Crash Course: Chapter 5 – Growth vs. Prosperity by Chris Martenson
Thе boards 5 (Growth Vs. Prosperity): Divergent tο whаt wе′ve grown used tο, growth іѕ nοt thе same thing аѕ prosperity. In fact, growth аnd prosperity аrе both dependent οn thе same thing: surplus. Dr. Martenson сlаrіfіеѕ hοw wе′ve bееn conditioned tο want, аnd tο take, both growth аnd prosperity; bυt, wе аrе approaching thе limits οf ουr physical, finite, earth – thе amount οf surplus іѕ steadily declining.
http://www.chrismartenson.com
Duration : 0:3:41
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
It is known but not …
It is known but not told, that crude oil does not require dinosaurs & millions of years to produce. Neither does coal. Man can produce both of these resources in small time. Despite what the Gaia worshiping, Al Gore may lie to you, coal is not causing global warming. They ignore the possibility that a gigantically huge ball of fire in the sky, called the sun, can be what’s causing warming. Instead they say that the man caused, less than 1% of all CO2 is what’s doing it.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
@jameshollister You …
@jameshollister You prefer more and more ignorant people casing pain, death and more ignorance? Blanket statements such as yours without proposing an alternative are not helpful!
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
Have you ever flown …
Have you ever flown over remote parts of the United States, let alone other parts of our planet? We are not even close to overpopulating planet Earth, nor are we close to using the resources it provides for us. Stop believing the hype, for goodness sake. Believe me, my family and I will continue to have large families, regardless of your dooms day theories. Now go get your wife pregnant, populate mother Earth, delight in your family and stop worrying. Go get’em huge fella.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
Some of that “stuff …
Some of that “stuff” is de rigueur for meeting the vital needs of the “existing”. “stuff” like food, water, and access to health care. If we choose an additional family/population limb over meeting the needs of the existing family/population members then we choose to reduce the quality life of those people, eventually to the amount of starvation and death. Choosing to have one more child QUICKLY becomes the choice to reduce the health & quality of life of our family & children around the world.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
I really don’t …
I really don’t reflect that most people crosswise the globe make a choice between another child and more stuff. Maybe some families in the US but certainly not everywhere.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
I can assure you, …
I can assure you, I’ll stay no longer than I have to, but I’ll return with Jesus Christ and reign and rule on this earth. So, its people like yourself who will only be here briefly, like a puff of smoke
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
Hopefully people …
Hopefully people like you are no longer going to be around on this earth soon.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
WIthout a biblical …
WIthout a biblical perspective to keep us ashore anything can start to signal rational. The bible states that this world has always been temporal and therefor its purpose and usefulness is temporal as well as its resources. The truth of the matter is that the earths purpose is coming to a conclusion on Gods timetable and a new heaven and earth will be made. Enviromentalists reflect the world is eternal and therefor must be preserved for generations to come, therefor the panic
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
Here we go. …
Here we go. Population control. One more child, or more ‘stuff’ for the existing members of the family? Greed says more ‘stuff’ for the existing. Our families DO prosper when we grow! Do I value ‘stuff’ more than my family members? Of course not.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
This is …
This is starting to signal like Eugenics… But the concept is fascinating anyway
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
I’m not sure what a …
I’m not sure what a “exact world” would look like. It is tempting to say that, in a exact world, there would be no economic resources, with every conceivable initially-order excellent available in abundance.
But, man’s defining quality – reason – developed as a means for survival in a world of scarce resources. Therefore, if there were to be limitless resources available, then there likely would not be sentient beings there to delight in them.
What relevance do these highly academic questions have?
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
Indeed
Indeed
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
You could also say …
You could also say birth rate is inversely proportional to amount of intelligence.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
PanzerDivisionBOM:
…
PanzerDivisionBOM:
Hypothetically, that may be right, but what happens when Earth runs out of natural resources? Does population growth start to become a problem then in your exact world?
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
This is a classic …
This is a classic biased fallacy, most often related to immigration. A statist generally presumes that immigrants are worthless – that they will consume without producing. If this is right, then it is right only because someone is forcefully transferring resources from productive individuals to destructive individuals. Go figure. : )
Given uninhibited peaceful human interaction, population growth is not a problem. The new people will find some way to produce at least as much as they consume.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
Ok buddy
we’ll … 
we’ll see in a few years.
Ok buddy
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
i dont know …
i dont know why you reflect he has contempt. can you clarify for me?
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
lol, hmmm …
lol, hmmm fascinating. I don’t know only stupid people are having babys? hah
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
he could also say …
he could also say growth is indirectly propotional to prosperity
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
Patronizing and …
Patronizing and stupid. Something dumbed down this far signifies a cynical contempt for his audience.
And I really agree with him on the issues (that we’re facing enormous crises regarding energy and the background etc.)
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
Ah…paranoid …
Ah…paranoid anyone? I really didn’t know “population control is the central agenda of the New World Order people.” Damn, I’m in! Terrific. Exactly what we need.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
The thought here is …
The thought here is not so much that the resources of the earth are shrinking, but that they are shrinking relation to the growth of the demand. Even then, the earth isn’t expanding; it is constant. The resources are finite. Water is finite. Land suface is finite. The NWO is a fable. Problems are caused by automated systems operating on their own. Consequenses of chains of events are so far removed from the operators that they continue to fill the bilge, unaware the ship is sinking.
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
People already are …
People already are starving….
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
Oh, and one point …
Oh, and one point is: Well, we grow until we fill the planet. Which means: Until the same amount of people die from missing resources (eg starving) and death, as there are people born. Or until we find a way to optimize our resources, find new sources, a large group of people dies, or something like that.
Then we will really see, who is best at survival and domination. (Hint: Me. And you possibly.) ^^
November 22nd, 2009 at 3:14 am
Sorry, but the …
Sorry, but the Growth=Prosperity thing is a fake dichotomy. An miscalculation in logic. What I mean is, that you can have *some* growth *and* *some* prosperity. You do not have to invest *only* in one.
The child is a terrible example. Because, say you get not 4000, but 10000 more. Than, according to him, you could have 2.5 more children. But obviously, you could also have 1 more child, and 1.5 more prosperity (whatever that is measured in ^^).
You see where I’m going…