Pages: 1 2

 

2009-03-23 19:18:12
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7019

Macbeth wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Fuck reducing your population for the sake of the Earth and fairness of the third worlders.
The reality is there is only a finite amount of resources and the First World nations waste a ridiculously disproportionate amount.  If the Earth's population were to stagnate and all people currently living tried to maintain a First World standard of living we'd be doomed shortly.  We (First World nations) don't deserve our standard of living any more than a malnourished Starvin' Marvin deserves his distended belly.  We First Worlders won the birth lottery in being born into a society that looks up to people who live in Dionysian excess as success stories while at the same time deriding those less fortunate losers of the birth lottery as uncivilized and backwards.  Eventually all us winners are going to have to make sacrifices in our standard of living to give those less fortunate losers the same opportunity.  The alternative is to continue wasting and consuming until the mega-rich are the only ones who can afford to live the way we do now and everyone else struggles to live like Masai tribesmen.
Hmm, your solution then?
he doesnt have a solution... it just makes him feel better about himself when he pulls the high and mighty generalization card...

and the UK could start by getting rid of the chavs and all the global warming people... the global warming people could reduce their carbon footprint to zero very quickly if they wanted to... by taking a long walk off a short pier...lol
Love is the answer
2009-03-23 19:33:02
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5888

Kmarion wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Hasn't reproduction been on the decline over there? .. or so I've heard.
Population growth rate:
    0.279% (2009 est.)
Birth rate:
    10.65 births/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Death rate:
    10.05 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … nt/uk.html
Now to find the birth rate for 2007...
Right, we need a range of years to compare in order to see if it is declining.
I guess this is what I was remembering.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm (EU)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2570503.stm
damned social evolution wiping out the Europeans.
2009-03-23 19:51:16
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6297|Truthistan

Macbeth wrote:

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

First world populations sure as hell have the stones for conquest. You just have to give them a reason for it. Fake an attack on the people of the nation and they'll let you do anything. (I'm not calling 9/11 a conspiracy, I don't think it was) Keep making people more and more paranoid and eventually you can do anything to or with them.
When you get control of a huge resource like oil you don't flood the market with it. That would defeat the purpose, you slowly sell it and control the price and make long term profit rather then flooding the market and making it valueless.
Well, if Iraqi oil had been released, instead of letting oil go to $145, we might have avoided the economiic collapse that was caused by the run up on commodities. Point is we're not staying there so its not a conquest. The last country to stay and occupy land for conquest was Israel. So I would say conquest is off the table. And the thread is getting off topic unless we are talking about invading the UK in order to help them reduce their population.

When the greenies have the UK population planting fields with a stick, they will very soon thereafter have no population problem at all.
Um this economic problem was caused mainly by people who couldn't afford the homes they bought. If you had taken the home issue off the table the high cost of oil wouldn't have been more then a daily bother to most people. You could conquer an area and hold onto to it. You would just have to deal with everyone extremely harshly. I give credit to Israel for not going down that road. What was suggested was that the U.K. should just start reconquering everyone to maintain themselves again.
The economic collapse was caused by the run up on the price of commodities.

Think of the housing bubble as the 1000 pounds of TNT. The run up on the price on commodities and the $4 a gallon gas was the blasting cap. If the price of commodities did not get so riduculously high and cause an income crunch for the middle class, the housing bubble would probably still be inflating today.

On the conquest thing.... Sadam had the stones for conquest and look what happened to him.
2009-03-23 19:59:46
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7019
Some good info on overpopulation and supplies running out myths...
http://www.globalissues.org/article/203 … of-control
http://www.globalissues.org/article/202 … hs-to-feed
Love is the answer
2009-03-23 20:08:19
topthrill05
Member
+125|6880|Rochester NY USA
Regardless we can't sustain much more then the 7-8 billion we have currently if you ask me. I think if we want long term (Another 2000 years lets say) technology must advance much quicker and our population as a whole needs to become smaller and much better educated.

I know I'm dreaming. But I think otherwise it's doubtful we can continue this way for 100's more years.
2009-03-23 21:13:11
Warhammer
Member
+18|5983
You know in some time now when Obama signs a UHC bill. We will most likely have a serious debate on the issue. Someone will point out statistics that Americans average lifespan is a little smaller than Europeans and say this is one of the reason why Americans need UHC it will help their case in increasing lifespan. However, the same time you want limited population. So I just want to ask which one of you will flip flop first.
2009-03-24 03:43:41
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX
The world needs to reduce its population by 80-90%, or we all need to reduce our consumption by 80-90%.
Take your pick.
Fuck Israel
2009-03-24 04:26:53
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6977|Canberra, AUS

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


The reality is there is only a finite amount of resources and the First World nations waste a ridiculously disproportionate amount.  If the Earth's population were to stagnate and all people currently living tried to maintain a First World standard of living we'd be doomed shortly.  We (First World nations) don't deserve our standard of living any more than a malnourished Starvin' Marvin deserves his distended belly.  We First Worlders won the birth lottery in being born into a society that looks up to people who live in Dionysian excess as success stories while at the same time deriding those less fortunate losers of the birth lottery as uncivilized and backwards.  Eventually all us winners are going to have to make sacrifices in our standard of living to give those less fortunate losers the same opportunity.  The alternative is to continue wasting and consuming until the mega-rich are the only ones who can afford to live the way we do now and everyone else struggles to live like Masai tribesmen.
Hmm, your solution then?
he doesnt have a solution... it just makes him feel better about himself when he pulls the high and mighty generalization card...

and the UK could start by getting rid of the chavs and all the global warming people... the global warming people could reduce their carbon footprint to zero very quickly if they wanted to... by taking a long walk off a short pier...lol
Geez, you really are an asshole with regards to anyone who thinks global warming could be possible at all.

Population reduction is not really what the UK needs right now.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2009-03-24 04:30:29
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6924|London, England
As technology improves it's not silly to think that first world nations could actually be ending up consuming the same amount as third world countries, yet also keep or even improve the same standard of life. When you think about it, we're really wasteful and there's lots and lots of room for improvement in efficiency and sustainability.

Technology is the key here, the world can sustain a much larger population than it already has if humans manage the resources properly...

So it's not about population control, although that plays a part, it's more about just being less wasteful

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2009-03-24 04:38:16)

2009-03-24 04:31:36
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6408|eXtreme to the maX
World needs a new economic model - relentless growth is killing us, like bacteria in a jar.
Fuck Israel
2009-03-24 04:37:56
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6968|NT, like Mick Dundee

Dilbert_X wrote:

World needs a new economic model - relentless growth is killing us, like bacteria in a jar.
That or we have to develop technology allowing us to realistically exploit the resources of the planetary bodies around the Earth.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-03-24 06:27:03
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6525|Escea

Switch wrote:

We have an ageing population problem, so a china style 'one-child policy' is out of the question.  We'd become a nation of geriatrics.
This ^

The ones mostly having all the kids these days are the immigrants, the actual English-born population is shrinking. I heard a story about a school that had 37 languages in it and English was the minority spoken.

We could always declare war on Germany again I guess.
2009-03-24 06:51:50
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6968|NT, like Mick Dundee

M.O.A.B wrote:

Switch wrote:

We have an ageing population problem, so a china style 'one-child policy' is out of the question.  We'd become a nation of geriatrics.
This ^

The ones mostly having all the kids these days are the immigrants, the actual English-born population is shrinking. I heard a story about a school that had 37 languages in it and English was the minority spoken.

We could always declare war on Germany again I guess.
You have to prod them into it so they declare war on everybody in Europe. Like the last two times m8. Otherwise it's a pr disaster.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-03-24 07:14:15
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6525|Escea

Flecco wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Switch wrote:

We have an ageing population problem, so a china style 'one-child policy' is out of the question.  We'd become a nation of geriatrics.
This ^

The ones mostly having all the kids these days are the immigrants, the actual English-born population is shrinking. I heard a story about a school that had 37 languages in it and English was the minority spoken.

We could always declare war on Germany again I guess.
You have to prod them into it so they declare war on everybody in Europe. Like the last two times m8. Otherwise it's a pr disaster.
https://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a163/Pizlop/GIFs/curses-foiled-again.jpg
2009-03-24 07:21:31
Flecco
iPod is broken.
+1,048|6968|NT, like Mick Dundee

Not saying Germany was innocent. Not at all, but Versailles hardly helped the situation.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
2009-03-24 08:47:39
Warhammer
Member
+18|5983
Oh well you guys be dead when the world has problems(if it does), cycle of life. Science is still improving our everyday life.

Last edited by Warhammer (2009-03-24 08:48:04)

2009-03-24 10:02:12
mcjagdflieger
Champion of Dueling Rectums
+26|6613|South Jersey
Theres a specific term about a couple that only has 2 children, in that those 2 children will "replace" the parents when they die, thus not adding more to the population, just keeping it constant, but i cant remember it. But then I guess the fallacy in that is when both children reproduce two spawns, its still population growth. Eh whatever why would anybody want more than 2 kids? Theyre not that great sheesh

Last edited by mcjagdflieger (2009-03-24 10:17:24)

2009-03-24 13:30:31
henno13
A generally unremarkable member
+230|6651|Belfast
Ill happily trade my british passport for an american one
2009-03-24 13:38:58
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6803|so randum

mcjagdflieger wrote:

Theres a specific term about a couple that only has 2 children, in that those 2 children will "replace" the parents when they die, thus not adding more to the population, just keeping it constant, but i cant remember it. But then I guess the fallacy in that is when both children reproduce two spawns, its still population growth. Eh whatever why would anybody want more than 2 kids? Theyre not that great sheesh
fuuuuuuuuuuucccck i know what you mean but i cant think of the word

arrrrrrgh
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2009-03-24 13:50:09
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6708|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Fuck reducing your population for the sake of the Earth and fairness of the third worlders.
The reality is there is only a finite amount of resources and the First World nations waste a ridiculously disproportionate amount.  If the Earth's population were to stagnate and all people currently living tried to maintain a First World standard of living we'd be doomed shortly.  We (First World nations) don't deserve our standard of living any more than a malnourished Starvin' Marvin deserves his distended belly.  We First Worlders won the birth lottery in being born into a society that looks up to people who live in Dionysian excess as success stories while at the same time deriding those less fortunate losers of the birth lottery as uncivilized and backwards.  Eventually all us winners are going to have to make sacrifices in our standard of living to give those less fortunate losers the same opportunity.  The alternative is to continue wasting and consuming until the mega-rich are the only ones who can afford to live the way we do now and everyone else struggles to live like Masai tribesmen.
As far as population growth goes, however, the Third World still is the one that is pumping out kids like there's no tomorrow.

The rising demand for global resources coupled with the rising starndards of living in the Third World will naturally make it so that the First World will slowly decline in its use of resources as compared to the Third World.  Essentially, trade will naturally level things out.

The First World will become less decadent, while the Third starts to experience decadence.

Either way, when it comes to population control, the Third World is really the one that needs to get a grip.
2009-03-24 14:41:09
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7019

Spark wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Macbeth wrote:


Hmm, your solution then?
he doesnt have a solution... it just makes him feel better about himself when he pulls the high and mighty generalization card...

and the UK could start by getting rid of the chavs and all the global warming people... the global warming people could reduce their carbon footprint to zero very quickly if they wanted to... by taking a long walk off a short pier...lol
Geez, you really are an asshole with regards to anyone who thinks global warming could be possible at all.

Population reduction is not really what the UK needs right now.

Polluting is bad and everyone should try and keep it in check... my problem with the global warming alarmists is there attitudes... They are very selfrighteous and will tell everyone what they need to do... Global warming is a business...
and it's also a great tool to use politically... no dirty coal... but no ugly solar panels... no nukes... stop using so much gasoline.... what do they want???   The Hypocrisy is deafening...
Love is the answer
2009-03-24 21:33:55
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6713|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Fuck reducing your population for the sake of the Earth and fairness of the third worlders.
The reality is there is only a finite amount of resources and the First World nations waste a ridiculously disproportionate amount.  If the Earth's population were to stagnate and all people currently living tried to maintain a First World standard of living we'd be doomed shortly.  We (First World nations) don't deserve our standard of living any more than a malnourished Starvin' Marvin deserves his distended belly.  We First Worlders won the birth lottery in being born into a society that looks up to people who live in Dionysian excess as success stories while at the same time deriding those less fortunate losers of the birth lottery as uncivilized and backwards.  Eventually all us winners are going to have to make sacrifices in our standard of living to give those less fortunate losers the same opportunity.  The alternative is to continue wasting and consuming until the mega-rich are the only ones who can afford to live the way we do now and everyone else struggles to live like Masai tribesmen.
As far as population growth goes, however, the Third World still is the one that is pumping out kids like there's no tomorrow.

The rising demand for global resources coupled with the rising starndards of living in the Third World will naturally make it so that the First World will slowly decline in its use of resources as compared to the Third World.  Essentially, trade will naturally level things out.

The First World will become less decadent, while the Third starts to experience decadence.

Either way, when it comes to population control, the Third World is really the one that needs to get a grip.
KJ's generalization (waste vs consume, for instance) overlooks the industrialization of the "First World" as compared to the "Third World". The FW provides the vast majority of the goods and services used by the rest of the world. If the TW provided a larger proportion of the goods and services used by the rest of the world, their standard of living would be higher and they would *GASP* consume more resources in the production of those goods and services. That kind of stuff doesn't just miracle itself into existence.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2009-03-24 22:14:14
rdx-fx
...
+955|6894
The issue really boils down to clean sources of energy.

The world has plenty of water - if we had enough power to run a bunch more desalinization plants.

World has enough arable (farm-worthy) land - if we had the energy to provide the water, and the energy to manufacture fertilizers (ammonium nitrate, etc). Hell, with enough energy, large chunks of desert wasteland can be made arable...

World has enough coal to provide another 100+ years of diesel-type fuels (using WW-2 tech coal-to-fuel process), just for transportation infrastructure.  More than that, if it was used exclusively for mobile/transportation purposes.

World has a multitude of underutilized energy resources.  Geothermal in Yellowstone Caldera alone could power the static energy grid of the entire USA, with enough left for Canada and Mexico as well.

Oh, and we have nuclear resources left too.
And a little bit of oil left as well.

What's that old campaign phrase?
"It's the economy energy, stupid"

Geothermal, nuclear, solar, etc - for static energy grid.
Coal, Oil, etc - for transportation.
2009-03-24 22:15:20
Man With No Name
جندي
+148|5877|The Wild West
waiting for mr fusion
2009-03-24 22:16:25
blademaster
I'm moving to Brazil
+2,075|6948

ATG wrote:

Apparently there are too many of you and you're are breeding too much. One of Gordon Browns green advisors is suggesting that your nation needs a 50% population reduction and he wants there rest consuming no more resources than third world people.

So I'm curious, will their be a lottery, what method will be used, or do you plan to volunteer?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/p … 950442.ece
Canada and U.S. have plenty of space

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard