Apparently there are not enough stars to gaze at it or space to explore. Those wacky scientists, not the least bit concerned that their days might be numbered and they might have to go out and get real jobs, have decided to go into the socio-economic business, and their progressive slip is showing;
Few think Western civilization is on the brink of collapse—but it’s also doubtful the Romans and Mesopotamians saw their own demise coming either.
If we’re to avoid their fate, we’ll need policies to reduce economic inequality and preserve natural resources, according to a NASA-funded study that looked at the collapses of previous societies.
“Two important features seem to appear across societies that have collapsed,” reads the study. “The stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity and the economic stratification of society into Elites and Masses.”
Here we go again, more of this wealth redistribution crap, progressivism is so noxious. The Elites against the Masses, two distinct and separate animals, never ever cross breeding or sharing of common goals or common beliefs, us against them, how boring. And what is this “ecological carrying capacity”? Is this codespeak for population control?
In unequal societies, researchers said, “collapse is difficult to avoid…. Elites grow and consume too much, resulting in a famine among Commoners that eventually causes the collapse of society.”
There is so much wrong with this, it’s hard to know where to start. What is an “equal society” and has there ever been one for us to look are and compare? In a free market/capitalist society don’t we want the Elites to consume stuff? Isn’t that how economies are moved forward to grow? When rich people (I will take literary license here and assume that is who they mean by “Elites”) inject their capital into the marketplace, goods are produced, jobs are created, and profits puts food on the dinner tables of the workers. Why are they bitching about that?
Who decides how much is too much? If Warren Buffett decides to take 10 fancy vacations a year instead of 5, or Bill Gates thinks he needs 3 yachts tied in port instead of 1, is this really hurting society? Is it wasteful (The travel industry workers and the yacht builders don’t think so), and how pray tell is any of those taking away from the Masses? More of that finite pie crap, that since the rich has a bigger piece, it only follows that the poor will have a smaller slice. So their conclusion is that because the rich buy too much stuff, the poor will will go hungry, famine is created. Mind numblingly stupid.
A few words about natural resources. I always thought scientist types did not limit themselves to “what we have now” but could project to “what are the possibilities in the future”. We know that we have more trees now then ever before. Sure, the earth contains a finite amount fossil fuels under ground, but who says we are even remotely close to running out. More advanced and efficient extraction methods, tar sands, heavy oil, oil shale, gas shale, even the discovery and commercial viability of different energy sources, all could prolong and preserve the abundance of available natural resources.
NASA and the stupid have not been strangers so I am not surprised at this little jaunt through progressive fairyland, but in the conversation of what government agencies need to get the ax (many are worse than useless and would not be missed) NASA is on the bubble. Yes, I know that when their budget is put up against the avalanche of waste we see in most entitlement programs, we are talking pennies on the dollar. But when they get sidetracked with proclamations damning the rich and parrot the president’s redistributionist junk, that tells me they do not have enough work to do and maybe they need to be redistributed back into the private sector.