Crash Course: Chapter 5 - Growth vs. Prosperity by Chris Martenson

[Lockheim]

But isn't a new family member a future investment, since that family member will be able to do work for the family in some time?

[TheRooDog123]

why is growth important? ppl say its important, but y?

[Marcello777]

If people adopt more children than that would really help the population, as long as people dont have children of their own.

[bvssvni]

5.3 billion people depend on 900 million cars to be replaced in 35 years. That's 5 people getting poor every second, 130 times faster than people dying in the holocaust, 2.7 faster than people dying on earth.

[Ztimes22]

awww wheres the point that 'you cant have infinite growth on a finite planet' because eventually you run out of resources and space... even a 1% growth will eventually doom us (because we can't yet live on other planets)

maybe you mention this further into the course... i'll keep watching ;) excellent so far!

[shawname2]

This is unclear. Surplus leads to greater prosperity, measured as either Growth or "Prosperity", which he defines as higher quality goods and services. But greater Prosperity is still Growth. So I believe he is saying that "growth" is population growth, and "prosperity" is more or higher quality goods and services for the people.

[Standuble]

@shawname2 I think growth would generally come under the label of "expansion" in this case, whilst prosperity would come under the label of "enrichment." For example expansion would be to move from a one bedroom apartment into a three bedroom house, whilst enrichment would be to remain living in one bedroom apartment but improve the furnishings and appliances inside so they are a better quality. In the difficult present you have to choose between which path you will take, you can't have both.

[wcfcarolina13]

This makes a powerful point.

[manolodelano]

In the coming years we will have installed a RFID inside of the balls...

[MacabreManifesto]

We should set an absolute minimum of prosperity and only allow a population small enough that that minimum of prosperity can be provided for all people. Hopefully people will choose to implement and fallow a plan democratically rather than clamor for a dictator when the situation becomes dire.

[treefittyfive]

@MacabreManifesto sure, we can even call it communism!

[MacabreManifesto]

@treefittyfive I'm talking about a voluntary plan where people measure what the mean prosperity per person is and setting a minimum for that mean and measure how many people would cause us pass that threshold, and then educate people as to the importance of willingly fallow the plan. You'd tell the plan if you want a child and it will tell you if society could sustain it. You could go against the plan but you'd be a douche because you'd be screwing over society. Eventually we WILL clamor for...

[Olomoucboy]

Negative growth? That sounds contradictory to me...Could growht possibly be negative? If it is negative, than it cannot be growth, or am I wrong?

[go2thebeach]

The shortcomings of the human condition IS exponential growth fueled by finite resources. No resources...no exponential growth. To the contrary the exact opposite happens-exponential decline in human population. This leads me to wonder why a loving God would create such a creature with finite resources knowing in advance the end result. Does our God think we will be kind to each other in the decline phase? Just my observation...i do believe in God...just wish I had this one answered.

[tubestick00]

in this video he refers to growth as the human population of a country, or the world. i believe when most economists speak about growth they are not talking about population. it is obvious that the more the population grows, the lower the quality of life will be. the resources on earth do not increase every year yet our population using the resources is growing exponentially. in an extreme example, if people were crammied in shoulder to shoulder on earth there wouldnt be enough oxygen on earth

[TheSpanishJob]

Capitalism is defined as a non intervention system, being the individuals the owners of they own rights. Our system is highly manipulated... so why are you blaming Capitalism? We don't live, and havent met Capitalism!! Because of this intervention, bubbles appear and the poor cannot start their business cause these are overtaxed or illegal or because goverment inflation. The gov is the one who has created the fiat money, and the one that keeps you being poor! Search in youtube Ron Paul.Save USA

[hadenuuf]

whatever

[hadenuuf]

whatever, What happened to Roosevelt saving American capitalism. Capitalism would be happy to keep the majority poor if it suited them.

[ExquisiteDoom]

prosperity is entirerly subjective, it doesn't mean anything, what is he trying to say...

[looseSpark]

@ExquisiteDoom @thefish103 I personally think it is obvious he is limiting this to tangible prosperity i.e. things we can measure objectively as opposed to immeasurable subjective feelings (which are v. important too, of course).

What that means is, included in the definition are things such as the availability and quality of food/water, the number of vaccines & medicines we can produce, the number of MRI machines a hospital can buy, the value of a currency, the availability of living space etc

[thefish103]

I disagree w/ the definition of prosperity. For some enjoying healthy, happy family relationships = prosperity, and there are plenty of wealthy individuals that have abundant resources that may live very unproductive, unhappy lives.

[10speech110]

DEBUNK part 5 in two sentences:

1) Growth is necessary to increase surplus, as the child will eventually grow up to have a positive productivity (unless they remain dependents) and so the pie increases with the increasing population

2) Population growth is slowing, Malthus, and global population is expected to be DECREASING before 2100.

[Dirge987]

@10speech110 I know your comment was made a month ago, but I'm trying to better understand. Let's say a family farm has a surplus of food. They can choose to have another child or work less. The child could help farm more food, but that child would take more resources over their lifetime. At the global scale, choosing to growth over prosperity would require an ever increasing surplus to sustain itself. However all material resources on the earth are finite. What are your thoughts?

[didymus0987]

This is not true. Growth in population does equal more wealth, which leads to more prosperity. Martenson is acting that wealth is a pie that cannot grow but free markets have proven that this can happen. This is why in America middle class families have more today than 50 years ago. Technology allows both growth and prosperity.

[sjuurd]

growth does not equal more wealth, because the physical limit of resources can not cover the ever growing population.

more wealth in this system equals the increase in resource usage.

[zonsb]

Reality check 1: Money is man made as a measuring tool not unlike inches, pounds and gallons. No one has ever run out of inches, pounds or gallons. Running out of money is an intentional man-made problem.

Reality check 2: Energy is not scarce. The amount of energy in a pint of yogurt if released is equivalent to 500 atomic bombs detonated.

[personzorz]

Uh... no. A pint of yogurt is a few hundred calories - a few megajoules. A tiny atom bomb puts out over 10 terajoules... that's a factor of over one million.

[zonsb]

@personzorz Wrong conversion factor.

[TheWestAspen]

You are on to something here, surplus needs to be the objective, not growth or prosperity. Just as private industry must create a profit to grow and prosper, municipal or govts must create a surplus, otherwise enter a state of decline in growth and/or prosperity. We face this challenge in the US today.

[kikrlbs]

I think when they talk about overpopulation, they're not refering to land mass, they'rer refering to economic resources to sustain the population. Ever wonder why they haven't built a refinery since 1979? It's because there are no more huge pockets of oil to refine, even if they found 100 billion barrels of oil, that would only last less than one year, and it takes 5-7 years to get the infrastructure built to get that oil on the market.

[Chuichupachichi]

It is known but not disclosed, that crude oil does not require dinosaurs & millions of years to produce. Neither does coal. Man can produce both of these resources in short time. Despite what the Gaia worshiping, Al Gore may lie to you, coal is not causing global warming. They ignore the possibility that a gigantically huge ball of fire in the sky, called the sun, can be what's causing warming. Instead they say that the man caused, less than 1% of all CO2 is what's doing it.

[darkbrook]

"Man can produce both of these resources in short time"

Really?!?

I can't wait to know how.

Please, enlighten us!

[FizzerMeTimbers]

I really don't think that most people across the globe make a decision between another child and more stuff. Maybe some families in the US but definitely not everywhere.

[Spurgeon123]

WIthout a biblical perspective to keep us grounded anything can begin to sound rational. The bible states that this world has always been temporal and therefor its purpose and usefulness is temporal as well as its resources. The truth of the matter is that the earths purpose is coming to a conclusion on Gods timetable and a new heaven and earth will be created. Enviromentalists think the world is eternal and therefor must be preserved for generations to come, therefor the panic

[jameshollister]

Hopefully people like you are no longer going to be around on this earth soon.

[Spurgeon123]

I can assure you, I'll stay no longer than I have to, but I'll return with Jesus Christ and reign and rule on this earth. So, its people like yourself who will only be here briefly, like a puff of smoke

[billyguns2]

@jameshollister You prefer more and more ignorant people casing pain, death and more ignorance? Blanket statements such as yours without proposing an alternative are not helpful!

[GuyandLori]

Here we go. Population control. One more child, or more 'stuff' for the existing members of the family? Greed says more 'stuff' for the existing. Our families DO prosper when we grow! Do I value 'stuff' more than my family members? Of course not.

[seanmichaelmuller]

Some of that "stuff" is necessary for meeting the basic needs of the "existing". "stuff" like food, water, and access to health care. If we choose an additional family/population member over meeting the needs of the existing family/population members then we choose to reduce the quality life of those people, eventually to the level of starvation and death. Choosing to have one more child QUICKLY becomes the choice to reduce the health & quality of life of our family & children around the world.

[GuyandLori]

Have you ever flown over remote parts of the United States, let alone other parts of our planet? We are not even close to overpopulating planet Earth, nor are we close to using the resources it provides for us. Stop believing the hype, for goodness sake. Believe me, my family and I will continue to have large families, regardless of your dooms day theories. Now go get your wife pregnant, populate mother Earth, enjoy your family and stop worrying. Go get'em big fella.

[LDRinbrampton]

This shit is starting to sound like Eugenics... But the concept is interesting anyway

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

This is a classic political fallacy, most often related to immigration. A statist generally presumes that immigrants are worthless - that they will consume without producing. If this is true, then it is true only because someone is forcefully transferring resources from productive individuals to destructive individuals. Go figure. : )

Given uninhibited peaceful human interaction, population growth is not a problem. The new people will find some way to produce at least as much as they consume.

[WestCoastSwinger]

PanzerDivisionBOM:

Hypothetically, that may be true, but what happens when Earth runs out of natural resources? Does population growth start to become a problem then in your perfect world?

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

I'm not sure what a "perfect world" would look like. It is tempting to say that, in a perfect world, there would be no economic resources, with every conceivable first-order good available in abundance.

However, man's defining quality - reason - developed as a means for survival in a world of scarce resources. Therefore, if there were to be limitless resources available, then there likely would not be sentient beings there to enjoy them.

What relevance do these highly academic questions have?

[Undeterminable]

lol, hmmm interesting. Perhaps only stupid people are having babys? hah

[WestCoastSwinger]

You could also say birth rate is inversely proportional to level of intelligence.

[Undeterminable]

Indeed

[mandodiaodude]

he could also say growth is indirectly propotional to prosperity

[ancalagon12321]

Patronizing and stupid. Something dumbed down this far signifies a cynical contempt for his audience.

And I actually agree with him on the issues (that we're facing enormous crises regarding energy and the environment etc.)

[birdieman073]

i dont understand why you think he has contempt. can you explain for me?

[pkosinski79]

Ok buddy :) we'll see in a few years.

[Evi1M4chine]

Oh, and one point is: Well, we grow until we fill the planet. Which means: Until the same amount of people die from missing resources (eg starving) and death, as there are people born. Or until we find a way to optimize our resources, find new sources, a large group of people dies, or something like that.

Then we will really see, who is best at survival and domination. (Hint: Me. And you possibly.) ^^

[Cettywise]

People already are starving....

[phroto13]

@Cettywise people have always been starving... until the industrial revolution starving was the norm but capital investment and industrialization gave those people food

[bullsnutsoz]

@Cettywise yes and that is kissingers elites plan. wouldnt hurt that ol goat to go without a few meals himself.

im working on this with my creativity; I believe we can use derision to laff his plan back to the stoneage from whence it come.

signed

the pieman

[Evi1M4chine]

Sorry, but the Growth=Prosperity thing is a false dichotomy. An error in logic. What I mean is, that you can have *some* growth *and* *some* prosperity. You do not have to invest *only* in one.

The child is a bad example. Because, say you get not 4000, but 10000 more. Than, according to him, you could have 2.5 more children. But obviously, you could also have 1 more child, and 1.5 more prosperity (whatever that is measured in ^^).

You see where I'm going...

[RichardRoy2]

The idea here is not so much that the resources of the earth are shrinking, but that they are shrinking relative to the growth of the demand. Even then, the earth isn't expanding; it is constant. The resources are finite. Water is finite. Land suface is finite. The NWO is a fable. Problems are caused by automated systems operating on their own. Consequenses of chains of events are so far removed from the operators that they continue to fill the bilge, unaware the ship is sinking.

[crashishlaroche]

Ah...paranoid anyone? I actually didn't know "population control is the central agenda of the New World Order people." Damn, I'm in! Terrific. Exactly what we need.

[Teyec00n]

The question is: WHY DO SO MANY HUMANS THAT HAVE ZERO TO NEGATIVE SURPLUS CHOOSE THE ROUTE OF GROWTH (with more children) OVER A RATIONAL CHOICE OF INCREASED PROSPERITY (reduced struggle to survive)? Is it the fault of the Religious institutions and their self-serving dogma? Is it instinct trumping intelligence? Is it the gang mentality where there is safety in numbers? Is it pure selfishness of creating something that will unconditional love and thus be a caretaker for when they are old?

[frwlbrng]

Peter Schiff warned us about this in 2002. Alex Jones warned us of this in 1998. Ross Perot warned us of this in 1992. Lyndon Larouche warned us of this in 1984. John Kennedy warned us of this in 1963. Dwight Eisenhower warned us of this in 1961. Franklin Roosevelt warned us of this in 1933.

Believe me, we have been warned. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.

[SATANSbankers]

Andrew Jackson warned us way back in the 1840s

"the Bank is trying to Kill me, but I will Kill it!"

Thomas Jefferson warned us before that.

[dellwon]

the war is comming, it will bring the world pop down to lower #'s

[Cougar2226]

If you told me that three years ago, I'd be like, BUAHAHAHA nutjob. If you told me that three months ago, I'd be like, Yeah right. There's no way.

The scary thing is, now I believe you.

[LtnSarge]

If only all my friends would come to the same conclusion. If i listen to them, i'm a nutjob for saying that the Economy will not survive.

[shouldlistentoronpau]

Welcome to the club, buddy.