Another measure of a lack of recognition that resources are limited:
The District of Columbia is spending $20,000 to pay artists to paint environmentally friendly, pro-LGBTQ murals on storm drains.
Mayor Muriel Bowser unveiled a “rainbow-colored crosswalk” on Friday to promote gay pride parades that are taking place in the city this weekend. Bowser announced storm drains would also be painted by local artists to “celebrate the LGBTQ identity” and the environment.
“We are installing these temporary crosswalks as a symbol of Washington, D.C.’s inclusivity and LGBTQ pride,” Bowser said. “For many years, Washington, D.C., has been a leader on LGBTQ rights, and my administration will continue pushing forward to protect and defend the rights of and expand opportunity for our LGBTQ residents. It is an honor to be part of this installation, and I look forward to joining residents from across D.C. at the Capital Pride Parade.”
Bowser’s office said the rainbow crosswalks are temporary in order to “comply with federal standards.”
This would be a clear waste of resources if the paintings were designed to last permanently. But these are not even permanent. Think about how many areas are going bankrupt. Some areas are on track to default on Police and Firefighter pensions. But here they are, spending money on temporarily painting LGBT murals on storm drains of all things.
This is a psychological programming – an organism designed to spend resources freely, without any fear the glut will ever come to an end. This is the r-strategy, doing exactly what it is designed to do.
On the bright side, I view all of these things as fast-forward-button pushes, driving us to the Apocalypse that much quicker.
Tell everyone about r/K Theory, because it is their money too
[…] When Resources Are Free – LGBT Painted Storm Drains […]
Resources ARE limited. Problem is they don’t see it as their resources— or limitation..
Its comes from someone else: the invisible ‘taxpayer’ who is magically available to be drained.
It has to end. End the parasitism
Hey anonymous, you keep bringing up the Apocalypse. Do you think that it may be possible that instead western civilization to slowly transformation? I mean instead of a major economic collapses or major war (or civil war) instead we get a slow down until reach the third world. I mean each generation expecting less and adjusting until people are starving and K start to rising again.
The kind of the type that South America (mix race, high taxes, low standard of living, high food prices, lower iq) or Japan (with the economic recession Lost Decade, falling birth rates and old age) has had since the 1970s instead of say a strong man Napoleon putting an end to the french revolution (and the fiat money). You know ‘Not with a bang but a whimper’ – T.S. Elliot
I thought due to the history of the roman empire. After the era of Augustus 14 AD the history of Rome is more or less a slow fall with some exceptions. I would say that if you compare how the romans reaction in the earlier times to the threat of carthage compare to that of the sack of rome. It is amazing only your r/K theory makes sense (maybe biohistory), Romans become more r than K in later roman period. Emperor Constantine I think must of had some idea of what is to come since his decisions which ended up to being more long term and the very important in the history of the west. Maybe he got Constantinople built as a place away from the corruption of Rome and a way for the empire to continue and chose christian (as a bet on the future) as they were the only ones having children.
It’s possible. I’ve never seen anything like this myself before, so I am trying to extrapolate and I could be wrong. But I see a few differences with Rome.
First is the empire aspect. We cannot foist our shortage on some foreign land, to blunt the effect here.
Second is no slaves, to push harder to blunt the bottom of the fall with a little extra output.
Third is diversity, with groups that naturally hate each other. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, street gangs, and so on. Whites are not there yet, but they will get there fast if history is any guide.
Fourth is mass production of food and the complex infrastructure to deliver it. When the system goes down, there will not be millions eeking by. There will be millions, and 90% will have to die. That 90% mortality they talk about in the event of a system failure is not 90% of the populace crawling into a bush and going to sleep. That is the 90% who, as Walter White would say, “lost.”
But it is tough to say. I suspect we will all live to find out.
Finally is the debt effect. It is one thing to see production gradually decline. It is another if when everything is gone, you then owe trillions you will never pay back. I see that as a hyper-K trigger, which will either produce war, or collapse the economic system.
I agree with all you said is a problem. I just think the time line is slow and much longer that by the time of say major war (civil or other), plague and mass starvation that would normal cause major collapse there will not be a USA Europe, Canada or Australia as we know it today (most likely a bunch of smaller states with some parts own by new forming empires). Maybe I am wrong on this and might be because I have listen to many Austrians and Libertarians go on for years about the collapse of the US dollar and the coming Depression always coming next year or was it the year after.
The rot I think will continue (unless nuclear, war with china or maybe a war in Europe) as it has been since the 60s and standard of living will continue to decline. Most people just want to keep living day to day, they will adjust their exceptions, get used to the higher crime rates, higher food prices, seeing roads and bridges not getting repair, health services declining, police and firefighters corrupt or inefficient, buildings (as what happen in London) catching fire or collapsing and power becoming more costly and less reliable, blackouts will become common. Paying taxes will become a joke and as will patriotism. Trying to enforce State control it will become harder. Nations will break apart and people will not know the elected president / Prime minster or care since loyally will switch to more local. In grouping will be become more common and be necessary in some areas (just think of the future having more people like Tommy Robinson in local towns, villages aleast something to look forward). I think by the time of say a black plague or a major wars in the West (second civil war or something like that) you will have a bunch of small states, and in some cases local tribes instead of large Western Nations (think of the German States in the 17th century instead of Germany today) . Some areas will be a third world and others while poorer will recovery and adjust to second rank
I think this in part due to history of the Soviet Union (I think the US will be very similar), China, North Korea, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Venezuela. Human put up with a lot, even at times starvation before the revolution if at all. In all the cases i put above, especially Argentina, Brazil and South Africa were mostly white (south Africa expected) or Asian countries in the 1950 with growing economics that in some cases were expected to reach Western standards. It was a slow change to decline, rise of corruption, demographic change (though Argentina is still mostly white), white birth rates lowering, population change of IQ and emergency services from European levels to now either corrupt or inefficient.