of the century is environmentally-sustainable? Many/most of those immigrants will be in California/Southwest, where water is already becoming scarce.
Have any of you freedom-lovers considered that protection of your liberties runs in inverse proportion to population? In other words, with more people, come more demands for government services, and the state grows larger and more powerful, involving itself in more areas of our lives. I believe that's called "hyperpluralism" in political science.
Does quality of life rise or fall as a civilization becomes more crowded and natural resources are further stressed?
It's sad. 25/30 years ago, the Sierra Club was on board with reducing immigration. Now, with multicultural cultism, that's a position they simply can't take.
Link: https://source.colostate.edu/professor-offers-progressive-arguments-reducing-immigration/
We do have a lady, though, weighing in that I'm a racist.
(no message)
Opposition to immigration is driven by dislike for the kind of people who are immigrating.
Spanish-speakers, brown people, residents of shitholes, etc. The real threat they pose is to the sense of American identity that so many people need to maintain. We will not be a bilingual nation! We need a wall or we will be overrun by billions of foreigners!
It’s really not that complicated.
As I typed, I figured your response would be, essentially, "You're a racist."
Non-responsive to the environmental implications of a billion people, of course. What a twink.
Your posts hit your theme all the time. Yet pointing it out is “predictable.”
OK MAS. Whatever.
(no message)
Cafaro is a goof ball.
But that figures with you liking him.
Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/energy-week/350395/debating-phil-cafaro-robert-zubrin
for quality of life.
So, now that you know that I don't advocate reducing the world population or the remedies he proposes for the population he correctly assesses, what will we do with 1 billion people demanding all those resources and all those government services?
You are not so hot at this.
That shows.
(no message)
Where is all that freshwater going to come from?
Just perusing, this may be an option.
But not being the expert you are, I’m sure all is lost.
We will also have to kill millions of third world eras to keep our water for ourself, right?
Link: https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/fresh-water-below-the-seafloor
"Humans will always contrive ways to fix the problems we create." Good luck with that. Or, more precisely, good luck to your grandkids as a result of that faith.
I could've copied and pasted a marvelously horrible Ayn Rand quote here as the cherry-on-top, but that would just be gratuitous.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I always cringe when I hear people, regardless of which side of the aisle, clamor for "growth." So how many people in the U.S. are enough? 1 billion? 2? 5?
Clearly, there is a point at which too many people results in all sorts of grave consequences. We see the environmental effects in any number of countries as we speak.
How cute.
"I liken this argument to Person X, and since Person X's predictions did not come to fruition, it must mean that your predictions must also be invalid, regardless of space or the passage of time."
I would have thought that you would be familiar with this, since you are an expert in demographics.
(no message)
(no message)
From where are you going to get all that water, leaving aside science fiction and Chrissy's boundless imagination when it comes to the ingenuity of individuals far smarter than he.
(no message)
It's interesting to note that there have been three individuals here who have claimed that I "think I know everything": you, Chrissy and Killshot. Let's examine that: a lawyer, a prof and a doctor. Three individuals who have high status positions. And not just high status positions, but ones in which they're unaccustomed to people questioning them or not showing them deference. None of you deal well with that.
The greatest gift my old man gave me was getting me to read and not just read, but read a lot about a lot of different things, when I was young. In the the hundred or so hours you're here every week, I'm often reading about many different things. We react very differently to things we don't know. When someone addresses something I didn't know about something I care about, without fail, I read about it. In contrast, your reaction, like Chrissy's and Killshot's, is to insecurely exclaim that "You think you know everything," as an 11 year-old reacts when he realizes that someone else knows something he does not. Instead of wasting as many hours as you do here, spend more time reading. When's the last time you read a book cover-to-cover? What was it about? How often do you read? I hate to say this because I know how deep it cuts, but I love you dearly: you react in a way not ulike how Trump would react. A childish, petulant kind of reaction. I can and have listed all sorts of topics of which I know little or nothing (current pop culture, baseball, physics, car engines, women). But I do know a lot of things about a lot of different topics, not because I'm special, but because I had a parent who made it a priority to gain knowledge in a lot of things of consequence.
(no message)
You complain about those who you obviously resent for achievements you don’t have.
Yet you have no idea what or how much I read. I don’t know 94, but given his job, I’m sure he reads plenty cover to cover. I think he may have written a few.
You may be the sweetest guy in the world in person, but here you come across as a know it all, arrogant prick who has insecurity issues about your station in life.
You make me laugh so I like to play with you, but you really aren’t any great shakes in the expert dept despite your brilliance in middle school class.
Oh and on reading cover to cover, the last was the bio of Leonardo by Issacson. I’m reading Grant by Chernow right now.
You also once again didn't bother to ask, "Is what I'm writing now contradicted by what I wrote five minutes ago." Above, you claimed I'm "just miserable." That implies something much larger than an obnoxious lawyer and vacuous college prof making me jealous? I don't live my life with those sorts of jealousies, again, because of how I was raised. I never needed to be told that you don't look down on people with less money nor that you should envy those with more money or status. It's how my father's side . of the family uniformly lived their lives. In contrast, you've demonstrated several times in these exchanges that rank in society is important to you. I'd deal with that and I'd stop looking down on people you perceive to be of a lower status than you are. For instance, I don't teach middle school, but I would never use that status as an insult. You do and that speaks volumes about you.
mirror jasper. You are a joke.
teachers?"
This jibes with many of my experiences with people of higher status, particularly my days in retail and then in academia. Everyone should have to work retail at some point. It teaches you about what happens when people are given that status and how they use it. Frankly, I have a close member of the family who married into wealth after a middle class existence and the changes are startling in how she looks at and talks about people "below her" in society. That's why I'm always impressed by people of status who remain humble, sympathetic and generous.
higher status. Which is why the fact that you read, while lesser, more shallow people don’t is important to you.
You are the one claiming such a breath of knowledge by your voracious reading and questioning whether others here read at all.
This makes you eh.....narcissistic.
I keep waiting for you to get better at this, but you don't.
A narcissist believes that everything relates to him. That sounds an awful lot like your explanation of me, except when you're contradicting yourself five or ten minutes before.
(no message)
What I argued is that claiming that I'm "generally miserable"and then arguing that you in particular are the reason I'm angry/miserable is contradictory, and it is.
Let's be honest: you spend an inordinate amount of time here. Many, many more hours than I do. I stop by after work, see if there's anything interesting and move on. In contrast, you have posts, often many posts, everyday. People who spend inordinate amounts of time on internet message boards are not generally contented people. They could otherwise be spending it with their spouses and families. People who have good relationships and enjoy the company of their spouses and families devote more time to them and they certainly choose them over internet message boards. I would be more hesitant than you are in claiming that you know who is contented and who is not.
into anger. But your baseline is miserable. Again, no contradiction goof.
Try short declarative sentences for a change.
At the time, President Chester A. Arthur famously predicted that America would be "...a shithole country by 1960 if we don't do something about the chinks."
This particular one runs like this: "Someone's previous prediction proved unfounded, therefore all similar predictions in the future must be invalid."
You need to bone up on reading comprehension first. Then, you can move on to logic.