View Single Post
Old 11-23-2021, 09:42 PM   #2708
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: California
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss View Post
The only way that argument makes sense is if you use a short term time frame. Having a 100 year run with living the good life is great for the people living in that time frame, but then everyone living when the consequences come down are screwed.

Humans in general are terrible at looking at anything beyond the shortest term time frames. Alberta's 4th covid wave is a prime example. They could have kept restrictions in for a few more weeks and avoided it all but needed to be 'open for summer' so hundreds of people died.
If you looked at agricultural capacity in 1960 and projected it to today’s population the world would have needed drastic population controls and we would be currently having mass starvation. We don’t. So how do you plan for the increasing technological capacity? Could you have justified limiting family size in the 60s in order to solve the over population problem today? Or do you deal with more acute problems that are solvable?
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post: