General Discussion

antigone382

(3,682 posts)

6. Social security won't help you if there is no food to eat, water to drink, or air to breathe.

Tue Apr 2, 2013, 04:30 PM

Apr 2013

There are some folks--who are more knowledgeable than I--who say that our planet can only accommodate one billion people without relying on fossil fuel energy. I can't assert that this is true or false, and I hope that things are a bit more optimistic than that. What is clear is that the population cannot increase indefinitely, and that we are rapidly using resources and generating wastes/pollutants at a rate that will ensure suffering on a massive scale globally. I have yet to see compelling evidence that there is any combination of technology and energy sources that will enable the current population to transition to genuine sustainability, much less a dramatically increased one.

Social security is a construction of human beings; ecology is based on unavoidable natural law. It is clear which of the two must take precedence as we make decisions about the future.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The more children people have, the better shape Social Security will be in. [View all] Nye Bevan Apr 2013 OP

Fuck that. There IS a clear solution. randome Apr 2013 #1

No, the Duggar girls will be married, stay-at-home mothers and sinkingfeeling Apr 2013 #2

Perhaps. But those girls will have kids, of whom some will be boys and will go to work, Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #14

Only if they having paying jobs. Without TV, the Duggars would be on sinkingfeeling Apr 2013 #22

Or we can just have a sensible immigration policy Gormy Cuss Apr 2013 #3

I am totally in favor of that. Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #5

Raise the cap. Raise the cap. Raise the cap. NYC_SKP Apr 2013 #4

I see this all the time on DU. But people almost never explain what they mean by it. Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #7

Earners don't pay their 15% tax for Social Security for income beyond the first $106,800. NYC_SKP Apr 2013 #15

Then the maximum Social Security payment will automatically be uncapped. Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #17

No, it won't. SS payments have to be means-tested. NYC_SKP Apr 2013 #21

So you are proposing to turn Social Security into a welfare program. Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #25

Think of it this way too. LiberalFighter Apr 2013 #31

Social security won't help you if there is no food to eat, water to drink, or air to breathe. antigone382 Apr 2013 #6

+1 One_Life_To_Give Apr 2013 #9

And in 1894, the London Times estimated that by 1950 London would be 9 ft deep in horse manure (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #10

I don't think the two situations really compare. antigone382 Apr 2013 #16

Hell there aren't enough jobs for the people we have now? upaloopa Apr 2013 #8

Ah, now that's what economists refer to as the "Lump of Labor" fallacy. Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #12

All economists agree on this? redqueen Apr 2013 #23

What's the unemployment rate? Why do we have so many graduates upaloopa Apr 2013 #30

Are you ignorant of the problems caused by overpopulation? tabasco Apr 2013 #11

I am familiar with the predictions made by Thomas Malthus in 1798 (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #13

So what? tabasco Apr 2013 #19

At that time there were other places to go to. antigone382 Apr 2013 #20

Moreover, if you're going to reduce all the arguments against overpopulation to Malthusian hysteria antigone382 Apr 2013 #24

Thank you for being brave enough to mention the unmentionable. Gregorian Apr 2013 #18

All that is needed for Social Security to be in fine shape is to pay a Living Wage. RC Apr 2013 #26

That, and raising the cap on what portion of one's earnings get taxed. GoCubsGo Apr 2013 #27

No, that just gluts the labor pool which reduces wages which are declining already TheKentuckian Apr 2013 #28

"Lump of Labor fallacy" (see post 12) (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #32

See reality. Labor is not a fixed number but it isn't infinite either. TheKentuckian Apr 2013 #34

The more children people have, the worse our entire planet will be. MadHound Apr 2013 #29

The more people, the more competition to stand out from the crowd. randome Apr 2013 #33

"Who is going to take care of you when you are old" bullshit mentality. Wonder if anyone who idwiyo Apr 2013 #35

Turning it into a Ponzi scheme is hardly a solution bhikkhu Apr 2013 #36

No, because most of them will have McJobs and not pay much into SS. nt raccoon Apr 2013 #37

I'd prefer immigrants treestar Apr 2013 #38

Definitely. We should welcome skilled immigrants with open arms. Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #39

I was thinking more of young families treestar Apr 2013 #42

Immigration is much better RB TexLa Apr 2013 #46

wow. stunningly bad op. gets my nomination for worst of the day cali Apr 2013 #40

See post 39 re. raising the cap (nt) Nye Bevan Apr 2013 #41

Agreed. Got no problem with the Duggars LittleBlue Apr 2013 #43

Right. With fewer jobs and more of them minimum wage, smirkymonkey Apr 2013 #44

I'm not giving up my time and income to raise children RB TexLa Apr 2013 #45