Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I thought the same thing. 4 daughters no less. In his defense, I am sure he had them prior to making his conclusions.
The intelligent should breed. Its the overwhelming number of idiots who should not.
I hear ya, but it's a pretty sweeping condemnation that may run counter to the idea of sustainability.
Or Julian Simon and Paul Ehrlich.Freelove said:I hear ya, but it's a pretty sweeping condemnation that may run counter to the idea of sustainability.Ditkaless Wonders said:
Idiots, God bless 'em -- they eat, they crap, they insert tab A into slot B, they have babies, they do the best they can to scrape by, and they die. It's pretty much how the engines of evolution got us here starting however many billions of years ago. Idiocy has a track record. Not a lot of genius among the ranks of protzoa and deer mice.
It's only through the actions of those we so cavalierly call the intelligent that we run into problems that threaten the entire species. "Live, eat, play, breed, die," works. "Let's store the food so people have to work for it," "I have a thought, let's see if we can use physics to annihilate flesh and bone," "wow, this black stuff can fuel an internal combustion engine," and, "meh, just let the free market handle it," have all made life objectively more comfortable in a lot of ways for at least a good chunk of the people here. But that's not necessarily the same thing as promoting a worldview that can work to sustain human life and the ecosphere over the long run.
Could end up working out, but the intelligent types are still feeling pretty clueless on how to accomplish that goal. Whereas the idiots had it figured out billions of years ago. Intelligence, especially this free market, capitalistic, growth-is-good type we've so thoroughly embraced, is a constant battle against itself.
Life on planet earth is really just a fight to the death between Daniel Quinn and Ayn Rand.
Hard to argue.Freelove said:I hear ya, but it's a pretty sweeping condemnation that may run counter to the idea of sustainability.Ditkaless Wonders said:
It's only through the actions of those we so cavalierly call the intelligent that we run into problems that threaten the entire species. "Live, eat, play, breed, die," works. "Let's store the food so people have to work for it," "I have a thought, let's see if we can use physics to annihilate flesh and bone," "wow, this black stuff can fuel an internal combustion engine," and, "meh, just let the free market handle it," have all made life objectively more comfortable in a lot of ways for at least a good chunk of the people here. But that's not necessarily the same thing as promoting a worldview that can work to sustain human life and the ecosphere over the long run.
Could end up working out, but the intelligent types are still feeling pretty clueless on how to accomplish that goal. Whereas the idiots had it figured out billions of years ago. Intelligence, especially this free market, capitalistic, growth-is-good type we've so thoroughly embraced, is a constant battle against itself.
That deserves a "wow?"
Unless your "wow" was to imply Ditkaless Wonders winning the Captain Obvious award for the evening?
Exactly, that's where you inevitably end up when you ponder it to its logical conclusion -- the vast machine of unending growth is never, ever going to voluntarily stop. Those of us who see what's coming are essentially powerless. It's not a message that wins votes or sells iPhones, therefore it is irrelevant to this culture. The ambivalent curmudgeon label sums me up perfectly too. I wish my mind didn't always veer into these topics because it's pretty depressing. Another point for the idiots.
Wow because it sounds like some elitist ### who believed in some kind of master race, as if they and they alone know who should be able to live and who should not. It is the mindset of some of the most evil people who ever walked on earth. But other than that, great idea.That deserves a "wow?"
We have seen declining growth rates in every continent. Europe has actually started a population decline. We currently are under a 1.1% growth rate for the planet and it will continue to decline.
1.2% Growth rate
It is not my problem because your assumptions and statement of the problem are factually incorrect. The population growth is declining and will continue to decline, so all you are doing is fear-mongering non-sense. Exactly like the people you are mocking in the Ebola thread.
It's not jon_mx's fault. The clock in his house still reads 11:58-11:59, so there's PLENTY of land, water, oil and other resources for the next several hundred years, right?!
So someone throws out numbers which have no basis in reality, and you call me out. You are a moron.It's not jon_mx's fault. The clock in his house still reads 11:58-11:59, so there's PLENTY of land, water, oil and other resources for the next several hundred years, right?!
Let's run with that, jon_mx. Starting with numbers which have no basis in reality. Please, you have the floor. Enlighten the rest of us sheeple who simply haven't been given access to the truth...the same information that you have. Do some good for the planet by helping the rest of us lost souls see the light!
Sinn Fien keeps throwing out growth rates and pretends that these growth rates are going to remain constant for the next three hundred years. These growth rates are declining rapidly, see here. We are not going to have 1.3% growth rates for the next three hundred years. We don't even have those now. It is expected to be down to 0.5% by 2050. So his assumptions are absurd, which leads to his absurd results.Let's run with that, jon_mx. Starting with numbers which have no basis in reality. Please, you have the floor. Enlighten the rest of us sheeple who simply haven't been given access to the truth...the same information that you have. Do some good for the planet by helping the rest of us lost souls see the light!
Why is expected to be down at 0.5%? Where did that number come from? Almost every policy decision we make is designed to lower the death rate - so unless the birth rate, for the globe, declines faster, we are not getting down to 0.5%Sinn Fien keeps throwing out growth rates and pretends that these growth rates are going to remain constant for the next three hundred years. These growth rates are declining rapidly, see here. We are not going to have 1.3% growth rates for the next three hundred years. We don't even have those now. It is expected to be down to 0.5% by 2050. So his assumptions are absurd, which leads to his absurd results.Let's run with that, jon_mx. Starting with numbers which have no basis in reality. Please, you have the floor. Enlighten the rest of us sheeple who simply haven't been given access to the truth...the same information that you have. Do some good for the planet by helping the rest of us lost souls see the light!
With due respect, will that catastrophe have to do with overpopulation? Or will it just be a function of biology? There's a causation problem with your argument, it seems.Why is expected to be down at 0.5%? Where did that number come from? Almost every policy decision we make is designed to lower the death rate - so unless the birth rate, for the globe, declines faster, we are not getting down to 0.5%Sinn Fien keeps throwing out growth rates and pretends that these growth rates are going to remain constant for the next three hundred years. These growth rates are declining rapidly, see here. We are not going to have 1.3% growth rates for the next three hundred years. We don't even have those now. It is expected to be down to 0.5% by 2050. So his assumptions are absurd, which leads to his absurd results.Let's run with that, jon_mx. Starting with numbers which have no basis in reality. Please, you have the floor. Enlighten the rest of us sheeple who simply haven't been given access to the truth...the same information that you have. Do some good for the planet by helping the rest of us lost souls see the light!
And then, even if we sit at 0.5% - the population will still double every 140 years - a very short time frame.
Using your rate of 0.5% we'll be around 10,000,000,000 in 2050, and then 40,000,000,000 in 280 years.
Until we see a zero growth rate, or lower, we are heading for a population that overruns the planet.
Something catastrophic will take place to limit population growth within the next 300 years.
Most of the folks I know who subscribe to the "crying wolf" theory on this sort of thing tend to be Christian, and believe that "the end times" are near. Will even cite scripture telling you as much. Basically, their attitude is "since Jesus is coming back soon regardless, let's just party like it's 1999, keep popping out lots of kids, and not worry about things that God would never allow to happen."Why is expected to be down at 0.5%? Where did that number come from? Almost every policy decision we make is designed to lower the death rate - so unless the birth rate, for the globe, declines faster, we are not getting down to 0.5%Sinn Fien keeps throwing out growth rates and pretends that these growth rates are going to remain constant for the next three hundred years. These growth rates are declining rapidly, see here. We are not going to have 1.3% growth rates for the next three hundred years. We don't even have those now. It is expected to be down to 0.5% by 2050. So his assumptions are absurd, which leads to his absurd results.Let's run with that, jon_mx. Starting with numbers which have no basis in reality. Please, you have the floor. Enlighten the rest of us sheeple who simply haven't been given access to the truth...the same information that you have. Do some good for the planet by helping the rest of us lost souls see the light!
And then, even if we sit at 0.5% - the population will still double every 140 years - a very short time frame.
Using your rate of 0.5% we'll be around 10,000,000,000 in 2050, and then 40,000,000,000 in 280 years.
Until we see a zero growth rate, or lower, we are heading for a population that overruns the planet.
Something catastrophic will take place to limit population growth within the next 300 years.
The same folks who tell you that over-population is much ado about nothing...or that climate change is a farce. Or that you should all be digging bunkers and stocking them with years of food and weaponry...even though I thought Jesus would rapture everyone "good" out of there before things FUBAR. Why is expected to be down at 0.5%? Where did that number come from? Almost every policy decision we make is designed to lower the death rate - so unless the birth rate, for the globe, declines faster, we are not getting down to 0.5%Sinn Fien keeps throwing out growth rates and pretends that these growth rates are going to remain constant for the next three hundred years. These growth rates are declining rapidly, see here. We are not going to have 1.3% growth rates for the next three hundred years. We don't even have those now. It is expected to be down to 0.5% by 2050. So his assumptions are absurd, which leads to his absurd results.Let's run with that, jon_mx. Starting with numbers which have no basis in reality. Please, you have the floor. Enlighten the rest of us sheeple who simply haven't been given access to the truth...the same information that you have. Do some good for the planet by helping the rest of us lost souls see the light!
And then, even if we sit at 0.5% - the population will still double every 140 years - a very short time frame.
Using your rate of 0.5% we'll be around 10,000,000,000 in 2050, and then 40,000,000,000 in 280 years.
Until we see a zero growth rate, or lower, we are heading for a population that overruns the planet.
Something catastrophic will take place to limit population growth within the next 300 years.
Most of the folks I know who subscribe to the "crying wolf" theory on this sort of thing tend to be Christian, and believe that "the end times" are near. Will even cite scripture telling you as much. Basically, their attitude is "since Jesus is coming back soon regardless, let's just party like it's 1999, keep popping out lots of kids, and not worry about things that God would never allow to happen."Why is expected to be down at 0.5%? Where did that number come from? Almost every policy decision we make is designed to lower the death rate - so unless the birth rate, for the globe, declines faster, we are not getting down to 0.5%Sinn Fien keeps throwing out growth rates and pretends that these growth rates are going to remain constant for the next three hundred years. These growth rates are declining rapidly, see here. We are not going to have 1.3% growth rates for the next three hundred years. We don't even have those now. It is expected to be down to 0.5% by 2050. So his assumptions are absurd, which leads to his absurd results.Let's run with that, jon_mx. Starting with numbers which have no basis in reality. Please, you have the floor. Enlighten the rest of us sheeple who simply haven't been given access to the truth...the same information that you have. Do some good for the planet by helping the rest of us lost souls see the light!
And then, even if we sit at 0.5% - the population will still double every 140 years - a very short time frame.
Using your rate of 0.5% we'll be around 10,000,000,000 in 2050, and then 40,000,000,000 in 280 years.
Until we see a zero growth rate, or lower, we are heading for a population that overruns the planet.
Something catastrophic will take place to limit population growth within the next 300 years.
I have a relative like this. She and her husband have seven children. SEVEN! She is a stay-at-home mom and homeschools five of seven children. He works at a Christian university that let's just say doesn't pay him enough to support a family of nine. But hey! They can lower their taxable income by $35,100 via all those kiddies running around (along with their two deductions). They can get another $7,000 reduction via the Child Tax Credit. Shoot...by the time they've taken all their deductions, Uncle Sam is probably cutting THEM a check for $10,000-$20,000/year. Never you mind that in the same breath, they'll rail on all those welfare leeches and baby-mamas who are bleeding our country dry via social services. How someone getting thousands in food stamps is "different" or "worse" than getting a ~$40,000 credit off one's taxable income merely as a result of the color of one's skin or the fact that there is only one father for said seven kids I have no idea! But that's a rant for another thread.
This couple consumes FAR more resources than it contributes back to society. But that's okay in the eyes of themselves and all their friends and family, because God wants Christians to reproduce like rabbits...so there are billions of Christians ruling the world. Lay siege to the planet and subdue it...and before "it" ever comes close to hitting the fan?! Dial-up a rapture and get the heck out of Dodge.
Americans consume the resources of your typical 30 Africans in a number of African nations. But if you dare suggest that we be a bit better stewards, not consume with such reckless abandon, not breed with such reckless abandon?! Well then you've just had the wool pulled over your eyes by science, aka the devil. [sigh]
A long-winded, rambling rant. But I am so sick of the inmates running the asylum in so many corners of our globe.
My comments were not directed at the video. My comments were towards some very bad use of numbers. Constant growth rates have been used for centuries to scare people. They can be a good model to use, but they are usually only accurate for a certain time period. Our population growth rate has reached that point where that model no longer applies as the growth rate is in a rapid decline and is expected to continue that decline. At least according to the experts who study that. But continue on with the fear-mongering. I am just pointing out absurdly bad abuse of numbers.
The growth rate is declining and will go negative far before then. You are peddling snake oil
Use what ever rate you want - Lets take your 0.5% rate right now - at that rate, in 2050 there will be nearly 11,000,000,000 people on the planet, and in 2330 the number, using your 0.5% growth rate, will 43,693,172,417 - or 6 more people for every person on the planet today.
I'd say its highly unlikely that is a sustainable number - unless of course we have become more machine than human, and we have found renewable resources to sustain such an existence.
Now consider that while the birth rate is likely to drop in many countries, the death rate is also likely to drop - better healthcare and technology will ensure longer lives. What is more likely to happen, even in the next 50 years - birth rate will drop faster than the death rate, or the death rate will drop faster than the birth rate? Now consider developing countries where they are likely to see huge advances in healthcare - but will their birth rate drop significantly?
Any growth rate is too much - given enough time. 300 years, in the overall scheme of things is not very long.
Based on what?The growth rate is declining and will go negative far before then. You are peddling snake oil
Use what ever rate you want - Lets take your 0.5% rate right now - at that rate, in 2050 there will be nearly 11,000,000,000 people on the planet, and in 2330 the number, using your 0.5% growth rate, will 43,693,172,417 - or 6 more people for every person on the planet today.
I'd say its highly unlikely that is a sustainable number - unless of course we have become more machine than human, and we have found renewable resources to sustain such an existence.
Now consider that while the birth rate is likely to drop in many countries, the death rate is also likely to drop - better healthcare and technology will ensure longer lives. What is more likely to happen, even in the next 50 years - birth rate will drop faster than the death rate, or the death rate will drop faster than the birth rate? Now consider developing countries where they are likely to see huge advances in healthcare - but will their birth rate drop significantly?
Any growth rate is too much - given enough time. 300 years, in the overall scheme of things is not very long.
In this 2014 study (pdf), which comes up with higher numbers than the most recent UN report, "there is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion, will
I notice you cite two sources that contradict each other, and neither addresses the falling mortality rate - which will fall more rapidly in developing countries as they get access to better healthcare. So their mind set will still be on "needing" a greater fertility rate, while their infant mortality rate is dropping.
I am sure you understand population growth more than people who actually study it at the UN and Deutsche Bank.
I think what these studies focus on is the declining fertility and birth rates in developing countries - but I don't think they give enough weight to the corresponding decline in mortality rates.
If you are on public assistance for X- amount of time you should be mandated to be sterilized...
An approach more likely to get passed is just pay people to get fixed. Enough will bite at the instant cash to weed out some of the biggest losers from the gene pool.
I think you might be underestimating the amount of data that goes into these studies.
