View Single Post
Old 02-20-2009, 12:22 AM   #28
Darth Avlectus
@Darth Avlectus
I'd buy that for a dollar
Darth Avlectus's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: My pervert mansion
Posts: 4,397
Current Game: A dirty old man.
Originally Posted by HIGH ON PIE 14 View Post
The tricky thing about global population of that it grows exponentially. New technology brings about ways to produce more food but increases in technology also brings about high population growth rates - we saw it during the Industrial Revolution and through the rise of agriculture. New medicine lowers death rates, prolonging lifespans.
A lot to take in at once but I believe that I learned this in General Economics, in the modernization segment. Again, in Micro Economics, but in small part--participating in a simluaton activity lesson where you were in some situation affected by that very thing. Distributors faced a grim decision at the end:
Do you as an owner of a distribution company:
a) cut and run before it gets really bad
b) cut and run while it is good to minimize your losses
c) stay it out

While I can elaborate on these, I will leave it to the imaginations of you all to add to the end of the answers above and take those for what you will.
(Hint: A very ugly picture if you are thinking about it properly)

it is a problem of distribution.
Ah. Here is when principles and ethical behavior come into play--or at least they should. However, you are subject to the cyclical changes like everyone else. In positions where the economy is riding upon you more so than others...temptation is a little hard to resist because it would seem that you are only punished for doing the right thing. You become another casualty because the economy elsewhere might come undone and the backlash will in effect hit you. (I wish I didn't have to sound so cryptic but there is no other concise way to express this).

I think that at some point or another (sooner probably more than later) we will have a serious problem with overpopulation. It is hard to argue either way because there really is no one set limit at which the world is overpopulated.
Which, unfortunately, legitimizes black markets in the areas of cannibalism, organs on ice, and prostitution. Worse yet, eugenics and neo-eugenics. On both scales social and genetic engineering. 1934's "tomorrow's children" comes to mind. Groups that want to cap off the worlds population.
And yet they are at odds with that because they need chattel/cannon fodder with which to feed their machine.

Also it's a bit of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" for governments. It pays, yet it doesn't in both ways; to do something, or to look the other way.
Both have negative and positive consequences. It's just a question of which is the lesser of 2 evils.

The more people on earth, the less resources there will be for each-
Unless people themselves (slavery) is a commodity and a resource.

Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
OK my loves, I know boys have to talk about sex, but keep it in the vicinity of 'clean'.

Originally Posted by adamqd View Post
You shouldn't wink at me while talking of copulation, I may punch you in the eye
Mr. Manners: Maybe there's hope for you to learn some manners, yet. (puts hand on Beavis' shoulder)
Beavis: AAAGH! Don't touch me @$$wipe! (ducks out from hand on his soulder)

[QUOTE=Tommycat;2591254] War: I just feel it is more ethical of a choice to other means of population control. Generally because it tends to exist without being FOR population control in itself. We start other means of population control and war breaks out, we end up with an underpopulation problem. [quote] Population controls of all kind, not just war, all end up making us underpopulated. The other ones (which comparatively just take off edges and spikes on the whole problem itself) are considered distasteful because
1) many consider it murder
2) it impedes rights
3) its results are not immediately felt until a fair chunk of time later

Say, 15 years, and you will figure out what your actions as of now actually do. Trouble is, that is a bit hard to foresee and you can't really undo what you have done once you get there.
@ D.Y. I agree, however I would suggest also that nutritional knowledge for caloric intake relative to your line of work is something most people just won't do in the US. I'd agree that ought to change...unfortunately, I have my doubts about high up on the list of priorities that "change" is for our president. Especially if he wants to be likable. Besides, the diet (con artist) racket for health nuts is also a form of economy infrastructure--though seriously I wish it otherwise.

If we skipped feeding most of it to livestock and instead grew crops for human consumption, we could sustain a larger population than we already have in the US.
True enough. I would agree with you more except: some lines of work sort of require eating calorie rich foods in order to have enough energy to do it sustainably.

While we do not require a great deal of animal proteins, normally (just enough to keep our brain and muscle mass), plant proteins
1) can wear away teeth faster due to grittier nature and texture
2) require a greater size of volume for meals in order to give the same level of nutritional value
3) meat is easier to digest quicker than plant

The human stomach can only cram in so much and what's more is that obesity and overweight problems are just as much a result of lifestyle and food quality as they are for quantity of food and genetics.

The issue we currently face is that we in America have been leading our economy by the idea of spend, spend, spend... but that's what lead to the housing crisis we face.
I would agree to a point. People, credit wise, have generally been unwise of recent years. People born in the 80's to mid 90's, according to Clark Howard, have not been good on saving money lately. Now having said that, guilty parties also extend to Goniffs (yiddish word for a thief in charge--more or less) making policies in banking loans, then taking the money and running when the time is right.

After all: Why would you lend to people who in your estimation, are probably not capable of paying the loan back with even a reasonably good interest rate? You wouldn't, unless made to.

Originally Posted by Ray Jones View Post
I think the question is not necessarily about 'how many children a family has' but rather 'who has children'.
Interesting. Would you care to elaborate on this?

Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
<snip>the chances are a major disease will decimate the population of an area, as living in such close proximity to others increases transfer rate. I think any kind of government mandated killing of children is a bad thing.
Is it any less bad to look the other way? (Hint: that's what will happen if a proactive role is too difficult to implement)

I will be very blunt with you: The government looking the other way on homosexuality probably occurs for these reasons
FACT 1: It does not reproduce, it cannot reproduce.
FACT 2: STDs and blood-borne diseases do not care what type of sexual activity spreads them.

On the side, prostitution that is indiscriminant has potential to be profitable.

(Disclaimer to both sides: This is not necessarily a reflection on my opinions in this matter.)

We developed a new way to live the last time we neared our population limit. Look at New York City and see how much we have grown. In the early 1800's we would have considdered the sheer number of people living there an impossibly high number.
The growth rate is frightening, especially considering that technology is still rocketing upward more and more as time goes.
Darth Avlectus is offline   you may: quote & reply,