What is the "it" you're talking about here? Electronic books? How can electronic books make people more lazy? Now people don't need to go to the store to buy books, but they'll probably spend about the same amount of time reading as they did before. If you're talking about the internet in general, how is looking things up online a symptom of laziness? What would be the "non-lazy" option? To go to the library and look things up? I think, in this sense, technology is just saving our time and giving us instant access to the information of the whole world.

I don't think this is such a big problem. It may actually be a good thing. Imagine how much paper we are saving by not printing so many books. I can see that the worry could be that theoretically Amazon could just say, "The books are ours, you can't read them anymore." I don't think they could do that legally, for one thing. The other thing is that, even if they did do that, there's plenty of competition. Everybody would just go to another company. That is the main reason that Amazon would never do that. They want to make money. I think owning less things is actually a great thing. Do you think that to be a "true American" you need to own lots of things? The bigger the better? I think that's a relatively new idea. Did the founding fathers think like that?

1 - One definition of greed is "Excessive desire for more than one needs or deserves". I think millionaires are just wise in how they manage their money. If they work hard and smart for what they get, they do deserve it. I'm sure there are greedy millionaires, but there's no need to start stereotypes.
2 - Many company managers purposefully try to create jobs to give others opportunities. Of course, you employ people to make more money for yourself, but it can definitely be mutually beneficial.
3 - No. This is definitely not true. You could be lucky and receive an inheritance or win the lottery, but for the most part, you gotta work.
4 - Debt can be leveraged to make more money, but you gotta be careful.
5 - No, you also need to implement a great idea. That's key.
6 - No guarantee in that. It certainly take work to do the research.
7 - You can't just believe in it, you need to study and act.
8 - That might be true.

Could you please use some more punctuation? It's really hard to understand what you're saying. Is this the queen's English? Maybe you could include to links to articles? What's actually happening with Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson? Why do you need to offend Muslim people? Isn't there a way you can get get along over there? The fact that almost half of the population is religious shouldn't be something you forget.

You touch on a really important topic. When you rely only on your emotions, you tend to make poor decisions. Unfortunately, our emotions often lack logic. The key is to set rules. You need to decide in advance what to do. You may decide that you'll buy if ____ happens. Then you'll sell if ____ happens. You may get slightly lower gains then you could have theoretically gotten, but it'll keep your money safer.

Interesting. I'm not familiar with the term "bug out" at all. Merriam-Webster says it means "to retreat during a military action; especially : to flee in panic" or "to depart especially in a hurry". So, this article is talking about preparing your children to run away from the adults at school, if they feel it necessary? Is that correct? Those are some pretty intense drills you are talking about. Running away during them sounds like a horrible idea. If underage kids are running away from school, when they should be under the supervision of adults there, I'm pretty sure they'll send the cops after them, if they even get out of the school. I agree that it's good to teach your kids how to be independent, but if this ridiculousness is happening at your school it bothers you enough, you should either change the schools policies or just stop sending your kids there. Sounds a lot like prison to me.

That's what I say. People forget to take into account technological developments. Whenever we run into a problem so global, we always have people offering solutions. I have read about skyscraper farms, for example. You can actually farm vertically. If land is an issue, you can just build taller and taller. It's nice in a city too because then the food is already right there. You don't need to pay much for shipping. That's for mentioning mycoprotein. I think I heard of it before, but it was nice to read up on it a bit.

Did you read the post? What do you mean by MaxQ? I'm not familiar with this term. I Googled it and found that it is an aerospace engineering term. Wikipedia says it "is the point at which aerodynamic stress on a vehicle in atmospheric flight is maximized". I can't see how that could relate to a population. If we run out of resources, how will that give people more time to do other things?

Cryptocurrencies are pretty new for me. I remember hearing about them here and there over the past several years. I always disregarded them as a something that wouldn't be so important in my life. Now it seems that cryptocurrencies will definitely play a part in everybody's lives in the future. I want to keep learning more about crypto and maybe I'll even invest in some before the end of the year.

You actually that populations will start growing naturally in the Western World? You think that birth rates will go up? Of course, the populations in many western countries are increasing. This is happening in large part, thanks to immigration. Canada, for example, welcomes more than 300,000 new immigrants every year! That's about a one percent increase in population every year just from immigration. The population of Canada is only 35 million. Why do you think the population will start growing more again?

What do you mean by that? How could we possibly use the available resources of 1.5 earths? Is that not physically impossible? I don't think you can use more resources than exist. I think one of our biggest problems is that we don't actually know how many resources are available. Capitalism requires scarcity to work. It it is in private companies' best interest to make people think that their product is scarce. Then they can charge more.

I agree that it's best to be tolerant of everybody. I interpret this as respect for other peoples beliefs and traditions. This is not equivalent to passiveness. Imagine robbery. You could say I'm tolerant of all peoples. I'm even tolerant of robbers. A robber could say he believes it's okay to "steal from the rich". If he comes to your home, tolerance doesn't mean that you'll just let him steal all your things. You won't stand there thinking, "I respect his choice." Being tolerant of other's opinions is great, but it doesn't mean you think they should be able to break the law and hurt other people.

The definition that I found for intolerant is, "not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one's own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted." (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/intolerant) I guess the opposite would be respecting others beliefs etc. Respecting beliefs is a good thing. A tolerant person should respect people, even if they don't respect others. Being a bigot and acting on it are different things in my mind. Intolerant people can think all they want and talk about it among themselves. I think the problem is when bigots start acting out in violence or verbal abuse of others. That is not acceptable in society.

Why would you say that survival behavior is unnatural? I think that's just about the most natural behavior you can have. I think you're right when you use the word "animal". These are the same instincts that animals have to reproduce. I don't think the huge boom in world population is due to people suddenly deciding to turn on their survival instinct. The difference is that people actually started surviving. Modern medicine and vaccinations have reduced out mortality rate greatly. Life expectancy is also going up. I suggest not only looking at the history population, but also look at the birth rates. They are going down all over the world. Some projections even predict that world population will start going down again the future.

Computerization is gradually, but sure changing everything around us. I notice this when it comes to bureaucracy. There are so many processes going digital. This will happen more and more. Private and government organizations need to constantly ask themselves, if the physical presence of a person actually necessary to do what I need to do or do I actually need a physical copy of a document? In so many cases it's not necessary. It's so nice to see that so many countries are making it possible to apply for visas online. In some places, I've seen that it's possible to order a police record check online or even order a new passport online. We're using a lot less paper and we're saving a lot of time.

According to the UN, the total fertility rate in the world has been going down constantly since the 1950s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate). This means that people are having less and less kids. The total fertility rate for 2010-2015 was 2.36. If I understand correctly, when the fertility rate is at 2.0, this means the population no longer grows, since there are usually about 1 man for each woman. If each woman has two children the population stays about the same. In some countries these numbers are much higher, but even there the numbers are going down. In many countries, populations have negative growth due to this. I don't think the world population will continue to "balloon". Food is not going extinct.

Yes, I believe it's common for wealthier people to get off easier. I recently watched a video with two young women on death row in the US somewhere. They brought up this fact too. They said there is not a single rich person on death row. The fact is that if you have money in the US you can afford good lawyers. If you have a good lawyer, you're probably going to get off with a much lesser or no punishment. This isn't even taking into account the human factor in interactions with police. If a police officer already knows a person because the person is rich and famous, they may not arrest the person or even give them a fine. This could be due to intimidation or it could just be that they like the person. In some countries, of course corruption lets rich people get off with literally anything.

I don't know enough about Nikki Haley to say whether or not she should be fired, but this definitely seems stupid. How can one little person declare that another country will always be an enemy? So much of a country's foreign police just depends on very small groups of people "at the top". They make all the decisions and hardly ever as the average person what they think. If you ask Americans what the thing about Burmese people or what foreign policy should be like with Burkina Faso, the vast majority will have no idea what to say. I'm sure that Russia's relations with the US are similar. I'm sure that most people in Russia don't think much about American's as people, but rather just about what their governments are doing or what propaganda is being spread. It's the same vice-versa. If the smalls groups of people in government change, so many things can change much faster than many may expect.

Well, I can't tell you why I hate Islam because I don't. I think a lot of people have said they same things in this thread. The main reason people "hate" Islam is ignorance. They don't actually know what Islam is or what it stands for. I actually don't really think that so many people genuinely hate Islam. They may have negative or hateful feelings towards Islam, but that's usually just a reflection of what the media or their friends say. I have visited a few Muslim countries and I have great experiences. Muslim people are typically very generous and hospitable. Just like there are extremist Christian group that do bad things, there are extremist Islamic group that do bad things. Most people of either faith are just trying to live in a way they see as right and do good things.