|
|
|
|
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 8/11/2005 2:39:59 AM | alpo wrote:
Your a 19 yr old kid. What did the army teach you?? DON'T THINK, DO!! I suggest you follow orders. My impression of you is basically a soldier that's got to protect my petroleum shares.
It is amazing to me that in this day and time ANYBODY not suffering from dementia or tertiary syphillis can think this war is about oil shares.
Have you been to a gas station this year, alpo?
If it was about oil wouldn't it have been more effective to invade Nigeria, Venezuela or Mexico? Or does all that escape you while you spout the *planet lib* party line?
Pedro might be a 19 year-old "kid" but he's smart enough to know that the Army doesn't teach you "Don't Think, Do!" Amybe your army works that way. The US Army sure doesn't.
This means that he has YOU beat all to hell.
alpo, it would appear that you're ignorant of world events, ignorant of the doctrine of the world's GREATEST Nation's military and completely disrespectful of those who are protecting the western world's freedom so you can be a mouthy, obnoxious **stard to them. Rest assured that Pedro and his compatriots could roll your impotent nation's military up like a cheap rug if need be. The only way it would be a 100 hour war like GWI is if they stop for coffee, to watch a hockey game and to do laundry as they go through you.
alpo wrote:
Nuking a SPECIFIC group of people is not a sensible and thoughtful action. It is veiled racism when you make those kinds of statements.
Oh really? And what "race' would that be? And the "race" of those doing the nuking is?
Yeah, I thought so. Another misuse of the term "racism" by the left.
Solstice wrote:
I just have to say 4sexyfun..you scare me. Are you Michael Moores blow up doll?
No, solstice. The blow-up doll would be more rational and probably smarter
4sexyfun wrote:
...when bombs hit American soil? ...you speak as if it were past tense. I don't recall any foreign bombs hitting America lately ...are you referring to Pearl Harbor?
4stupidfun let me help you because I can see you're struggling in trying to belittle 13.
BOMB:.noun: an explosive device fused to denote under specific conditions
a V-1 was a flying "bomb".
A V-2 was a flying "bomb"
A Kamkazi plane was a flying "bomb"
A Tomahawk cruise Missle is a flying "bomb".
An RPV designed to explode on impact is a "bomb"
Both Boeing 767's and 757's, flown into a building full of fuel with the intent to exploded & destroy said bulding(s) on impact, are "bombs" in like manner to the kamakazi.
Any questions?
4weirdfun wrote:
...don't be hatin' ...mingle ...make some friends.
Nick Berg tried that. Maybe you should too, huh? would you like a link to the "friendship" displayed to Mr. Berg by those whom you see as no threat?
puddler wrote:
Seems like George Bush agrees that the world's over populated and he's going to do somehting about it.....starting with the Muslims. Women and children first.......
Funny thing, puddles, it seems that muslims are killing more women and children than jorge BOOSH. Would you like links to the websites to support my statement? Tell ya what, you give me your sites to support your opinion and I'll give you mine. Fair?
Well? (listens to the crickets chirping)
msquared wrote:
It seems we do not have that large a Muslim population. Even if we had a much larger one, I would still see no cause for concern. Most of the Muslims I have met seem to be fairly good people.
That's because you've not read the koran, apparently.
Here's a quick quiz, M. How many did it take to drop the WTC? 10% of the US population?
5% of the US population?
1% of the US population?
how about.000006% of the population?
How many muslims does it take to transport a 20 megaton suitcase nuke? (answer: 2, max)
How many muslims does it take to self-infect with, then spread Ebola, Marberg or Hemmoragic Fever? (answer: 1ea.)
4weirdfun wrote:
Muslims have never been the problem ...Zionism is the true evil lurking ...the Zionist government of Israel is the beast loosed from its cage to kill and dominate the world ...the monster which Jesus warned mankind about ...the very socialists who murdered him.
Well Hitler would agree with you 4.
So you're saying that the muslim onslaught into the holy land in 658AD and Western Europe thereafter never happened or were those jews disguised as muslims?
and the Jews are lobbing rockets into Jerusalem from the palestinian sector?
and Jews in the Beslan children's slaughter in Chechnya?
and Jews who gassed the Kurds
and Jews who helped Timothy McVeigh?
and Jews mailing the anthrax?
and Jews flying the airplanes into the WTC to kill jews?
Jews blowing up American Embassies in 1998? The Marine Barracks in Lebanon? The USS Cole, killing Jews in Munich, hijacking numerous airliners? murdering a jew in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghofer and dumping over the side of the Achille Lauro? It was jew who blew up Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland and Gaddahfi, admitted to same to protect those same Jews?
Jews setting off the car bombs in Iraq?
Jews took over the American Embassy in Iran? Jews murdering Christians in Daruf and the Sudan?
I gotta give you credit for one thing. you have your own ideas....NOT!
Well kids, I'd love to stay up all night and gore your sacred cows, but really I need to get some sleep so I can be fresh to immolate you at another time.
 | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 8/18/2005 10:04:25 PM | ... wow you ignorant fool if I fought for OIL you gas prices would be a LOT LOWER.... AND, I am NOT in the army- I am a United States Marine- HUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGE difference. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 8/19/2005 7:52:00 AM | | Historically the earth has a way of cleansing itself by way of "natural disasters". We humans will not have to kill one another to "thin the herd". Have you guys heard of that Avian Bird Flu? As I understand it, it has mutated to a point that humans will be infected by it, and no one, not one single person, will have a natural immunity to this deadly virus, and developing a vaccine is hampered by the fact that chickens (or chicken eggs) are used to test and develope the vaccines and this virus is 100% fatal to chickens. When the virus sweeps across the world the first time it will cause the greatest number of human fatalities. The second time will be less as anti-bodies develope, and so on. But from what I have heard, even if a vaccine can be developed before this predicted tragedy occurs, getting it to all the humans of the earth will be impossible, so only a chosen few (and who gets to choose?) would benefit. | |
|
teri43
|
Joined: 12/27/2004
Msg: 104 | |
| world population is too high
Posted: 8/19/2005 8:01:03 AM | that's what wars, pandemics, and poverty are for...
to lower the population. That's the way it has always been and continue to be.
one example: We had live aid about twenty years ago and people in Africa are still dying. | |
|
grog27
|
Joined: 2/25/2005
Msg: 105 | |
| world population is too high
Posted: 8/19/2005 8:20:34 AM | There is already a perfectly workable solution which was actually published more than a century ago; Check out Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". With a few modifications, it could be adapted to deal with the current problem. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 8/31/2005 9:03:41 PM | A CHINESE county has been ordered to conduct 20,000 abortions and sterilisations before the end of the year after communist family planning chiefs found that the official one-child policy was being routinely flouted.
The impoverished mountainous region of Huaiji has been set the draconian target by provincial authorities in Guangdong (formerly known as Canton).
Although the one-child policy is no longer strictly enforced in many rural areas, officials in Guangdong issued the edict after census officials revealed that the average family in Huaiji has five or more children.
Many of the terminations will have to be conducted forcibly on peasant women to meet the quota. As part of the campaign, county officials are buying expensive ultrasound equipment that can be carried to remote villages by car.
By detecting which women are pregnant, the machines will allow Government doctors to order terminations on the spot.
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/08/05/wchin05.xml | |
|
| |
| |
| Enough for all need, but not all greed
Posted: 8/31/2005 10:15:13 PM | “When Mother Nature wants her planet back, she will take it. It already looks like she's in the process of doing so now. The best way we can help is to lay off trying to cure everything. M.N. uses Diseases such as cancer, and AIDS to control how many of us stick around at once. We try to stop that, and she resorts to natural disasters. Mother Nature will take care of the population problem, whether we want her to or not.
WHOA! 'Mother Nature' sent a burst of wind from the midwest to reduce that storm and save people's lives. I believe ‘Mother Nature’ LOVES humanity very much. There is plenty of Earth for the PRESENT population to meet ALL NEEDS, but NOT ALL GREED. Not too much more, though.
I=PAT (Impact on environment = Population x Affluence x Technology)
Can the Earth support everyone with an auto, a/c, industrial/chemical agriculture, and other luxuries that we’ve all done fine without before now and aren’t needed? NO. Can the earth support everyone here without those drains? (assuming only replacement rate) Yes.
There is a mathematical problem with population growth. EO Wilson discusses the lili pad analogy…
“Ecologists like to make this point with the French riddle of the lily pond. At first there is only one lily pad in the pond, but the next day it doubles, and thereafter each of its descendants doubles. The pond completely fills with lily pads in 3o days. Vvlhen is the pond exactly half full? Allswer: on the 29th day.”
So, people should voluntarily limit themselves to two children—for the sake OF their children. That is the average we should try for.
Please read the famous essay, Is Humanity Suicial, for further thought. You’ll hear that title again and will be able to discuss his points. Plus, he writes in an interesting way.
Is Humanity Suicidal? By E. O. Wilson
http://www.well.com/user/davidu/suicidal.html
EO Wilson is an honored Harvard Professor with 27 honorary doctoral degrees… he won the Pulitzer Prize twice… he was honored with biology’s equal of the Nobel Prize… (in other words, he knows a little about what he is talking about) | |
|
| Enough for all need, but not all greed
Posted: 8/31/2005 11:02:10 PM | The first paragraph of my last post was a quote from another post. Just to clear that up, if it was confusing.
I repeat, in another way, that I believe that 'Mother Nature' views and loves every individual human being as part of her. She might do whatever she needs to do to protect humanity--but isn't 'taking' the planet back. She might have act to prevent future destruction, though. See my "Sweet Mother of God - GAIA" post under the religion subject, for thought. | |
|
| Enough for all need, but not all greed
Posted: 9/1/2005 3:25:01 PM | with the disaster in new orleans, its mother natures way of showing the humanity that the power she has to destroy the evils of the world
this is only the beginning
more is to come, soon she shall get bigger and more worst disaster will come
its all the better i think | |
|
| World Populatino is Too High
Posted: 9/1/2005 6:12:08 PM | | In China, overpollution is a serious problem. Environmental pollution. Overpopulation. You can't even go into a park and find a place where you can have any privacy. People are everywhere, even in villages. America is not population density to the degree China is. Just look at China to see the future of the world. Even though China has a one-child policy, the population just keeps rising. People in the countryside do not always obey the one-child policy, and have several children. If the current rate continues, the whole world will be the population density of China. The earth cannot sustain that long. | |
|
| World Populatino is Too High
Posted: 9/1/2005 6:17:24 PM | Are you libs trying to blame the hurricane on the US politics now? I suppose the tsunami was Bush's fault, because there was not a whole lot going on there for 'nature' to get angered about.  | |
|
Garf
|
Joined: 4/4/2005
Msg: 114 | |
| |
| Policy and consumption are big problems in US
Posted: 9/1/2005 7:03:55 PM |
Are you libs trying to blame the hurricane on the US politics now?
Oh, Dallasguy99, you never cease to amaze me with your profound comments. Actually, the actions and policy of the Bush Administration do have something to do with hurricanes. I have pointed this out in other threads (not specifically about Bush policy, though), so briefly: 1) Kyoto protocol on global warming. 2) “Healthy” forests initiative (Orwellian speak). 3) Other environmental protections lifted.
1. Human-caused (fossil fuels, deforestation, etc) global warming causes a rise in the surface temperature of the ocean. The rise in temp gives additional fuel to a hurricane—increasing the storm’s intensity.
The links between hurricanes and climate change (Union of Concerned Scientists)
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1529
Revealed: how oil giant influenced Bush. White House sought advice from Exxon on Kyoto stance
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html
2. Healthy forests initiative – more logging/deforestation
(Natural forests store atmospheric carbon. Deforestation increases global warming threats.)
http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/fires/healthyforests_initiative.asp
The “disconnect between what the administration says and what science says about logging and fire reveals the administration’s true goal which is to use the forest fire issue to cut the public out of the public lands management decision making process and to give logging companies virtually free access to our National Forests.”
3. Finally, Wetland lost that would have protected people. Destruction of other natural protections--ecosystems like natural wetlands—increases the damage a storm causes when reaching land. 80% of recent wetland loss in the US in recent years (citation in other post) has happened precisely where the hurricane hit. Wetlands normally absorb/buffer most of storm surge and protect more inland areas. Without those, the impact is much greater. Right now, they are being rapidly lost--lots due to permitting the oil industry to do that. Citation, again in the global warming posts.
That is a BRIEF version. | |
|
| World Populatino is Too High
Posted: 9/1/2005 7:06:05 PM | Well, there is only one answer... time to move to a bigger house. If the whole world focused on that goal don't you think we'd have less to fight about?
EDIT: In other words, it's time to focus on space. | |
|
| World Populatino is Too High
Posted: 9/2/2005 10:43:24 PM | | I agree with many of the other posters, that Mother Nature seems to be taking care of population. There's been so many disasters lately that one cannot help think it is a divine plan to alter the population. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/2/2005 10:59:22 PM | Koss!!!
What a brilliant idea!!!
Why don't you show us the way by running into a knife or off the top of a very tall building???
When we see how great it works, I'm sure many will follow!!!
What a wonderful thought!!!! | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 119 | |
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/3/2005 9:49:05 PM | Overpopulation is not simply population, but the combination of high population and the high consumption. It’s possible to have a small population outstrip the carrying capacity of an area if their consumption is very high. You could make a convincing argument that all cities are overpopulated and in truth depend on much larger areas to support them.
The developed nations of the world constitute less than 20% of the world's population, control 80% of the world's wealth. That wealth isn’t self-contained within the borders of those nations. Although, it may not be the case for too much longer, what is typically thought of as overpopulation (i.e. developing nation conditions) is still an issue of distribution of wealth.
Population growth is controlled by the birth rate and death rate (add immigration and emigration if you’re considering single nations). All your ‘solutions’, and I use the term in the loosest sense, focus solely on the death rate. Without addressing birth rate you’re caught in a continuous cycle of permanently heightened death rates. A return to a high death rate is not only globally destabilizing, but encourages a higher birth rate. In countries were mortality is high, it makes sense to have extra children because the likelihood is a significant number of your kids will die.
Additionally, population growth is exponential. War or famine will not change that, although they may increase the death rate for awhile.
World Population.....When Reached?.....How Long Did It Take?
1 Billion.................about 1800..........all of human history
2 Billion................1930...................130 years
3 Billion................1960...................30 years
4 Billion................1974...................14 years
5 Billion................1987...................13 years
6 Billion................1999...................12 years
Let’s put it this way, all the fatalities of the all World War II (about 32million), would be replaced in 89 days (at 2001 world population growth rates).
Whether the birth rate is depressed through policies like China’s or through social pressures, it is the birth rate that needs to be tackled. In developed nations the growth rate is already levelling, in some cases it’s below the replacement rate (Japan, Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia…). Primary factors associated with low birth rates are literacy, education, low infant mortality, medical access, birth control and urbanization.
Developing nations have only completed a partial demographic transition; their death rates have already fallen, but the birth rate is lagging behind. However, it is still declining. Developed nations went through the same process. Letting ‘nature take it’s course’ is likely to delay reducing population growth rates, when it is within our power to help ease this transition and the human suffering that accompanies it.
We’re extremely fortunate to be born in a nation were we enjoy freedom, opportunity and more material wealth then most in the world can imagine. In a single year the average Canadian will make more then the average person in India will in 52 years (1988 stats). We have considerable power and with that power is the ethical responsibility to use it wisely and humanely. There is no hope of reducing human tragedy if we believe that simple luck of where we’re born somehow inherently entitles us to more. This distribution of wealth we enjoy isn’t a question of our worth or us deserving it; it’s the result of a world history of characterized by exploitation. We happened to have been born into this particular stage of that history, where we go from here is a matter of will and compassion.
We’re all human beings, and it saddens me beyond words when we rationalize our mistreatment of each other. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/3/2005 9:55:27 PM | The average child in the United States consumes the same resources as 60 children in India. As I've said before... enough for all need, but not all greed.
Overpopulation is not simply population, but the combination of high population and the high consumption. It’s possible to have a small population outstrip the carrying capacity of an area if their consumption is very high. | |
|
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/3/2005 9:58:48 PM | | We, in the rich nations, are literally living off of the rest of the world's children. We need to change this. How? Now, I'm hoping for some logical answers. Maybe I assume people understand more than they do... in fact... I'm now being shown that there are only a few that understand this. | |
|
Garf
|
Joined: 4/4/2005
Msg: 122 | |
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/3/2005 10:33:26 PM | Eliminate greed and promote the selfless spirit of giving?
Too many people have all their money tied up in wealth to give a shit about anyone else. That's the problem. | |
|
Dryad
|
Joined: 7/19/2005
Msg: 123 | |
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/5/2005 8:19:22 PM | Let’s see, how about a slightly less altruistic, more self-interested approach to ‘selfless giving.’
Sitting around last night, my friends and I where discussing the break-down of order during the hurricane. What was really breaking down was the social contract between people. The social contract is basically agreeing with that we won’t take undo advantage of each other. We agree to rules of ‘fair play.’ Layering capitalism onto that, makes for an interesting juxtaposition because capitalism assumes the self-interested individual and the social contract attempts to limit the scope of acceptable actions. The efficiency, self-organization and adaptation of the market are desirable, but are also destabilizing to the human population in the absence of law.
To touch back on what happens during the breakdown of the social contract. The interesting thing is, is when it breaks down we don’t fragment into individuals, but into small groups of friends/family we trust. Basically, a small group of people we trust not to ‘screw’ us over, our ‘tribe’ if you will. Humans are social, so I think biologically a small tribe’s the default.
For the most part the social-contract is self enforced, but it’s also inherently unstable. The thing about the social contract is, if you look at game theory, it’s the unstable solution in the prisoner’s dilemma. (i.e. Two people rob a bank, both are captured and interrogated separately. If one squeals, he gets all the loot, the other goes to jail. If both squeal, both go to jail. If both cooperate they split the loot evenly, the path of moderate gain… the famous greatest good for the greatest number.) Consequently, there are laws and penalties to encourage people to follow the path of moderate gain (Hobb’s Leviathan was basically about this).
But as our population grew, and we became more densely populated our ‘tribe’ expanded, and so did the social contract. By becoming increasingly interdependent we could specialize and the group in turn received a greater total benefit. Early laws and religions in society have a common theme; to promote a stable social contract. To do this we needed not only the rule of law, but also something more abstract… an ethical connection and compassion between the people in our group. Because there will always be temporary situations where the rule-of-law will fail due to societal change, disaster, or other circumstance. We descend to the smaller tribe, and start building the contract up again.
When our scope was less, the law of universality around law and compassion extended merely to the edge of our group. It was ‘us’ against ‘them’. At first it was ok to raid the other town, then the other warlord, now the other nation. But our interdependence grows with our growing population. We see this next step with the creation of international courts, treaties and laws. This is a growing trend; you can see it as the boundaries of nations expand to form collectives such as the European Union. The alternative of clinging to national boundaries as the end game is destabilizing and deadly. If our ‘tribe’s’ boundaries stop at nations, in their current militaristic mindset, there’s a high probability of full-out nuclear war fare. This is the true madness – to promote what is likely to lead to Mutually Assured Destruction.
For completely self-interested reasons, we shouldn’t squander the power we have to expand the boundaries of compassion and law. | |
|
| |
| world population is too high
Posted: 9/7/2005 5:07:32 AM | | you can fit everybody in teh worl in the loch ness - trouble is there are too many greedy ****ers who want all the cake so they puke on it. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
