted suggestions like universal education, welfare, minimum wage; in short, anything which interfered with the business of the "superior" ascending to the top of the heap and squashing the unfit beneath their expensive shoes.""

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh4.shtml