Posted on 09/02/2008 10:30:09 PM PDT by robertvance
You are correct in your narrative.
Both Athens and Sparta became marginal.
Because the historical enemies all inevitably get sucked in and corrupted by the same culture.
The Chinese culture, dominated by it’s Confucian ideology which emphasizes obedience to the ruler above all else, is very attractive to a new conqueror. He has no incentive to upend this social structure, and every incentive to maintain it and simply places himself on the top of this pyramid replacing the old regime.
This is the reason why foreign conquerors of China all very quickly and eagerly begin adopting Chinese ways, because it provides the easiest and quickest way to ensconcing themselves as the legitimate ruler.
Of course, what they don’t realize is by doing so they sow the seeds of their future destruction because eventually they become indistinguishable from the Chinese and they are essentially absorbed and disappear as a unique groups. Where are the Manchus today? Can even the average Chinese person tell the difference between one and a Han Chinese?
China is a poison pill that swallows you, not the other way round.
The state of Texas has a land area of over 260,000 square miles. There are 640 acres to a square mile. There would be approximately 1/4 acre for each man, woman and child in the entire world, and the rest of the earth would be uninhabited. By my estimation that leaves an acre for a family of four, certainly enough for detached houses, and a dog and a cat, too.
I point out these facts, not to suggest they we actually try to fit all the people in the entire world into the State of Texas, but simply to illustrate the absurdity of the overpopulation myth. By accepting a false premise you actually help pave the way of totalitarians, would-be Utopian Planners and tyrants everywhere, well, like the Chinese Communists.
We haven't had to consider such a Draconian policy because we have space and resources. China wouldn't have to do what they are doing either if they had 300 million instead of 1.3 Billion.
There is no correlation between population density and freedom and prosperity. Compare, for example, Hong Kong before it was taken over by Communist China, with the draconian, oppression and subjugation of the Chinese people by the Communist dictatorship of the mainland. You say that draconian policies necessary. I say they are not necessary because they are built on falsehoods.
Land mass is not the problem: Cumulative Distribution of China's Land Area and Population Density
Communists and their fellow travelers view people as cattle, nothing more than animals to be used to achieve their goals. To them, "population control" is the equivalent of pest control. You have bought into their lies.
Imagine a world where there are no brothers or sisters, aunts or uncles, nephews or nieces, or cousins. Can you imagine such a bizarre place? It is the state to which you so blithely consign the Chinese people when you say that there is nothing wrong with a one child per family policy.
Cordially,
So why is Sparta a Christian town?
Your analogy is idiotic, there is such a thing as carrying capacity. Those 6 billion people will need food, a quantity of which will not grow to feed a family of 4 on only a single acre. Forgetting the fact that only a fraction of available land in Texas is actually fertile. You can say goodbye to meat as there won’t be the land to raise livestock. Likewise there isn’t enough water in Texas to support 6 billion people. Groundwater will be completely depleted in months if not weeks rendering the entire state into a desert. The existence of dense urban centers isn’t because people can actually support themselves in them, but rather they are the result of productive surplus from society at large which allows for the concentration of population resources. Stick everyone in the world in Texas and everyone will be dead in a few weeks. Overpopulation is not a myth, it is simple biological fact. There is a finite capacity for the land to provide resources for individuals, a capacity that has been increased by the utilization of carbon fuels that is matched by increased demand. Social and cultural patterns are monumentally shaped by geography to a greater extent than most people imagine. There is a reason why urban areas are heavily Democratic and also why those same urban areas have very low birth rates. It is simply not conducive to raise a family in such dense areas and people subconsciously know this and have fewer children as a result.
It just shows how immoral they are.
The point of the example is to simply to illustrate that even with the world's current population, which is apparently is way too many in your opinion, over 40% of the land surface of the earth is still completely uninhabited. Call me crazy, but the problem is not that the earth is too small, or that there are too many people in relation to the size of the earth. How many people is too many, Mr. Society Planner, and what do you plan to do with the excess?
Cordially,
There's a very good reason for that- large percentages of the planet are more-or-less uninhabitable. Mountains, deserts, tundra and other areas can only support very small populations of humans. Look at where human civilization arose throughout the ages and you will see it is generally in relatively temperate areas with good soil and access to fresh water. Heck, look at the US- we have large chunks of the country that can't support much of a population.
We live in a world where we're starting to see serious competition, including wars, for resources, including the basics like water. This isn't a justification of China's one-child policy, but we need to be aware of the fact that the increases in population we have seen over the last century will have effects over the long-term.
I agree with you that relatively recent increases in population do have effects over the longterm, but I disagree with the Malthusian premise that there is not enough land surface on the earth for, to use another socialist code word, "sustainability". Technology can make habitable now that which was previously unhinablitable in former ages in which civilizations arose.
Ironically, it is the Malthusian Planners crying sustainability who plan to herd the masses into overcrowded socialist metropolises, so that they can be better controlled and conditioned. The problem is not too many people. The problem, as always, lies in the heart of men, particularly those who seek to incarnate their utopian visions and totalitarian impulses.
Cordially,
See #109 regarding hyper-literal hermeneutics.
It is simply not conducive to raise a family in such dense areas and people subconsciously know this and have fewer children as a result.
So what's the problem? If people subconsciously recognize "overpopulation" and have fewer children as a result, then the problem is self-correcting, is it not? Why then does China "need" government nannies dictating how many children a family is allowed to have, and using abortionists to kill the excess?
The problem is not too many people. The problem is totalitarian dictatorships and socialism.
Cordially,
No one said they are.
Her eyes slant funny??
Diamond,
Get a load of this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2075030/posts
I’ll comment more as time permits.
Cordially
the original poster that I was addressing implied exactly that.
Pithiest comment yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.