Oh please. At current growth rates, the weight of people will equal the weight of the earth in 500 years.
The population is currently calculated to level off before 2100... basically at a level where more people than are alive now will live their entire lives suffering for lack of nutrition. Where things like beach property, private islands, lovely parks are only enjoyed by a fraction of 1% of the population -- or are destroyed by the sheer mass of everyone else enjoying them.
Keep whistling past and on into the graveyard tho.
We don't need terrible measures- we just need people to stop having babies. For one thing- in america, we need to remove the tax benefits as just one more way to lower the birth rate a little more.
The large population increases the wealth effect. The fact is that only 10,000 freshmen can start at harvard or mit each year whether you have 100 million or 500 million american citizens. You have to select either on money or aptitude. The larger the population, the smaller percentage that gets the "cool stuff" because the cool stuff is really scarce and limited.
it's a fact that families of some religions have 6+ children per generation. it's also a fact that people in poverty have more children (3+ average) it's also a fact that ignorant (not stupid-- but yes probably stupid too) people have larger families.
Sure-- some educated, middle class and richer families have 6 kids-- but on average, as a group (stereotypical), they do not replace themselves.
In America- hispanics will be the dominant population in the southwest. Mostly because pf poor, catholic families that like a couple more kids more than 52" television sets or ski trips in colorado.
Stereotypes are pretty terrible when talking about "Bob" or "Jose" because individuals are all unique. But stereotypes are exceedingly useful when discussing general characteristics of large populations. You could say "the typical behavior of the population" but it lacks the negative semantic loading to support the point you were trying to make that I'm a bigot rather than that I'm just saying facts that are pretty clear and are going to inexorably going to lead us down certain paths that do not go to good places.
I'll leave you with this thoguht. Most wars (some say all- but they ignore religion) are over resources. Overpopulation is the primary reason resources will seem scarce. You want to stop war- stop overpopulation.
The interesting concept is that other religions teach using paradoxes so perhaps the bible contains paradoxes on purpose and not as a mistake.
The kaon was an example- not the point of the post.
However- clearly the flag was moving and I do not think the kaon translated to english fully.
You meditate on something like "What is the sound of one hand clapping" long enough and it does rewire your brain to think new ways.
I'm very down to earth- but in learning massage therapy I turned that part off and learned about zen, about reiki, chakra's, breath, chi, etc. By learning those things- my ability to heal was enhanced.
While a lot of our problems didn't become serious until we hit 5+ billion people... we may have been ruining quality of life way before 1 billion.
Most of the food we eat these days is much lower in nutrition than it used to be.
Even in the 1950's you could have a full breakfast of one egg (watch some old movies- those things look like baseballs).
The closer and finer we cut things- the more catastrophic the eventual failure will be.
---
Side example: A company found it could save a ton of money by centralizing to one location for processing instead of 35 locations. The problem-- about once per decade, the company would lose a site (various reasons- hurricane, power outage, fire). Whereas previously that company could carry the load on the other locations, the day it lost that central site- it was pretty much toast. So it saved a lot of money, was very efficient, and then got hurt very badly.
Humans are doing this. A lot of areas would have massive die-offs if food transportation broke down for only a few weeks. These will be exposed if we have a major war or pandemic. But I guess we will never ever have one of those again in the history of man since none of this stuff is being designed to account for those little problems.
I bred at less than my replacement level. If everyone in the word were to follow that tendency, we would be able to half the population by roughly 2050 and half it again in the 20 years after that so by 2100 the population would be roughly 1.5 billion. The chinese made some of these extremely hard choices with regard to overbreeding and overpopulation and have benefited from doing so.
The problem is that ignorant poor people and some religious people are going to breed us to the point where things are unpleasant all the time at the best or downright ugly and murderous at the worst.
Overbreeding would be no problem if the overbreeders and their descendants were limited to a fixed plot of land. That way the descendants of people with sustainable breeding habits could live in a paradise while the overbreeders lived in hell on earth, died of starvation, and killed each other over precious water and living space.
But no-- their descendants would feel they had a right to spread equally into everyone else's land. Thus spreading the consequences of their poor breeding choices.
You can buy all the CFC's you want, conserve til you bleed, eat only grains (because meat is so inefficient) and eventually that will all be pointless unless a lot of humans die fast from something. Too many humans is the fundamental problem-- not global warming, not limited oil, not limited food, not limited water.
If we do not address this fundamental problem- then everything else we do is similar to ignoring the huge hungry rampaging elephant in the room while we keep replacing the carpet and drapes.
Most of the problems of the world can be traced to the fact that we have 6 billion humans instead of 1 billion humans. If there were only a billion of us, the world would be an abundant paradise.
I'm not religious my self but 7 could be explained by saying that god was very zen. Folks who follow zen gain key insights by meditating on contradictory or abstract puzzles.
perhaps the bible is an elaborate koan.
---
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said: `The flag is moving.'
The other said: `The wind is moving.'
The sixth patriach happened to be passing by. He told them: `Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving.'
---
Wind, flag, mind moves. The same understanding. When the mouth opens All are wrong.
Actually, in the real world it is an excellent justification for leeching 1) If you can't afford it anyway, then no damage is done. 2) From their wild high lifestyle, it seems obvious they have gotten an unreasonable monopoly passed so I don't see why poor people should be bound to supporting them. 3) In the real world, I find most people are as moral as they can afford to be. If the products were reasonably priced, people would behave morally. Since the products are unreasonably priced, people both do not behave morally. Also, since the products are so unreasonably priced ($20 in USA/EU when they sell the same products for $2.49 in china and india *at a profit*) people do not even feel guilty about acting immorally (and even question if it is immoral).
Made up groups have been common here in status symbol land since the 50's.
The Monkee's were a made up band that had a ton of great song writers backing them up. I enjoyed their music and movies. Their songs had more of a message than many recorded today.
It makes me wonder, given how many people are doing this how Riaa can screw this part up so badly.
I *remember* only a few years ago when people said, "well the music business should go after the folks actually downloading songs". Finally Riaa tried to start doing that. But fortunately they got it horribly wrong.
I can't imagine how they got it as wrong as they have with suing dead people and people who do not own computers and 13 year old kids. Maybe people use private trackers (100-200 members) and peer guardian (and keep moving to newer technologies when old ones become to ubiquitous ) while the 13 year olds of the world do things that get them caught.
Friend of mine's two year old was with him while he was working around the house. He was hammering nails and missed and hit his hand and said "Fuck!". The rest of the day was uneventful.
That night... he's on the couch watching TV with his wife and the two year old totters by and says "fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck". His wife was not very happy.
He was fucked that night for sure. And not in the good way.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't aware of verses about genetics in the bible. Cool.
Sounds more like the backwoods of Tennessee or Kentucky tho.
That's a valid point.
It extends in all directions tho.
Less bad people to cause problems.
Less insane people to want to kill everyone.
Smaller groups of insane people trying to kill everyone else.
But i grant that there would be less smart people to solve problems.
Oh please.
At current growth rates, the weight of people will equal the weight of the earth in 500 years.
The population is currently calculated to level off before 2100... basically at a level where more people than are alive now will live their entire lives suffering for lack of nutrition. Where things like beach property, private islands, lovely parks are only enjoyed by a fraction of 1% of the population -- or are destroyed by the sheer mass of everyone else enjoying them.
Keep whistling past and on into the graveyard tho.
We don't need terrible measures- we just need people to stop having babies. For one thing- in america, we need to remove the tax benefits as just one more way to lower the birth rate a little more.
The large population increases the wealth effect. The fact is that only 10,000 freshmen can start at harvard or mit each year whether you have 100 million or 500 million american citizens. You have to select either on money or aptitude. The larger the population, the smaller percentage that gets the "cool stuff" because the cool stuff is really scarce and limited.
No.
it's a fact that families of some religions have 6+ children per generation.
it's also a fact that people in poverty have more children (3+ average)
it's also a fact that ignorant (not stupid-- but yes probably stupid too) people have larger families.
Sure-- some educated, middle class and richer families have 6 kids-- but on average, as a group (stereotypical), they do not replace themselves.
In America- hispanics will be the dominant population in the southwest. Mostly because pf poor, catholic families that like a couple more kids more than 52" television sets or ski trips in colorado.
Stereotypes are pretty terrible when talking about "Bob" or "Jose" because individuals are all unique. But stereotypes are exceedingly useful when discussing general characteristics of large populations. You could say "the typical behavior of the population" but it lacks the negative semantic loading to support the point you were trying to make that I'm a bigot rather than that I'm just saying facts that are pretty clear and are going to inexorably going to lead us down certain paths that do not go to good places.
I'll leave you with this thoguht. Most wars (some say all- but they ignore religion) are over resources. Overpopulation is the primary reason resources will seem scarce. You want to stop war- stop overpopulation.
I'm not pro-nature.
I'm saying our quality of life would be much more enjoyable at lower population levels.
The interesting concept is that other religions teach using paradoxes so perhaps the bible contains paradoxes on purpose and not as a mistake.
The kaon was an example- not the point of the post.
However- clearly the flag was moving and I do not think the kaon translated to english fully.
You meditate on something like "What is the sound of one hand clapping" long enough and it does rewire your brain to think new ways.
I'm very down to earth- but in learning massage therapy I turned that part off and learned about zen, about reiki, chakra's, breath, chi, etc. By learning those things- my ability to heal was enhanced.
Perhaps it should.
While a lot of our problems didn't become serious until we hit 5+ billion people... we may have been ruining quality of life way before 1 billion.
Most of the food we eat these days is much lower in nutrition than it used to be.
Even in the 1950's you could have a full breakfast of one egg (watch some old movies- those things look like baseballs).
The closer and finer we cut things- the more catastrophic the eventual failure will be.
---
Side example: A company found it could save a ton of money by centralizing to one location for processing instead of 35 locations. The problem-- about once per decade, the company would lose a site (various reasons- hurricane, power outage, fire). Whereas previously that company could carry the load on the other locations, the day it lost that central site- it was pretty much toast. So it saved a lot of money, was very efficient, and then got hurt very badly.
Humans are doing this. A lot of areas would have massive die-offs if food transportation broke down for only a few weeks. These will be exposed if we have a major war or pandemic. But I guess we will never ever have one of those again in the history of man since none of this stuff is being designed to account for those little problems.
In a sense... yes.
I bred at less than my replacement level. If everyone in the word were to follow that tendency, we would be able to half the population by roughly 2050 and half it again in the 20 years after that so by 2100 the population would be roughly 1.5 billion. The chinese made some of these extremely hard choices with regard to overbreeding and overpopulation and have benefited from doing so.
The problem is that ignorant poor people and some religious people are going to breed us to the point where things are unpleasant all the time at the best or downright ugly and murderous at the worst.
Overbreeding would be no problem if the overbreeders and their descendants were limited to a fixed plot of land. That way the descendants of people with sustainable breeding habits could live in a paradise while the overbreeders lived in hell on earth, died of starvation, and killed each other over precious water and living space.
But no-- their descendants would feel they had a right to spread equally into everyone else's land. Thus spreading the consequences of their poor breeding choices.
You can buy all the CFC's you want, conserve til you bleed, eat only grains (because meat is so inefficient) and eventually that will all be pointless unless a lot of humans die fast from something. Too many humans is the fundamental problem-- not global warming, not limited oil, not limited food, not limited water.
If we do not address this fundamental problem- then everything else we do is similar to ignoring the huge hungry rampaging elephant in the room while we keep replacing the carpet and drapes.
Not at all.
The better response is to ruin the other scientist who has the contradicting data and suppress his work.
In addition, steal his wife and have his funding withdrawn.
It's... the scientific method.
Most of the problems of the world can be traced to the fact that we have 6 billion humans instead of 1 billion humans. If there were only a billion of us, the world would be an abundant paradise.
I'm not religious my self but 7 could be explained by saying that god was very zen.
Folks who follow zen gain key insights by meditating on contradictory or abstract puzzles.
perhaps the bible is an elaborate koan.
---
Two monks were arguing about a flag. One said: `The flag is moving.'
The other said: `The wind is moving.'
The sixth patriach happened to be passing by. He told them: `Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving.'
---
Wind, flag, mind moves.
The same understanding.
When the mouth opens
All are wrong.
There is nice.
And there is just being soft-headed.
Being soft-headed often leads to wicked-nasty consequences (like deer breeding to the point that huge numbers of them starve and die horribly).
The hole in that logic is that we let them brainwash their children however they want.
And if they out breed us, eventually the majority of society will enforce those values on the rest.
Closest thing I could find to an entertainment article.
This is so pathetic. Millions of people serve out their terms in jail but Paris gets a by.
One more example of dual justice systems in america these days. One for the rich and one for the rest of us.
Actually, in the real world it is an excellent justification for leeching
1) If you can't afford it anyway, then no damage is done.
2) From their wild high lifestyle, it seems obvious they have gotten an unreasonable monopoly passed so I don't see why poor people should be bound to supporting them.
3) In the real world, I find most people are as moral as they can afford to be. If the products were reasonably priced, people would behave morally. Since the products are unreasonably priced, people both do not behave morally. Also, since the products are so unreasonably priced ($20 in USA/EU when they sell the same products for $2.49 in china and india *at a profit*) people do not even feel guilty about acting immorally (and even question if it is immoral).
Back when stars were just employees of the studios, they made as many as 10 movies a year-- every year.
Now that they are a "star", they get more money and do a lot less work.
Hmm. All I have is firefox/adblock and no popup either.
Some popups get through these days-- it's not full-proof.
So they are Mafia Player 10 with new built in protection rackets?
Are they a required update?
Looks like they have quite a unique dilemma.
Which of these fellow to sue?
Clearly, a successful suit against either will help against the other.
Clearly microsoft... or the post is being fairly duplicitous.
Made up groups have been common here in status symbol land since the 50's.
The Monkee's were a made up band that had a ton of great song writers backing them up. I enjoyed their music and movies. Their songs had more of a message than many recorded today.
It used to be a pg-13 word.
I think even children call dog shit, dog shit.
Maybe not- shit just seems so mild a word.
It makes me wonder,
given how many people are doing this how Riaa can screw this part up so badly.
I *remember* only a few years ago when people said, "well the music business should go after the folks actually downloading songs". Finally Riaa tried to start doing that. But fortunately they got it horribly wrong.
I can't imagine how they got it as wrong as they have with suing dead people and people who do not own computers and 13 year old kids. Maybe people use private trackers (100-200 members) and peer guardian (and keep moving to newer technologies when old ones become to ubiquitous ) while the 13 year olds of the world do things that get them caught.
No that's just goofy.
I think $750 per day is a reasonable amount tho.
Surely a day of a person's life is worth as much as a copy of a song.
So 547,500 for two years.
Plus, by reserving these words, they provide an emotional release to say them.
But they only have the power we give them.
If you use them all the time, then you need to use more of them to get the same release.
True story...
Friend of mine's two year old was with him while he was working around the house. He was hammering nails and missed and hit his hand and said "Fuck!". The rest of the day was uneventful.
That night... he's on the couch watching TV with his wife and the two year old totters by and says "fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck". His wife was not very happy.
He was fucked that night for sure. And not in the good way.