World Military Budget

[wahaha]

Part of the problem is China. They simply don't teach sex education in schools. You'd be surprised just how innocent girls are there. They tried to limit the birth rate by imposing fines, but it hasn't helped. So maybe paying them NOT to have children could work. Then put all those men to work building for the future, since there are more men than women in China. There is plenty of room in China to hold all 2 billion of them, but that land is pretty barren. They could change that if they wanted, but they would rather try to send people to the US or Canada, which also has a lot of land to populate still.

 

You'd also be surprised how much time students spend on studying in China. They've got probably the second smartest college grads next to Japan. But because of the poor economy, those students have to spend their life in China doing manual labor when they should be working for NASA. Blame the US for its annoying immigration policies as well.

[werecow]

Hey Werecow, after reading your post further up, I think you've misconstrued the cause of war. War is about resources.

 

I uploaded a brief eBook that you should read (if you haven't already). Essay on the Principle of Population by Thomas Malthus

 

i understand what war is all about....you have what i want or you dont believe what i do or you are different from me...so i find new and fun ways to kill youwar isnt always about wanting what you have....ask any jews that survived the holocost what it was about...war can also be about freedom from tyranny hmmm why do you think the usa isnt under the union jack now???we can agree to disagree but man is to violent a creature in this point in his development to consider living in any kind of utopia...first and foremost we need to work together for the benefit and advancement of all to progressany further.....

 

"i dont know what world war III will be fought with but world war IV will be fought with sticks and stones.." sound familiar?????

[daffydk]

I will put my 2 cents in this discussion.

 

I agree with the view that the United States is not responsible for world problems. They might have contributed to some problems. Others have contributed a whole lot more, like the Germans, The brittish (talk about screwing the continents, india-pakistan, breaking up the middle east after wwI, Africa..etc), the Russians..etc.

 

As far as their budget is concerned, I dont think they are overs pending. Ok maybe spend 300 billion instead of 400 billion but stil, it is absolutely necessary to be technologicaly advanced and ready to defend itself against forces such as former soviet Union, China, etc etc.

 

Imagine if the US was weak... it would have been invaded 100 times already by various nations. AT the very least, no country would respect US patents or trade pacts. We would have no incentive to innovate and invent new technology/medicine or just about anything.

 

I agree with the people saying that this should be a collective effort. People should be educated around the world and they should be thaught how to grow their own crops, invent new techonologies and so on.... Any country can be like Japan if they wanted. They just have to stop fighting each other and work 6-7 days a week and make digital cameras!!!!!! The US consumers will buy every one of them and they would no longer be Poor!!

[NiteShdw]

Is increasing the death rate the only way you can think to lower the population? Decreasing the birth rate works just as well.

 

If we could use our vast wealth to pay people not to have children (sort of like how we pay people not to grow crops) it would be money well spent. It beats the hell out of spending money on war.

 

Now we are paying people to have children through the tax code (sort of) and in social welfare programs. Is it any wonder we're getting more children.

 

It is a failure to proactively control this geometric growth that will lead to huge numbers of deaths. Doing nothing is the surest path to self-destruction for our civilization.

 

I have to disagree with your premise. Empirical evidence clearly shows that decreasing the birthrate is very detrimental to economic growth. In other words, as the population level decreases, so does the standard of living. Much of Europe is already facing negative population growth rates of -0.5 to -1.5%, and they are begin to provide tax incentives in order to INCREASE the birth rate.

 

There is no empirical evidence that suggests that the earth has reached any maximum population limit. In fact, if you gave every person on the planet 1/4 acre of land, they would all fit within the land area of the United States. There is a large amount of unused land in the world.

 

There is also a lot of evidence that agricultural technology is able to increase food production faster than the population could grow, so there is not going to be a food-shortage anytime in the foreseeable future.

 

Do you have anything to back up the premise that the earth needs to reduce population?

[werecow]

(applauds nite) good to hear a few educated opinions and daffy i agree with you to a point but i think that we are getting on the same track it has to be a global effort or it wont work at all

[VonHelton]

Europe MUST find a way to add plants to their cities.

 

.....And I'm not talking flowers.

 

Europe viewed under an infra-red satelite shows much of Europe is deforrested, and thus, dying.

 

To hell with historical landmarks! Tear down those old cities & build ultra-modern ones with lots of trees, or your soil will be damaged forever!!

 

:stare:

 

(If it isn't too late already!)

 

 

[mcant]

Europe MUST find a way to add plants to their cities.

 

.....And I'm not talking flowers.

 

Europe viewed under an infra-red satelite shows much of Europe is deforrested, and thus, dying.

 

To hell with historical landmarks! Tear down those old cities & build ultra-modern ones with lots of trees, or your soil will be damaged forever!!

 

:stare:

 

(If it isn't too late already!)

 

 

I agree to a certain extent. however a big help would be if we properly recycled

 

and if we stopped all the fancy packaging on items, look in your freezer! all that food in plastic bags inside cardboard boxes! why the box? easy its advertising space and a total waste of resources

 

Print outs! Remember the dream of the "paperless office" ROFLMAO theres a joke, now we have more print outs than ever before, why does everything have to be printed in triplicate with copies to people who will never read them.

 

Junk mail, how many trees a year drop through your letter box each year? just to go straight into the bin?

 

Rant over :rolleyes: Before i fill the next 3 pages and thats just paper, dont get me started on coal, oil, glass, water!

 

Damn, now I've gone totally off topic too. maybe i should have made Education a poll option

 

[werecow]

id rather use cardboard ,paper and waxpaper than plastic which dosent biodegrade.....

[Soulreaper]

In big cities like "Stockholm", the capital of Sweden - you don't see no green life and that which you see..occasionally..is NOT beautiful.

Though Gothenburg, Sweden's second biggest city is also huge but they have managed NOT to build everything on top of each other therefor leaving quite some space for trees, plants etc. it's even possible to take your bicyle through the entire city! Amazing..

 

Where I live there is somewhat a lot of space (kind of diametrically opposed to China and India) and "up here" we have A LOT of green / wildlife and it's B E A U T I F U L!!

 

B)

 

Actually HAMP (from the hash/pot plant) can be used to just about everything - cloathes, paper, cardbord, you name it! - AND, the plants (weed - not by happanstance it's called that ) can practically grow everywhere no matter the circumstances..

which should prove that things CAN be done, but a lot of people / governments don't WANT to...*

 

 

:stare:

[zornzorn]

Werecow is implying that I'm uneducated. Whenever I hear a person resort to an Ad Hominem fallacy, I am sure that I have won the argument. I accept your capitulation.

 

Do you agree that less people would use less energy and thereby less CO2 and pollutants would be generated?

 

Do you agree that less people would consume fewer manufactured products and thereby require less mining, oil use, etc?

 

Do you agree that less people would use less fresh water, generate less sewage and produce less trash?

 

Do you agree that less people would mean a lower population density and thereby lower the spread of infectious disease.

 

Do you agree that less people would mean less ecosystem destruction as people (particularly South Americans) slash and burn rainforests to create croplands that are temporarily arable. And would that not lead to fewer species driven to extinction.

 

I could go on and on.

 

It is all well and good to divide the surface area of the US by the population of the Earth, but can you grow enough food to support yourself on 1/4 of an acre? Who will live in Death Valley, on the steep side of a mountain, in the everglades or in northern Alaska?

 

And yes, if the population were 1/6 th of what it is now, all other things being equal the size of the world economy would be smaller. But the standard of living would higher; the per capita income would be higher and those people inhabiting the Earth (1 billion people) would be far more likely to die of old age rather than from war, famine and disease. The Earth’s population did not exceed 1 billion until the 1800s.

 

I’ll end this by asking two questions. What is the optimal number of people on Earth, 6 billion, 12 billion, 40 billion? Is there a point where our civilization will collapse under its own weight?

 

http://desip.igc.org/mapanim.gif

 

[c0g]

"The poor you will have with you always

 

We will have the poor exactly as long as we have the rich, and not one bloody second longer.

 

Kill the elite.

 

 

[werecow]

i never said anyone was uneducated ...ill let the replys speak for themselfs as to wether they make any sense or not...my daddy always told me you could be the most educated person in the world and still not have a lick of sense...nuff said..

[c0g]

The biggest problem is not with the amount of money given to impoverished nations each year. The problem is that it is mismanaged by the handlers of the money' date=' the "middle man" if you will. Third world nations recieve more then enough money to significantly develop their nations each year, but due to corrupt governments and the "beaucracy" it never reaches the actual people.[/quote']

 

Bull$hit!

 

US foreign aid is used as a weapon against poor countries to undercut and retard local development to keep those countries in a state that is more useful to US interests.

 

US Foreign aid packages REQUIRE that the money to be spent on specific US COMPANIES. More than 72 cents out of every U.S. foreign aid dollar is actually returned directly to U.S. Companies.

 

Who is corrupt? The US companies that benefit most from US “foreign†aid are those that make the biggest campaign donations here at home to members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

 

Furthermore:

 

The “aid†recipient countries are forced to buy specific US commodities that then flood local markets with things that are also produced locally in those poor countries. Small domestic farmers can’t compete with subsidized US mega-agribusiness. So instead of developing local infrastructures that could feed the local population, farms go out of production in the “aided†countries as they grow dependant on US “aid†that doesn’t help them develop.

 

The US spends more than 6 times the amount on domestic subsidies than it does on foreign aid. But that’s not hard; the US currently spends only 0.1% of its GDP on foreign aid.

 

If we actually wanted to help these countries, we would be offering Debt Relief, not aid. Many third world countries are spending as much as 40% of their GDP on servicing the interest on odious debts owed to first world countries.

 

They are not the problem, we are!

 

[elderbear]

Moderator hat ON!

 

This discussion is heating up! Let's avoid making it personal. Although we traditionally argue by bashing opposing positions together, it's far more constructive and interestin to inquire about the emotional reasons a person feels tied to their point of view (the intellectual reasons will come out, and frequently involve some form of "I'm right and I believe this to support it."

 

Arguments and disparate views empower community when they teach us all to see the world with a broader perspective. Will everybody please work on this?

 

I really don't want to moderate by deleting posts and sending nastygrams! :o :( :cyclops:

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Elderbear, Moderator

[Soulreaper]

Good statements people..I like this..brain activity increasing!

That's exactly the awareness that EVERYONE should have.

 

With such, people CAN'T ignore problems.

 

Which is why I always and constantly bitch around and whine about these issues - it's my way of adding to and so far, the best I can do in that arena.

 

I'm impressed! Good stuff!

 

And yes - it's pretty obvious that a smaller population would mean all these things however the problem (the root which is the thing that must be taken care of, not the symptoms) lies in RAISING the "commong sense"-notch and the level of awareness and responsability.

Not genocide, these same problems would errupt again, however decreasing the increase of population by helping through adoption rather than just keeping on making even more babies is one way of doing something necessary (such as necessary right NOW, in the future this might not be an issue, but NOW..it is).

Do you understand how little it takes for doing a great many things better? If you try to cure the world / bless the world you're only going to become a cynic (trust me I know) - so just like in Star Trek where a majority is ok/good, it's always necessary with individual heroes to make a difference.

So what's the work-load I'm proposing? Well all it takes is for YOU (as yourself, your SELF) is to just take resonsability and make the best and be the best you can be with/for you and your friends, family and aquacintances (and strangers) within your personal/individual little field of existence - that's all.

May seem as little, but performed by a large number the effects are massive. Some of this I've stated over and over again in other betteworld topics, but as one of our members have in his/her signature: "Everything worth doing is worth overdoing!" which is true, in this case!

 

:rolleyes:

[Finner]

The biggest problem is not with the amount of money given to impoverished nations each year. The problem is that it is mismanaged by the handlers of the money' date=' the "middle man" if you will. Third world nations recieve more then enough money to significantly develop their nations each year, but due to corrupt governments and the "beaucracy" it never reaches the actual people.[/quote']

 

Bull$hit!

 

US foreign aid is used as a weapon against poor countries to undercut and retard local development to keep those countries in a state that is more useful to US interests.

 

US Foreign aid packages REQUIRE that the money to be spent on specific US COMPANIES. More than 72 cents out of every U.S. foreign aid dollar is actually returned directly to U.S. Companies.

 

Who is corrupt? The US companies that benefit most from US “foreign†aid are those that make the biggest campaign donations here at home to members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

 

Furthermore:

 

The “aid†recipient countries are forced to buy specific US commodities that then flood local markets with things that are also produced locally in those poor countries. Small domestic farmers can’t compete with subsidized US mega-agribusiness. So instead of developing local infrastructures that could feed the local population, farms go out of production in the “aided†countries as they grow dependant on US “aid†that doesn’t help them develop.

 

The US spends more than 6 times the amount on domestic subsidies than it does on foreign aid. But that’s not hard; the US currently spends only 0.1% of its GDP on foreign aid.

 

If we actually wanted to help these countries, we would be offering Debt Relief, not aid. Many third world countries are spending as much as 40% of their GDP on servicing the interest on odious debts owed to first world countries.

 

They are not the problem, we are!

 

What are you talking about? Foreign aid alone amounts to over 300 billion dollars a year. Thats almost two times the entire REVENUE of Canada/ year. Source:http://www.fin.gc.ca/budget04/brief/briefe.htm

 

And as to that third world governments aren't corrupt, well read this:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/articles/jperon_foreign-aid-africa-wont-help.asp

 

Quote: "Foreign aid historically has gone to governments in the third world - governments that, even by the most liberal of standards, are corrupt and tyrannical. Aid, instead of helping the poor, helps those who oppress the poor. Government to government aid does nothing to diminish poverty and probably increases it.

 

Aid money is routinely diverted to military projects and often used to finance policing techniques that make sure the ruling elite stays in power. This doesn’t even include the huge sums of aid that end up in Swiss bank accounts as a “retirement†plan for African dictators in case the policing fails. And aid in the form of food only destroys the ability of local farmers to make a living."

 

 

I agree that debt relief is a huge requirement in foreign aid. But simply relieving their debt is useless. That means they'll just keep taking out more money from the world bank and mismanaging it. They need to be DEVELOPED in order to sustain themselves.

 

[kevinp]

maybe i should have made Education a poll option

 

This would have been a very good idea.

 

Here where I live in Texas, the public education system stinks. I go to a school that focuses on math, science, and technology and has higher level classes and I still sleep through those.

Also, In order to graduate from high school, you must pass all portions (math, reading, history, and science) of the Texas Assesment of Knolwdge and Skills (TAKS) test. In the reading section, there is a short story, followed by some questions about it. Last year, the story was about names and was written by a Ms. Nye. She decided to take the actual reading test that the students took and made a 40% on the questions about her own test. She missed questions like "What message is the author trying ot convey?". You would have a better chance of passing if you randomly guessed which means that the extremely stupid people who only know how to guess have a better chance of passing than those who are smart and answer the question based upon the passage, not the state.

article

Actual Test

 

Enough of Texas's stupidity.

 

I think that if we were more educated as a world, the problems facing the world could be solved much faster. There would be better research on space and medicine because the research that is happening today would not be as revolutionary if everyone knew about it in school. Increases in general technology would help solve the famine problem because more food could be produced at a lower cost. If we could invent something like a food replicator, there would be no need for farmers so they could go into a scientific field of study.

 

Also, if people were more educated and knew more about the customs and beliefs of the rest of the world, fighting would decrease especially religious wars in the Middle East. Honestly, what percetage of the American population could go over to an Islamic country right now for a week and not offend them by breaking one of their customs?

 

Enough for now...

[hendo001]

there are two types of people in this world.

 

the have's and the have not's. the have not's seem to be better people, as the people who seem to have always want more.

 

the real issue is greed. Money is just wasted these days, as some person is always trying to make sure he has more.

 

Just get rid of money and start working together and we'll soon be exploring mars and the rest of the galaxy.

 

eventually we'll either kill each other (and destoy the world) or we'll finally put our differences aside and we'll be out there........

 

but untill then............................

 

We have Trek and its philosophy

[werecow]

here here hendo001 i agree with you... outer space exploration will not happen untill we can realize that we are all of the same species and must work together for the common good of ALL. although we may tend to disagree on this point or that point unless a common goal is realized for all of humanity to prosper i do not feel that we should be reaching for the stars untill as a global community with a united vioce we announce to the rest of the galaxy "we are here and we want to join you in peace for the betterment of all races and species..to explore new worlds and new civilizations..to boldly go where no one has gone before!!".. do i hear a halleluah????

[Soulreaper]

Well, I've already pointed that out before so thanks for paying attention. B)

 

check this out:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

 

"Meeting a more advanced civilisation, at our present stage, might be a bit like the original inhabitants of America meeting Columbus. I don't think they were better off for it."

 

Lot's of interesting stuff!

 

However you should not discard the information regarding "where does the money go?" post.

Furthermore, debtrelief is a good thing but it's not EVERYTHING.

Yes I know and agree that it's vital for a man to eventually learn how to fish and feed himself but it's very hard if someone takes away the waters and all the fishing gear while teaching it..

I have made other posts also regarding the root-cause..

 

 

*Trivia* Swedish public schools up to the level of high-school is equvivalent to atleast the general american university - how's so? We have NO tests with "1 X 2" answers and the Swedish general public is extremely well educated even though only about 15-25% at most have university training - also proof is when meeting and talking to general john doe in America who doesn't even seem to have a clue what's going on outside their own garden. Now don't get me wrong, however a large number of american stupid and ignorant people is usually more than the entire population of Sweden and beyond.

I have friends in America - some of them the best people I've ever met - and I know from meeting people just like you (us/we) that there are good people, bad people and everything in between so I'm NOT generalizing, simply making a point.

I have very high hopes anyway.

 

Actually there are three kinds of people in the world;

 

- Those who make things happen

- Those who stand by while it happens

- Those who wondered what the Hell just happened

B)