What will be the conclusion on increasing population?
By 2050, the United Nations has projected that there will be 9.6 billion people on the planet. With 9.6 billion people, even if your stock market shoots to 40,000, you will still not be doing well.They say every citizen on this planet in 2050 will be living with 40% less resource than right now. When I say resource, I am talking about food, water, air – 40% less.It is not necessary for everyone to have children. If you really want to have an offspring, have just one. Don’t have one more!Please don’t give unnecessary reasons about outcomes of having just one child, there are parents who have lost their multiple children because of some unfortunate incidents.And about your child feeling lonely, your child feels lonely because most parents are strangers to their children. When a child comes, it is not for you to boss around and act like a parent. Stop being a parent because your child needs a good friend. He does not need a boss in the form of a parent. If there is an oppressive boss, even if there are 12 children, they will still feel lonely. So do not be oppressive and suppressive, just be a good friend to your child and he or she will be fine.We took charge of death, but we should have also taken charge of birth, I request all women to have their child at the age between 30-35.Many women conceive without difficulty until the age of 35.After 35, it becomes increasingly more difficult and the chances of miscarriage or birth disorders with the child do increase.After 30 You may get wisdom of not having children at all.!(This one i may sound cruel) Plan your family in such a way that only three generations must live - Your parents, You and Your child. No more 4–5 generations. We don’t have to kill people who are here but we can postpone the birth.Source and Reference:Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev Jaggi Vasudev - Wikipedia and Rajneesh OSHO Rajneesh - WikipediaWhy Only Population Control Can Ensure Our SurvivalHuman Population: The Fundamental Problem - The Isha BlogDon't have one more! - The Isha Blog
What made the sudden increase in population from the 1700s, 1800s to 1900s? Which areas on Earth experienced the most increase in population?
Well now, population is what it was before, plus births, minus deaths. In modern times, that is from about the mid eighteenth century, we have seen improvements in the control of the death rate. Less killed in war, less women dying in childbed, less infant mortality, less disease, better nourishment, shrinkage in poverty, better clothing, better housing, cleaner water, better food preservation, better transport of food over long distances - initially this only paid for spices and other high value goods, like tea and coffee, but later, bigger better ships could carry grain and other freight on transcontinental routes - the invention of refrigeration allowed the shipping of otherwise perishable foodstuffs - big cities could be more easily fed from more remote markets - its called globalisation - then they called it trade, or commerce. Ship what is available in superfluity to where people are ready and willing to pay for it. So death rates fell, life expectance increased, and yet women continued to bear lots of children, because they were used to the old conditions, where half the children died.Little story. My wife’s family stem from a man who went looking for a bride, and found the daughter of a wealthy family in Hamburg. Not just any old wealthy, the richest man in Hamburg. He owned buildings, warehouses, mills, docks, a fleet of ships, and had trading connections all over the world. His wife bore him eight children, four sons, four daughters. The received all that money could procure - good housing, good food, good clothing, heating in winter -and access to the best medical advice available in Hamburg, then a large and wealthy city. Yet only two of each sex lived to grow to adulthood. We are used to hearing dreadful talk of how the poor suffer from this and that, and the difficulties that follow - but this family was not poor: yet lost half their offspring in childhood. That was in the mid 18th century. That was when the change to modern times began. Such death rates would now be shocking: such birth rates, too. But that is where the population explosion comes from. The collapse of rampant death.
Increased number of people are engaged in politics because of Trump. Will that benefit democracy in the long term?
Definitely.When democracy was invented in Athens, free men would come together, discuss topics and then vote on it (yes yes, this is the very simplified version of a very discriminating system). The main reason for me to mention this is the part where they discussed things.You can only understand what to vote for if you understand the issues from all angles.So being engaged in politics is incredible important for democracy.Personally I am hoping that if people would be engaged, understand the limitations of the American democratic system, that people would be more willing to make necessary changes.The way I look at it, the US is in desperate need of a multi party system because neither of the two parties is able to support all Americans.The Republicans represent the economic elite. Their hands off approach for the government will mostly serve the rich but leave the lower class on the dirt.At the same time they represent the more conservative social morals, like anti-abortion, traditional family values etc.The Democrats on the other hand would support a more social economy, trying to spread the wealth among the entire population more equally.But their liberal morality doesn't always sits well with conservatives.With more parties there would be more choice to find a party that would more closely represent your ideas.But like I said, that's just my view.
How is reincarnation possible when life population has increased and not stayed constant?
It has been said against reincarnation that there are more people now in comparison with the past world population. Now the question is what is the cause of population growth despite the reincarnation?The soul neither increases and nor decreases in number. A soul has only two features. It either liberated or trapped. But once trapped soul remain tied with the human being in its entire life cycle until the liberation. The human takes birth after birth till the liberation, only afterward it dissolves in the super soul. After getting the liberation there is no reincarnation this is also true.Reason of Growing PopulationThe reason of growing population is always a seed. As a number of plants born from one plant same number of human beings born from one human. The nature of the supreme soul is reflection or manifestation. Supreme soul reflects everywhere and therefore soul reflects from each and every newborn human child too. Once, reflected from a newborn child it trapped in the cycle of life and death until not liberated.What is liberation?Liberation means to get free from the prison (Subtle body + physical body) and trapped means to come into the prison (Subtle body + physical body). The soul becomes free from the prison at the time of liberation and comes into the prison during the incarnation. When a soul is released from the prison it dissolved in the supreme soul and when it is incarnated it dissolved in the human sensation.To know the philosophy first get some insight related to the following questions:What is the meaning of being a human?What is Soul?Who is GOD or Super soul?What is liberation or “Moksha”Who wishes to liberate from the world?Who wishes to die?To read further click below:If reincarnation is true why is the population increasing? - Life In Vedas
WHY DID slavery survive in the new United States?
Because the population was too small for large scale "work intensive" crops, like Tobacco, Cotton and Indigo. So Slaves had to be imported early on. Slavery was NOT cheap in the US---By mid 1800s Slave owners would have liked nothing better than to be able to hire Irishmen, Pay them a pittance, and let THEM find their OWN food, shelter and clothing.---Like in the North. Slaves had to be given food Shelter and clothing--and of good quality too---As slaves were valuable. The banks reckoned a planter's worth for loans and credit on his slave value---never mind the house or land.----Slaves were not cheap labor at all the planters could not get rid of them as the Banking system was tied to it.---Also there was no provisions to support slaves should they be freed----The South was STUCK with slavery. (the North , on the other hand, was able to get rid of ITs Slaves, in the 1830s, by SELLING then to the South---)
Should the government increase spending during a recession?
“Should the government increase spending during a recession?”That depends upon what you believe should be the role of government in the society. If you are a stone cold Royal Libertarian then there should be no government other then a government to protect the owners of the means of production and the answer is no. If, however, you see government as a way to properly address the real needs of the society then the answer would be yes.The reason for government spending during a depression is at least two fold: One reason, obvious to the compassionate left is the rescue of the jobless from starvation and/or a life of crime with direct assistance via unemployment benefits. But the other, more important, long term benefit is the reduced cost of infrastructure development that exists during a depression. Most certainly investments in infrastructure that benefit the entire population are a better way to spend then more direct funding of unemployment benefits. While interest rates are low and unemployment high, government should USE that situation to develop needed transportation and energy systems as well as education.Infrastructure development is true Keynesianism even if the monetary system is commodity based and therefore insistent on repayment of appropriations Such an observation is no more mysterious than “buy low, sell high”. After the development of a bullet rail transport backbone, government might elect to “sell off” the corridors to business interests at a high enough price to pay off the debt attributable to the creation of the system.The Libertarian approach is to allow business to take advantage of the low costs as business invests. Unfortunately, business does not have sufficient control over the entire economy to risk investment in the longer term. Business will forever screech about uncertainty and expect government to make profits dead certain in a way that lines the pockets of the current owners (the current wealthy). That kind of government spending is quite offensive and debilitating to the general public.
Why was Sparta so weak at times of Alexander the Great?
Because years before the Thebans had figured out how to defeat the vaunted Spartan phalanx in open battle. They had done this at the Battle of Leuctra by placing their heavier elite troops on the left flank rather than the right as was standard tradition for pretty much all Greece. Furthermore, they increased the number of ranks in their phalanx to fifty, overwhelming the Spartan’s twelve. As the armies advanced, the Thebans held back their right wing ranks and screened them with skirmishers and cavalry, effectively keeping them in reserve. As you can expect, the Spartans were crushed and approximately 400 of their best troops including their king was killed. The Spartan left wing, seeing what had happened, and being comprised of conscripted Peloponnesians, broke and fled the field. From there, the Spartan’s superiority over Greece fell, and their city declined. Sparta was small, very small. And losing so much of your tenuous power-base in a single battle is extremely costly, even to larger nations. For a smaller city like Sparta, it was the beginning of the death knell, one they couldn’t recover from.