I disagree with your premise though. Money and power grow during periods of chaotic unpredictability, when the powers that be are not clearly focused and leave room for enterprising individuals to breakout of the matrix. The 90's is a perfect point in time to see this happening. The worlds only super power was in a chaotic political environment for virtually the entire decade, with a sitting President impeached over a sex scandal, two genocides in progress in Rwanda and Bosnia from which the US government received a lot of flak for faulty responses, the beginning of massive terrorist attacks in the US with the WTC bombing and Ok City, the beginning of the global warming controversy with massive hurricanes all decade starting with Andrew, and a tech bubble that drove the stock market to unprecedented highs after a stagnant 80's. No stability at all that decade and yet more wealth was created on paper than had accumulated during the previous three decades combined.
Of course you don't see that the developing world, most of the world population was moving into manufacturing from rural farming. The emerging middle class around the world was expanding at a huge rate and computing power increased at multiples never seen before. As usual you predict all growth on manipulation rather than huge gains in productivity, the end of the cold war, stability in emerging markets, etc., etc., etc. You are looking at minor events not major shifts in economic development as the reason for growth. The attacks on the WTC and wars that they started have been a large drag on growth.
The biggest impact on wealth growth and productivity in that period of time was of course the completely destabilizing introduction of global free trade with all the trade pacts, bilateral and otherwise, that the world entered into from 1990 to 2000.
Yes of course almost a billion people going from poverty to middle class really sucked for the US Union slug.
There is only "ONE" reason that climate control via government would control the weather, right? TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING!!! Stop belieiving that crap. What a horseshit opinion. China tried the One Child Policy. They were viewed as monsters. But they were smart. They knew the detriment of overpopulation would end up in a revolution against the few that controlled their government. The US learned from that. USA is facing a similar population issue for the powers that be. They also know, thanks to China, that it cannot be public. They have had technology in Alaska that can control weather patterns. Something that can be explained away years from now, as a way to "stop global warming". Why bother? That's the way the world is moving. But if they can use that tech to cause drought in crop-necessary areas, if they can cause flood in highly-populated areas, if they can cause power-loss in the absolutely-most-populated areas of the country, it lowers the populations that can rebel. It also minimizes the areas that they have to focus on for control. This country, like many countries, has become far too large to control. The people that control this world understand that. All they have to do is find many ways to distract you from that truth.
I don't know why people freak out over the weather so often. It is always freaking out, remember El Nino? We don't have perfect weather and it really doesn't make sense to get all worked up over a slight change.
People are having less children the population is moderating. The one child policy in China is very likely to topple the government not preserve it. The demographic shift of one or 2 children supporting 3, 4 or 5 elderly people is a coming disaster for China. It's not going to be great for the US either since China is going to have to dump US currency to take care of their elderly. Women's rights, people living longer and the reduction of child mortality is having a natural impact on the world population. The increase is tapering and will start going down. All the population explosion stats from the past are wrong and being redrawn as new census data confirms that reality. The US budget crisis is essentially a demographic crisis as less workers have to support more retired people. The US needs plus migration just to maintain our population.
Vice.com just did a story on this, it's very interesting. Maldives islands’ are sinking, they are the 1st to really feel the effects of the climate change. There former present has been campaigning around to spread awareness of the problem. He’s even trying to scout out areas where he can move his people. Venice Italy has also been hit hard by this, by the time high tide comes, the city itself is a foot or so underwater. It’s defiantly worth watching.
interesting - i recall the maldives are not more than a few feet above sea level historically so even a small absolute change is disastrous.
Portions of the earth are rising including large portions of North America that are rebounding from the end of the Ice Age. Land masses rise and fall, ocean levels rise and fall.
You can see this on the Hudson at high tide also. High water levels are higher than they were in middle of the 20th century and rising.
There are lots of solutions available though. A tax code that encourages people to have more children and also to care for their aging parents is one long-term shift that would be helpful. Open immigration that gives immigrants buy-in rights and discourages them sending earnings out of the country is another. We'd be better off with immigrants bringing their children to America than sending money home to them elsewhere.
It's not really surprising. There's pretty much one constant on earth, and that constant is change. Things are always changing. The water levels might be higher now, but I'd bet that if you go back far enough you will find times when it was higher. Remember we're living in an interglacial period right now (a short warming period between ice ages or glacial periods), which means it will eventually get cool again and go back to ice age like temperatures. The last interglacial period only lasted 20,000 years. To put that in perspective, the glacial period following it, lasted around 100,000 years and ended 12,000 years ago. Experts have predicted that this interglacial period COULD go for another 50,000 years, but it's not exactly set in stone or anything. Impact events and earth changing disasters could also have a major effect on this cycle of warm and cold. I absolutely hate the label of 'global warming' for this reason. It's not logical unless you look at selective time frames. Anyways I'm not really arguing with you or anything, I just find this subject fascinating.
