- Oct 2011
- Italy, Lago Maggiore
From January 2017 only 4 posts ... a shy Historumite or a "sleeping profile".
It's been pointed out to you that success does not necessarily lead to overpopulation. Can you explain to us why success necessarily leads to a Malthusian over population?
Yet, China is most interested in acquiring (or increasing its hold) on some of the most overpopulated areas of the planet: Hong Kong and Taiwan. If China was looking to expand to reduce it's overpopulation, it should be expanding in exactly the opposite direction! The example you give is a demonstration of exactly the opposite of the statement you gave: power hungry states always want to maximise their population.
Tough luck, it's a forum, arguing about things is its very raison d'etres. Besides, one ought to care more about whether a thing is correct than where that thing comes from.Yes, success does not always lead to overpopulation, but it did in the past.
I don’t want to argue about this very thing, but was simply looking for someone who might have read this idea in one of the old books.
Tough luck, it's a forum, arguing about things is its very raison d'etres. Besides, one ought to care more about whether a thing is correct than where that thing comes from.
And no, success didn't lead to over population in the past. How was the Roman empire overpopulated? If anything as it become more and more successful its population density fell remarkably and its final demise was caused by stark under population.
Yeah, baffled here too...Ummm... Because capitalism has always failed?...
RIght, and we all know the super-rich NEVER *spend* money, of course! Never buy stuff, never hire all kinds of helpers, never start businesses, never invest or play stocks, CERTAINLY never give to charity! And of course the rest of us who are *not* super-rich never get paid for anything, can't sell anything, etc...
Sorry, I'm just baffled.
Clearly- you lack the intellect to be embarrassed by your inability to comprehend an argument.I don't have the time or inclination to read a whole rant, and these two sentences are enough to convince me that the post is a rant and contains no meaningful information.
Now you are just embarrassing yourself. Read that sentence again. Now if you want to argue that GDP per capita is not the most important thing to the welfare of the middle class, then say so. But don't say things which are false by definition.
Where you have got a point is that GDP growth is expressed without factoring in population growth, which is misleading in my view....PS- GDP is already a measure of gross product. Claiming 3% growth in GDP is already an average across the entire population.
Adding "per capita" is latin meaning BY HEAD.
If My head and Your head saw ZERO growth- then claiming a per capita growth of 3% is a lie.
If 90% of the heads saw No growth, then its a HUGE lie.
Wait, originally you were claiming that success leads to over population, and over population is a problem. Now you've just said that over population leads to success. That is the exact opposite of the original thesis!Some or most can trace their success to overpopulation.
Originally you were talking about expansion purely in a territorial way, as a cure for over population. Have you redefined expansion to be any growth of a state, be it territorial or otherwise? Because if so then I entirely agree that success and growth is the same thing, purely by definition at this point.China, in my opinion, is expanding by their own way, that you may or may not appreciate. But the fact is that it is expanding. I personally think that it is doing in the wrong way, because “the group feeling” as Ibn Kaldun puts it, is missing.
Not sure why you're bringing in group feeling now, what you mean by it, or how it is relevant to the original theory you put forward.Let’s now look at the Moslem world. They are expanding while African nations either slaughter each other or have massive epidemics (overpopulation plays it’s part). The Middle East is a ticking bomb. Moslems are expanding even though they are not as successful as the west (that is another topic all together)*** On the top of that “the group feeling” is very strong among the Muslims there and in the US. I predict that Russia, if it continues on the same track will expand. Russia has a great group feeling.
The conlusion simply doesn't follow from what you said before. You can't use a prediction about the future as evidence that your conclusion is correct. The way I see it you're playing fast and loose with definitions of your terms so it's hard to see what it is that you are actually saying. Would I be correct to paraphrase it as "A nation or other demos that is growing demographically/economically/technologically/etc... will carry on doing so for as long as it can, resorting to invading neighbours if necessary"?In conclusion, a tight, successful community will expand, after the expansion there is one viable alternative — conquest of other nations.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|Secret Vote to All-Russian Congress of Councils||European History|
|ARCHEOLISTS DISCOVER THE SECRETS OF THE EXTENDED MAY PALACE NEAR CANCÚN||North American History|
|Ultra secret blown by careless talk – May 1940||European History|
|How was Elizabeth Woodville and Edward 4's wedding a secret, when they had a note from the Pope (cause they were 2nd cousins)||General History|
|Similar History Discussions|
|Secret Vote to All-Russian Congress of Councils|
|ARCHEOLISTS DISCOVER THE SECRETS OF THE EXTENDED MAY PALACE NEAR CANCÚN|
|Ultra secret blown by careless talk – May 1940|
|How was Elizabeth Woodville and Edward 4's wedding a secret, when they had a note from the Pope (cause they were 2nd cousins)|