Why the Nazis actually won...

[bobevenson]

Sorry, free-market capitalism is the only long-term answer for the world, and even China is beginning to recognize this.

[mtmynd1]

Sorry, free-market capitalism is the only long-term answer for the world, and even China is beginning to recognize this.

Free-market capitalism is completely based upon buying and selling, with the highest profits being the sole intent of that system. Our earthly resources are limited due to varying circumstances, our production methods are increasingly being operated by automatons thereby leaving hu'man labor without a job, our food supplies are increasingly in the hands of Agri-business who are shamelessly fouling our food supplies for profitable gain for a few (re: Monsanto), Big Pharma has a tight reign on the products that we are so addicted to in order to function longer and more difficult working conditions in order to sustain the capitalist free-market system.

We are quickly approaching a Corporate Controlled world that finds itself more powerful than any government which leaves government in a situation that bows to the needs and wants of Corporate Power built upon the backs of said "Free Market System"... also leaving the world's vital resources in the hands of the largest Corporate powers that be.

Can this earth continue being raped and poisoned, ravished and pilfered in order to sustain our current capitalist free-market system without earth growing weaker and more sickly in it's attempt to continue providing for our reckless behaviors for profit? The answer, of course, is NO! it is unsustainable if we continue on this self-destructive path.

[bobevenson]

Sorry, free-market capitalism is the only long-term answer for the world, and even China is beginning to recognize this.

Free-market capitalism is completely based upon buying and selling, with the highest profits being the sole intent of that system. Our earthly resources are limited due to varying circumstances, our production methods are increasingly being operated by automatons thereby leaving hu'man labor without a job, our food supplies are increasingly in the hands of Agri-business who are shamelessly fouling our food supplies for profitable gain for a few (re: Monsanto), Big Pharma has a tight reign on the products that we are so addicted to in order to function longer and more difficult working conditions in order to sustain the capitalist free-market system.

We are quickly approaching a Corporate Controlled world that finds itself more powerful than any government which leaves government in a situation that bows to the needs and wants of Corporate Power built upon the backs of said "Free Market System"... also leaving the world's vital resources in the hands of the largest Corporate powers that be.

Can this earth continue being raped and poisoned, ravished and pilfered in order to sustain our current capitalist free-market system without earth growing weaker and more sickly in it's attempt to continue providing for our reckless behaviors for profit? The answer, of course, is NO! it is unsustainable if we continue on this self-destructive path.

I'm sorry, Thomas Malthus was proven wrong a couple hundred years ago, so I think it's time to jump off his bandwagon.

[mtmynd1]

I'm sorry, Thomas Malthus was proven wrong a couple hundred years ago, so I think it's time to jump off his bandwagon.

Referring to a man who wrote his ideas some 215 years ago as proof of what I speak of is wrong indicates to me your insistence upon holding up your own values of which we are speaking is deliberately misleading to pad your own ego. Wake up bobevenson, we are currently living in the 21st Century, and the times demand inventiveness and a willingness to change with these new times.

According to Wikipedia (World Population) is this paragraph:

It is estimated that the world population reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It was another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to reach three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, according to the United States Census Bureau, seven billion in March 2012.[1] The United Nations, however, estimated that the world population reached seven billion in October 2011.

During the times of Tom Malthus, as this shows, the world population was a mere ONE BILLION people, a far cry from today's 7.1 BILLION which I state is unsustainable for the earth to not only feed hu'manity but add to that each and every other life form from the tiniest fist to the largest known mammal and every insect known and unknown. All life needs food and water to survive. The earth in it's efforts to do so is challenged by the forces of Nature such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts and wild fires that go a long way to retarding the earth's ability to feed all life, for Nature is not in existence to only feed hu'manity (altho there are those who would love to debate that!).

I'd also add that Corporatism is incapable of providing the needs of hu'manity on such an enormous scale that our world population requires, but only enough for those who are able to afford financially, being Corporatism is not in the business of handing out anything for free or at best, cost. The demand of profitability overwhelms man's simple needs of food, shelter and work (preferably on their own spot of sustainable land).

[bobevenson]

Name me a single doomsday prediction by any of these idiots that has ever come to past. The following article by Walter Williams is more to the point:

Understanding Libs and Progressives
By Economist Walter Williams

In order to understand the liberal and progressive agenda, one must know something about their world vision and values. Let's examine some of the evidence.

Why the 1970s struggle to ban DDT? Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a 1990 biographical essay: "My own doubts came when DDT was introduced for civilian use. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."

Dr. Charles Wurster, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was once asked whether he thought a ban on DDT would result in the use of more dangerous chemicals and more malaria cases in Sri Lanka. He replied: "Probably. So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and (malaria) is as good a way as any."

According to "Earthbound," a collection of essays on environmental ethics, William Aiken said: "Massive human diebacks would be good. It is our duty to cause them. It is our species' duty, relative to the whole, to eliminate 90 percent of our numbers."

Former National Park Service research biologist David Graber opined, "Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. ... We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. ... Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

Speaking of viruses, Prince Philip -- Duke of Edinburgh and patron of the World Wildlife Fund -- said, "If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." The late Jacques Cousteau told The UNESCO Courier: "One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."

That represents the values of some progressives, but what about their predictions? In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome to warn that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987, and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. It turns out that each of these resources is more plentiful today. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book, "The Doomsday Book," said that Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and that "by 2000 (Americans) will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environment Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000." Harvard University Nobel laureate biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." Former Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, warned, in Look magazine (1970), that by 1995, "somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." In 1974, the U.S. Geological Survey said the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, is that there's more than a 110-year supply.

In 1986, Lester Brown, who had been predicting global starvation for 40 years, received a MacArthur Foundation "genius" award, along with a stipend. The foundation also gave Dr. Paul Ehrlich, who predicted millions of Americans would die of starvation, the "genius" award in 1990. Note that these $300,000 to $400,000 awards were granted well after enough time had passed to demonstrate that Brown and Ehrlich were insanely wrong.

Just think: Congress listens to people like these and formulates public policy on their dire predictions that we're running out of something.

[mtmynd1]

Excellent, bobevenson... you cut and paste an article by an economist currently employed at George Mason University. This was after bringing up Tom Malthus over 215 years ago as a logical refutation of something I wrote.

Where is any comment from your own head regarding anything that I had written? Methinks you get your rocks off simply finding quotes from anyone that you favor... while quietly disregarding your own ability to put 2+2 together in a lucid manner without using slam words, as if they would enhance your point.

[bobevenson]

Excellent, bobevenson... you cut and paste an article by an economist currently employed at George Mason University. This was after bringing up Tom Malthus over 215 years ago as a logical refutation of something I wrote.

Where is any comment from your own head regarding anything that I had written? Methinks you get your rocks off simply finding quotes from anyone that you favor... while quietly disregarding your own ability to put 2+2 together in a lucid manner without using slam words, as if they would enhance your point.

Let me ask you a question, my friend, can you refute anything in Walter Williams' article? I thought not.

[Ginkgo]

Name me a single doomsday prediction by any of these idiots that has ever come to past. The following article by Walter Williams is more to the point:

Understanding Libs and Progressives
By Economist Walter Williams

In order to understand the liberal and progressive agenda, one must know something about their world vision and values. Let's examine some of the evidence.

Why the 1970s struggle to ban DDT? Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome, wrote in a 1990 biographical essay: "My own doubts came when DDT was introduced for civilian use. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria, but at the same time the birth rate had doubled. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."

Dr. Charles Wurster, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was once asked whether he thought a ban on DDT would result in the use of more dangerous chemicals and more malaria cases in Sri Lanka. He replied: "Probably. So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and (malaria) is as good a way as any."

According to "Earthbound," a collection of essays on environmental ethics, William Aiken said: "Massive human diebacks would be good. It is our duty to cause them. It is our species' duty, relative to the whole, to eliminate 90 percent of our numbers."

Former National Park Service research biologist David Graber opined, "Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. ... We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. ... Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

Speaking of viruses, Prince Philip -- Duke of Edinburgh and patron of the World Wildlife Fund -- said, "If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." The late Jacques Cousteau told The UNESCO Courier: "One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say. In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it."

That represents the values of some progressives, but what about their predictions? In 1972, a report was written for the Club of Rome to warn that the world would run out of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987, and petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992. It turns out that each of these resources is more plentiful today. Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book, "The Doomsday Book," said that Americans were using 50 percent of the world's resources and that "by 2000 (Americans) will, if permitted, be using all of them." In 1975, the Environment Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000." Harvard University Nobel laureate biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." Former Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, warned, in Look magazine (1970), that by 1995, "somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." In 1974, the U.S. Geological Survey said the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas. The fact of the matter, according to the American Gas Association, is that there's more than a 110-year supply.

In 1986, Lester Brown, who had been predicting global starvation for 40 years, received a MacArthur Foundation "genius" award, along with a stipend. The foundation also gave Dr. Paul Ehrlich, who predicted millions of Americans would die of starvation, the "genius" award in 1990. Note that these $300,000 to $400,000 awards were granted well after enough time had passed to demonstrate that Brown and Ehrlich were insanely wrong.

Just think: Congress listens to people like these and formulates public policy on their dire predictions that we're running out of something.

What I see here is Williams using a standard poisoning the well approach in the first five paragraphs before he introduces:

"That represents the values of some progressives,but what about their predictions?

It does not hold that if one expresses values one necessarily makes predictions.

I can see two obvious fallacies in Williams' statement even before we begin.

[bobevenson]

What I see here is Williams using a standard poisoning the well approach in the first five paragraphs before he introduces:

"That represents the values of some progressives,but what about their predictions?

It does not hold that if one expresses values one necessarily makes predictions.

I can see two obvious fallacies in Williams' statement even before we begin.

The point Williams is making is that left-wing liberal environmentalists have a strange outlook on humanity, and their Chicken Little "The sky is falling!" mentality deserves the utter contempt of anybody with even an ounce of intelligence.

[mtmynd1]

The point Williams is making is that left-wing liberal environmentalists have a strange outlook on humanity, and their Chicken Little "The sky is falling down" mentality deserves the utter contempt of anybody with even an ounce of intelligence.

So we have "left-wing liberal environmentalism", "libertarian environmentalism" and "right-wing conservative environmentalism" as choices to be made if one prefers one over the others... as long as it does not offend the "right wing" who will lash out and condemn anything that does not tow their way of thinking.

What does your constipated conservative attitude bring to the table of ideas other than insults and a "putting on the brakes" for concerns which are non-existent? Listen to any Conservative and you'll hear fear mongering, limitations on freedoms other than their own, negating anything that deals with collective hu'manity which is wrongly considered a Marxist ideal and any other foolishness that is without any merit.

[bobevenson]

If Williams made any factual errors, please let me know.

[Ginkgo]

What I see here is Williams using a standard poisoning the well approach in the first five paragraphs before he introduces:

"That represents the values of some progressives,but what about their predictions?

It does not hold that if one expresses values one necessarily makes predictions.

I can see two obvious fallacies in Williams' statement even before we begin.

The point Williams is making is that left-wing liberal environmentalists have a strange outlook on humanity, and their Chicken Little "The sky is falling!" mentality deserves the utter contempt of anybody with even an ounce of intelligence.

Yes, I think his conclusion is straight forward. However, my concern is how he arrives at this conclusion. He is using a number of fallacies to get there. On this basis his premises would be invalid.

Another example would be the names of individuals he gives us in the first instance to demonstrate "the values" In the second instance he gives us a completely different list to names to demonstrate "their predictions". This is a non sequitur.

[bobevenson]

What I see here is Williams using a standard poisoning the well approach in the first five paragraphs before he introduces:

"That represents the values of some progressives,but what about their predictions?

It does not hold that if one expresses values one necessarily makes predictions.

I can see two obvious fallacies in Williams' statement even before we begin.

The point Williams is making is that left-wing liberal environmentalists have a strange outlook on humanity, and their Chicken Little "The sky is falling!" mentality deserves the utter contempt of anybody with even an ounce of intelligence.

Yes, I think his conclusion is straight forward. However, my concern is how he arrives at this conclusion. He is using a number of fallacies to get there. On this basis his premises would be invalid.

Another example would be the names of individuals he gives us in the first instance to demonstrate "the values" In the second instance he gives us a completely different list to names to demonstrate "their predictions". This is a non sequitur.

Not at all. Williams shows the basic inhumanity of left-wing environmentalists by quoting key figures who wish there were a plague to kill off what they consider to be too many people on the planet who are using up all the Earth's resources. He then shows how wrong these doomsayers have been, and how stupid the rest of us are for taking them seriously.

[Ginkgo]

"Not at all". In what way not at all?

Bob, all you are doing in this post is denying the antecedent in order to justify the conclusion. This is a related fallacy to the types explored by Williams.

[bobevenson]

Williams first gives you a look at the mindset of environmentalists, then he gives you a look at some of their ridiculous predictions. What's your problem???