|
|
|
| Females... |
|
Roland Moritz
Member #5,178
October 2004
|
to X-G: Ok, this is really off-topic, but whatever... Well, in fact the world isn't really overpopulated; demographic situations are just very unbalanced... there certainly are a lot of regions that are overpopulated (middle Africa, India...), but on the other hand there is a big birth deficit in most european countries (a lot below two children/woman) and, as far as I know, to a lesser degree also in America and japan, though I don't know exactly about that, so you could say, that those regions DO need more of them. I have also read that world-wide population growth (not the population itself right now) is actually going back and will probably come to a halt in 50 years or so... ------------------- |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
 |
Roland Moritz: No, the world really is overpopulated, in the basic ecological sense. Quote: I have also read that world-wide population growth (not the population itself right now) is actually going back and will probably come to a halt in 50 years or so... Riiight. Unless smallpox or the spanish flu show up again and save the day, or HIV becomes much more deadly, we're going to continue to breed like cockroaches for the foreseeable future. Oh, and on topic: sex buddies aren't uncommon at all (just for people like us -- |
|
Roland Moritz
Member #5,178
October 2004
|
Ok, I expressed myself unclearly: The World IS overpopulated, you are absolutely right on this, and it will become even more so, but this is also a generalisation and you have to differentiate between so-called third world countries and industrialized countries; it is stupid to say "the best for us all would be not to have any children at all!", which was in effect what X-G did. Yes, it would be a good thing if (for instance) the african or indian fertility rate declined; but if european countries will continue to have such a low reproduction rate (with the exception maybe of france), it will end in an economical and cultural disaster. And of course one would have to find alternative energy-sources and return to a more natural lifestyle, otherwise the industrialized countries simply won't be able to afford a bigger population (or the rest of the world will have something against it...). I am NOT one of the people who want to bulldoze any mountains or whatever, I don't know where you have that notion from... About my statement concerning the growth of the world population as a whole: UNO has made a long time projection up to the year 2150. Since this is a very long timespan, there are different models, depending on how the situation will change. And one model in fact says that it might be possible that popoulation grows to 7,7 billions in 2050 and starts to drop afterwards, to a minimum of possible 3,6 billions in 2150 (this is of course only a projection, but I never said that it definitely WILL be like this). Ok, I don't actually want to talk about this any more since it really doesn't belong here, I just wanted to defend myself against what gnolam said... ------------------- |
|
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
 |
Quote: it is stupid to say "the best for us all would be not to have any children at all!", which was in effect what X-G did You suck at reading. First of all, I never mentioned overpopulation; second, I said that some people should not have children. This mainly goes for really stupid people or people with serious genetic defects, as well as those who can't responsibly raise a child. -- |
|
Roland Moritz
Member #5,178
October 2004
|
You are right, I misread. I apologize for that. But I already talked to people who stated this opinion, and I wrongly assumed you were one of them. ------------------- |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Quote: Yes, it would be a good thing if (for instance) the african or indian fertility rate declined; but if european countries will continue to have such a low reproduction rate (with the exception maybe of france), it will end in an economical and cultural disaster.
The global economy would suffer the first few years, but after that a mass death would probably be a huge boost to the global economy and culture, like with the Black Death in medieval times (the plague, strange as it may seem, was probably the biggest factor in catapulting Europe into a region of prosperity, culture and (relative) civil liberties). The only thing that would probably collapse outright would be government pension systems (hey, pyramid schemes are illegal for everything... except retirement plans Oh, and I don't trust the UN with anything on the topic of human populations - they are after all the morons who made "free procreation" a fucking human right. -- |
|
Roland Moritz
Member #5,178
October 2004
|
Hehe...yeah, you're right, except for the little fact that I don't find the prospect of being part of a mass-death very appealing, but apart from that...and of course the UN can't be trusted blindly, but then again I just wanted to state WHERE I read what I was talking about, not that this is a proof for anything... ------------------- |
|
|
|
). And there's nothing wrong with it, as long as both parties are in agreement as to what the relationship entails.
)...