Crash Course: Chapter 5 – Growth vs. Prosperity by Chris Martenson
November 22nd, 2009 | by admin |
Chapter 5 (Growth Vs. Prosperity): Contrary to what we’ve grown used to, growth is not the same thing as prosperity. In fact, growth and prosperity are both dependent on the same thing: surplus. Dr. Martenson explains how we’ve been conditioned to want, and to take, both growth and prosperity; however, we are approaching the limits of our physical, finite, earth – the amount of surplus is steadily declining.
http://www.chrismartenson.com
Duration : 0:3:41
25 Responses to “Crash Course: Chapter 5 – Growth vs. Prosperity by Chris Martenson”
By Chuichupachichi on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
It is known but not …
It is known but not disclosed, that crude oil does not require dinosaurs & millions of years to produce. Neither does coal. Man can produce both of these resources in short 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.
By billyguns2 on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
@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!
By GuyandLori on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
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, enjoy your family and stop worrying. Go get’em big fella.
By seanmichaelmuller on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
Some of that “stuff …
Some of that “stuff” is necessary for meeting the basic needs of the “existing”. “stuff” like food, water, and access to health care. If we choose an additional family/population member over meeting the needs of the existing family/population members then we choose to reduce the quality life of those people, eventually to the level 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.
By FizzerMeTimbers on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
I really don’t …
I really don’t think that most people across the globe make a decision between another child and more stuff. Maybe some families in the US but definitely not everywhere.
By Spurgeon123 on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
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
By jameshollister on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
Hopefully people …
Hopefully people like you are no longer going to be around on this earth soon.
By Spurgeon123 on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
WIthout a biblical …
WIthout a biblical perspective to keep us grounded anything can begin to sound 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 created. Enviromentalists think the world is eternal and therefor must be preserved for generations to come, therefor the panic
By GuyandLori on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
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.
By LDRinbrampton on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
This is …
This is starting to sound like Eugenics… But the concept is interesting anyway
By PanzerDivisionBOM on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
I’m not sure what a …
I’m not sure what a “perfect world” would look like. It is tempting to say that, in a perfect world, there would be no economic resources, with every conceivable first-order good available in abundance.
However, 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 enjoy them.
What relevance do these highly academic questions have?
By Undeterminable on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
Indeed
Indeed
By WestCoastSwinger on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
You could also say …
You could also say birth rate is inversely proportional to level of intelligence.
By WestCoastSwinger on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
PanzerDivisionBOM:
…
PanzerDivisionBOM:
Hypothetically, that may be true, but what happens when Earth runs out of natural resources? Does population growth start to become a problem then in your perfect world?
By PanzerDivisionBOM on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
This is a classic …
This is a classic political fallacy, most often related to immigration. A statist generally presumes that immigrants are worthless – that they will consume without producing. If this is true, then it is true 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.
By pkosinski79 on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
Ok buddy
we’ll … 
we’ll see in a few years.
Ok buddy
By birdieman073 on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
i dont understand …
i dont understand why you think he has contempt. can you explain for me?
By Undeterminable on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
lol, hmmm …
lol, hmmm interesting. Perhaps only stupid people are having babys? hah
By mandodiaodude on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
he could also say …
he could also say growth is indirectly propotional to prosperity
By ancalagon12321 on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
Patronizing and …
Patronizing and stupid. Something dumbed down this far signifies a cynical contempt for his audience.
And I actually agree with him on the issues (that we’re facing enormous crises regarding energy and the environment etc.)
By crashishlaroche on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
Ah…paranoid …
Ah…paranoid anyone? I actually didn’t know “population control is the central agenda of the New World Order people.” Damn, I’m in! Terrific. Exactly what we need.
By RichardRoy2 on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
The idea here is …
The idea here is not so much that the resources of the earth are shrinking, but that they are shrinking relative 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.
By Cettywise on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
People already are …
People already are starving….
By Evi1M4chine on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
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.) ^^
By Evi1M4chine on Nov 22, 2009 | Reply
Sorry, but the …
Sorry, but the Growth=Prosperity thing is a false dichotomy. An error 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 bad 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…