patrick.net

I should clarify: Growth doesn't have to be in terms of population. It can be economic or even cultural/artistic (though they are usually linked).

The US population could be stable or even slightly negative, so long as we are developing Luna Legumes, Martian Mushrooms, and improving the Isp of our nuclear engines, we're in great shape. The Earth's resources are fractional to that of the Solar System. Despite environmentalist propaganda, H20 isn't rare, it's common as dirt and the elements that make it are abundant. Hell the Lunar Surface is predominantly Oxygen by Mass.

I'm just about to order "Merchants of Despair" by Robert Zubrin, which is supposed to be a double barrel attack against anti-humanists.

Well we don't have the technology to survive space radiations or even low gravity. We're as good as stuck here.
As long as this is the case, we're facing the double threat of no growth on one side, and too much growth on the other. We're gonna hit one of these 2 walls this century, unless Elon Musk smokes enough pot to get us out or AI does it without killing us.
I don't know why global warming is seen as a bigger threat.
Maybe I'm wrong.

Heraclitusstudent says

Well we don't have the technology to survive space radiations or even low gravity. We're as good as stuck here.

The moon is easier than the ISS. There's some gravity, not just microgravity. We can also build a centrifuge, and pile regolith on top of housing. Water is also an amazing radiation shield as well as an insulator. We certainly know how to melt Ice. And there are massive lava tubes and perma-dark craters that provide more than enough protection.

On microgravity Space Stations, humans have survived space for well over a year. Scott Kelly was almost at consecutive 400 days, Polyakov spent something like 430+ consecutive days (and like 22 months total), and Padalka has 800+ (more than two years) non-consecutive days in space. The moon is only 3 days away, so rotating a crew every 5-6 months is very doable.

We haven't developed shielded modules yet because there has been no demand from it; hell, we're barely have our own indigenous human rated space craft again.

Great thing about the moon, it's entirely doable at our current budget. Less time having probes dick around asteroids, more time exploring the Poles. We barely "scratched the surface" of the Moon, and with only 3 seconds turnaround, unlike Martian Remote Vehicles, it's merely an annoying lag. So we can prepare all kinds of shit in advance of sending people, and in the beginning they'd only need to go for short periods.

There's also two more reasons we have to be on the moon: National Security and GSO. Much easier to refuel (LOX, thanks to Polar Ice in the many millions of tons) and repair and even build the "Dumb" sections of massive Satellites in Geosynchronous Orbit from the moon, rather than fighting the worst Gravity Well in the inner solar system.

I used to be a Mars direct guy, but we are going to have to solve Life support and test ISRU shit on the Moon before we can get there. Having refueling at the moon would greatly extend the range, capacity, and capabilities of any Mars mission. Even without spaceflight beyond Earth's influence, we'd have the ability to send out more robust, more capable probes to the Belt and Outer Solar System if we can refuel them on the moon first.

I live in Europe and I know what muslims and the war refugees from Syria and other countries have done to France and other European countries that accepted them.
Well, these countries have thought that the refugees will accept the jobs that their citizens are not meant to do, for a lower wage of course, but they forgot about religion.
Religion keeps destroying the human society even now in the XXI century.

Japan is peaceful and stable largely because it is populated by the supremely peaceful and submissive Japanese. In what other country of over 50 million population would there not be riot / looting after the kind of tsunami and nuclear meltdown that they had? Another crucial factor propping up Japan is its massive export economy (i.e. net tax base). The entire non-export economy in Japan is a giant black hole: the perceived stability is purchased at the cost of hardly ever laying off any worker and keeping zombie companies alive across the entire domestic economy. Prosperity left Japan 20+ years ago. People are not rioting because they know their jobs have negative value (outside the export sector); everyone is dependent on social approval and government approval to make a living in the make-belief Japanese economy (outside the export sector), while the entire economy is kept going by the large export sector. That's why they have witnessed a massive concentration of population into Tokyo (government hand-outs to connected corporations), youths have been emigrating, and Japanese men have the highest suicide rate among the Group of 7 nations (despite not having guns, which usually account for a large percentage of successful suicides in other countries because suicide by gun is far less painful and far more decisive than just about any other method of suicide).

The fundamental reason why growing population is necessary for economic growth is not GDP growth per se, but the nature of division of labor: as technology progresses: specialization becomes more detailed and finer. Contrary to the usual nonsense about technologies eliminating jobs, they actually create more jobs than they eliminate: e.g. the replacement of horse cabs by automobiles taxis eliminated numerous jobs (horse breeders, ferriers, and etc.) but enabled far more jobs brought on by cheaper local transportation cost.

Regional wars in the rest of the world and resulting refugees have historically benefited the US: e.g. the Bulkan Wars before WWI and the Greek-Turkish War after WWI brought the massive number of Greeks to the US, the Vietnam War brought massive numbers of Vietnamese and Cambodians to the US. They all integrated and provided relatively cheap labor that benefited new (and old) businesses as well as average Americans already living in the US.

The difference this time with Middle Eastern immigrants is: the proliferation of welfare system and identity politics is removing the incentive to integrate and preventing them from integrating; that is creating a welfare dependent population instead of cheap labor that can benefit corporations and the average American population in general. Likewise for the recent immigration from south of the border. That is the economic aspect.

The spiritual aspect of the problem is that the collapse of religion in the West has created a vacuum for massive expansion of Islam. Society can not survive without religion (communism and nationalism are religions too, both with dire economic consequences on trade and division of labor). Why? think this way: in Detroit and large parts of Chicago, only 15% of of homicide cases are solved. That is a statistical fact. How can a society keep functioning if the population lose the religious (that which is believed but not proven) faith in murderers getting caught instead of getting away with it 85% of the time? On top of that, traditional religions like Christianity (and Islam) suppress women's hypergamy and induce the local population to multiply and provide the labor force that is necessary for growing specialization in the economy.

Economic prosperity is a dynamic concept: improvement and betterment. People have expectations based on their prior/existing experience. Failing to meet those expectations results in depression.

As much as we admire the prosperity of the 1950's, if any of us is transported by a time machine back to the1950's, we'd find the life miserable: no internet, no cell phones, not even color TV! Car crashes could easily kill you!

Reality says

if any of us is transported by a time machine back to the1950's, we'd find the life miserable: no internet, no cell phones, not even color TV! Car crashes could easily kill you!

No we wouldn't because we don't miss what we've never had. We don't miss today the marvels people may have 50 years from now. People in their 50's in the 50's, as my parents were, had seen nothing but a steady line of improvement their entire lives. New houses built in the 1950's with their built-ins and central heat and air are still usable today with proper maintenance. Compared to what had existed even just ten years earlier was so far advanced as to not be comparable. Comparing the 50's home to one 50 years earlier, 1905, the same difference between the 60's and today, with its wood stove, gas lighting or very rudimentary electric lighting, no radio or TV, probably no telephone, no refrigeration for food, limited sanitary conditions was like comparing life in the 50's to the 19th century. That generation saw more progress than any in human history. The Internet would be roughly equivalent to radio (1920) for my parents' generation and TV (1946) for the World War II generation.

P N Dr Lo R says

Reality says

if any of us is transported by a time machine back to the1950's, we'd find the life miserable: no internet, no cell phones, not even color TV! Car crashes could easily kill you!

No we wouldn't because we don't miss what we've never had. We don't miss today the marvels people may have 50 years from now.

Thanks for making my exact point: prosperity is a dynamic concept relating to improvement (reality exceeding one's expectations), not a static absolute reality.

Due to that reason, historically immigrants with low living standard expectations and willing to work hard for a relative pittance in pay tended to benefit their new host country. Whereas today's Middle East immigrants looking forward to receiving welfare while not "taking any jobs" from the native population are actually far worse! What a lot of people don't understand is that: willing to do a job for less actually creates jobs (just like technology, because the money consumers save can be spent on new real economic demand) whereas welfare that has to be paid by taxes actually cost far more jobs!

curious2 says

Of course, if you were in Senegal, you could be silenced from claiming that Christianity is just as good as Islam. Would that make you believe in the superiority of Islam?

Out of that entire post, this is the only point that you seem to have against my original post that Senegal gives us a view into how Islam doesn't automatically mean radicalism. And it's wrong. You don't understand the culture there, obviously, or you would never make such blanket, racist statements.

I'm not a Muslim apologist by any means, but I will react against the bullshit of you and others who seek to label an entire populace without ever knowing a Muslim yourself. You've never been to Senegal, and you don't know dick about Islam except that you hate it. If I don't bow to your brown fear I think independent, rational people will understand.

And it doesn't matter if it's McCarthyism, Terrorism, The War on Us, or Global Warming. You fear-mongers are all the same. Extreme in your view, without the slightest pause to understand your subject matter other than to hate and fear it, and everyone who doesn't cow-tow to your racist, elitist, superfluous bullshit.

The fact that you try to pull in completely unrelated arguments from other threads, shows you don't have shit. You wanna cry about my whipping your ass over your bulldog fallacies, do it in the right thread, bitch.

P N Dr Lo R says

No we wouldn't because we don't miss what we've never had. We don't miss today the marvels people may have 50 years from now. People in their 50's in the 50's, as my parents were, had seen nothing but a steady line of improvement their entire lives. New houses built in the 1950's with their built-ins and central heat and air are still usable today with proper maintenance. Compared to what had existed even just ten years earlier was so far advanced as to not be comparable. Comparing the 50's home to one 50 years earlier, 1905, the same difference between the 60's and today, with its wood stove, gas lighting or very rudimentary electric lighting, no radio or TV, probably no telephone, no refrigeration for food, limited sanitary conditions was like comparing life in the 50's to the 19th century. That generation saw more progress than any in human history. The Internet would be roughly equivalent to radio (1920...

Reality says

Due to that reason, historically immigrants with low living standard expectations and willing to work hard for a relative pittance in pay tended to benefit their new host country. Whereas today's Middle East immigrants looking forward to receiving welfare while not "taking any jobs" from the native population are actually far worse! What a lot of people don't understand is that: willing to do a job for less actually creates jobs (just like technology, because the money consumers save can be spent on new real economic demand) whereas welfare that has to be paid by taxes actually cost far more jobs!

Great points here.

The period 1950-1970s was the greatest explosion in living standards in human history.

In brief response to comments 42&43 about Islam and Senegal: Senegal prohibits blasphemy nationwide, as per Sharia, as per Islam. As in most countries that have Muslim majorities, most Muslims in Senegal demand Sharia, as per Islam. The population of Senegal exceeds 15 million, so no one person could ever meet a representative sample. Comments here show much of what "NuttBoxer" says about Islam is demonstrably wrong. When proven wrong, a willfully ignorant person (for example one who refuses to learn the difference between anecdotes and statistics), gets angry and tries to retaliate instead of learning. Examples include making false allegations including especially racism, and using profanity and name-calling:

NuttBoxer says

curious2 says

Of course, if you were in Senegal, you could be silenced from claiming that Christianity is just as good as Islam. Would that make you believe in the superiority of Islam?

Out of that entire post, this is the only point that you seem to have against my original post that Senegal gives us a view into how Islam doesn't automatically mean radicalism. And it's wrong. You don't understand the culture there, obviously, or you would never make such blanket, racist statements.

I'm not a Muslim apologist by any means, but I will react against the bullshit of you and others who seek to label an entire populace without ever knowing a Muslim yourself. You've never been to Senegal, and you don't know dick about Islam except that you hate it. If I don't bow to your brown fear I think independent, rational people will understand.

And it doesn't matter if it's McCarthyism, Terrorism, The War on Us, or Global Warming. You fear-mongers are all the same. Extreme in your view, without the slightest pause to understand your subject matter other than to hate and fear it, and everyone who doesn't cow-tow to your racist, elitist, superfluous bullshit.

NuttBoxer says

The fact that you try to pull in completely unrelated arguments from other threads, shows you don't have shit. You wanna cry about my whipping your ass over your bulldog fallacies, do it in the right thread, bitch.