on 28-12-2014 11:28 PM
on 29-12-2014 01:05 AM
This was a good thread. Signing off and watching Liam Neeson even though I've seen this movie umpteen times.
😄
on 29-12-2014 01:06 AM
didn't you leave? never coming back? wrote a farewell thread blah blah blah etc
on 29-12-2014 01:09 AM
I might go and watch the Brady Bunch. I have lost the Notivation to post in the presence of ecocentric imbeciles.
Lal-au, it's probably a moot point anyway. The lion says the end of the world is nigh
on 29-12-2014 01:15 AM
i still have not worked out what notivation means.
i apologise for being an ignorant foreigner but i could not find a meaning on the net for that word.
IF the end is nigh, i would like to suggest that you sacrifice a christian priest or imam to appease ctulhu.
29-12-2014 02:02 AM - edited 29-12-2014 02:06 AM
What is 'IFV' ?.....I am aware of IVF but what is this IFV......a subversive preggars programme of some sort-involving firing pre-selected sperm patches infused with guaranteed high intelligence genes from high calibre turret mounted dart guns mounted on remote controlled infantry vehicles, aimined at selected females in underpopulated areas of our vast globe ........maybe?
on 29-12-2014 05:12 AM
@lal-au0 wrote:
@kathys.clown14 wrote:Would you suggest zero population growth or a limited population growth?
hhmmm actually i would like a negative population growth. like 1.2 children/woman.
we live on a planet. there is FINITE arable land, there are FINITE resources. we can NOT expand and "grow the economy" forever. it just does not work like that.
unless we find another planet with an incredible amount of resources very close to earth ( which there isn't) we can not maintain growth without wiping out ourselves.
Our beautiful bountiful planet provides everything humans need. When it doesn't or can no longer, the population will regulate accordingly. No need to intervene with artificial birth control.
If you choose not to procreate, fine. No need to scorn the joy others have in their children.
on 29-12-2014 07:40 AM
@poddster wrote:Didn't Herr Hitler attempt to control the intelligence and the direction of the worlds population.
That failed.
Hitler did attempt to control the population......, and only wanted a certain type to become pregnant.
on 29-12-2014 07:49 AM
@lal-au0 wrote:
@kathys.clown14 wrote:Would you suggest zero population growth or a limited population growth?
hhmmm actually i would like a negative population growth. like 1.2 children/woman.
we live on a planet. there is FINITE arable land, there are FINITE resources. we can NOT expand and "grow the economy" forever. it just does not work like that.
unless we find another planet with an incredible amount of resources very close to earth ( which there isn't) we can not maintain growth without wiping out ourselves.
So it's up to women to solve the problem?
on 29-12-2014 08:12 AM
Actually, population is already starting to stabilise. It used to increse very slowly until very recently (few hundreds years). Now the trend is that in developed countries people only have about 2 children and they almost all survive; as developing countries become more affluent people also have less children. In Europe 150 years ago people would have often 10 kids and lose several, but as usually more than 2 survived population kept increasing. As Africa and Asia are becoming more affluent their number of children born is also stabilising. In many countries the reason of population increase is not high birthrate but the fact that old people live longer. So, as there was a bay boom after WW2, the babies are now becoming "old people boom", but as the later generations were at only appropriately replacement numbers, once the baby boomers are gone, the population growth is also going to level out.
on 29-12-2014 08:53 AM
When the west manages to provide underdeveloped countries with sufficient food and medical care, their populations will decline, because now they have a lot of children so that some will survive.