IMO the source of most of our problems

[Kula Meenur]

Plenty of space down here. ^.^

NO. NO. NO.



Don't invite those ****holes, we're ****ing full.

 

[Tyguy]

humans are locust with fast internet. Poor regular locust and their dial-up.

 

[CyberPitz]

Well of course we are over-populating. You people wonder why I have a slaughterhouse in my basement.

 

[Sulkdodds]

That sounds like conspiracy theories to me...
Inferring that doctors around the world have cures for AIDS, yet keep it alive to help reduce world population?

How did you manage to read that? He was saying that humans naturally want to have sex and 'spread their seed', and that AIDS spreads because people will always indulge that desire.

 

[CyberPitz]

How did you manage to read that? He was saying that humans naturally want to have sex and 'spread their seed', and that AIDS spreads because people will always indulge that desire.

Reading comprehension is a difficult thing to learn, Sulky.

Let's make love.

 

[ajski752]

How did you manage to read that? He was saying that humans naturally want to have sex and 'spread their seed', and that AIDS spreads because people will always indulge that desire.

Im not sure, I think i was very tired and skiped the first part about human nature and sex...
and only saw the end...

think about it though, if some very powerful scientists and doctors all met in some secret union, and were trying to reduce the human population... AIDS or some other STI would be a good way to do it

 

[Eejit]

Y'know the USA had a programme based on weaponising plant pathogens in order to devastate China by annihilating its food supply?

The first world is all for developing countries practicing population control, but afaik the reason they're not really in favour is that they believe they need population booms in order to improve their economy. If you think about it that was a big part of the industrial revolution, they have a point. Limiting their population will help limit their economic growth.

 

[Sulkdodds]

think about it though, if some very powerful scientists and doctors all met in some secret union, and were trying to reduce the human population... AIDS or some other STI would be a good way to do it

Nah, it still keeps people alive for ages - and ties up an enormous amount of medical resources while doing so. A good depopulator would either kill many people instantly (the efficient option), or render them infertile without any other medical effect (the merciless one).

 

[xcellerate]

brb...gonna invent small-cholera pox or maybe black-malaria death.

 

[Acepilotf14]

You didn't know this, bro?

The problem is, morals.

For some reason, humans looove morals. If a life comes into this world, we have no right to take it away without just cause.

We can't... or rather, don't want to, kill babies left and right. If a country put in a policy that did that, they'd be completely raped on a political level. I didn't read any posts after the first, but let me explain some things.

Firstly, in most European countries the kill/death ratios have hit almost 1. This makes for a great population, limited growth, which helps the economy greatly and doesn't overpopulate.

Now, the problem here is the in other countries, less so in the U.S.A.(although heavy immigration hurts this) old traditions of having many children because most of them die are still in place. Yet modern medicine keeps most people from dying, especially from common diseases. This means that families with 6, 7, or 8 children all stay alive, and each have the same amount(as their parents did.).

Western ideals are different. We have one or two kids. We wait until we're older. And people with lots of kids are typically frowned upon.

And this leads to the only final solution:

Education.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify our species and I realized that we aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but we humans do not. We move to an area and we multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way we can survive is to spread to another area.

There is ... another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern ...

 

[xcellerate]

There is ... another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern ...

Is it the pistol shrimp?

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

Is it the pistol shrimp?

I lol'd.

 

[Naudian]

Education.

Agreed, let's learn 'em good!

 

[jverne]

You didn't know this, bro?

The problem is, morals.

For some reason, humans looove morals. If a life comes into this world, we have no right to take it away without just cause.

We can't... or rather, don't want to, kill babies left and right. If a country put in a policy that did that, they'd be completely raped on a political level. I didn't read any posts after the first, but let me explain some things.

Firstly, in most European countries the kill/death ratios have hit almost 1. This makes for a great population, limited growth, which helps the economy greatly and doesn't overpopulate.

Now, the problem here is the in other countries, less so in the U.S.A.(although heavy immigration hurts this) old traditions of having many children because most of them die are still in place. Yet modern medicine keeps most people from dying, especially from common diseases. This means that families with 6, 7, or 8 children all stay alive, and each have the same amount(as their parents did.).

Western ideals are different. We have one or two kids. We wait until we're older. And people with lots of kids are typically frowned upon.

And this leads to the only final solution:

Education.

partially true

Y'know the USA had a programme based on weaponising plant pathogens in order to devastate China by annihilating its food supply?

The first world is all for developing countries practicing population control, but afaik the reason they're not really in favour is that they believe they need population booms in order to improve their economy. If you think about it that was a big part of the industrial revolution, they have a point. Limiting their population will help limit their economic growth.

remember the story i told you where instead of heavy machinery, a million laborers were hired for ground works in china?
how is that not exploiting the situation...in the west's industrial age we had little option but to use people. but nowadays we have other options.
and what will those people and them alike, do when the job is finished? it seems to me they'll hurt the economy more than benefit it.
lets not even think what would happen when all those people will achieve the same standard as we do...Earth will collapse...and it's for their sake also, not just us.

 

[Saturos]

I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had, during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify our species and I realized that we aren’t actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with its surrounding environment, but we humans do not. We move to an area and we multiply, and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way we can survive is to spread to another area.

There is ... another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern ...

LOL @ shrimp pistol.

I haven't seen that movie in a while, but what did agent Smith actually say? Srsly though, what it a virus?

BTW, the first was the best out of the trilogy. I didn't like the other two sequels.

 

[Danimal]

Im not sure, I think i was very tired and skiped the first part about human nature and sex...
and only saw the end...

think about it though, if some very powerful scientists and doctors all met in some secret union, and were trying to reduce the human population... AIDS or some other STI would be a good way to do it

Or a machine gun.

A really big one, loud too.

Micheal Bay will forsee it's construction.

 

[unozero]

aids will even this problem out me thinks....not to mention that eventually the west won't be able to afford to feed poorer countries.....yeah bad times are coming for sure but I don't think in our lifetime.

 

[Hobopro]

A virus should solve our problems.

 

[Eejit]

I sincerely hope that in the event of a viral epidemic wiping out significant portions of the world's population that those of you who are wishing for it suffer.
Human life ain't worth shit if they're in poor countries lolol just let em die!!

 

[Danimal]

I sincerely hope that in the event of a viral epidemic wiping out significant portions of the world's population that those of you who are wishing for it suffer.

Seriously.

A virus should solve our problems.

You sound so cool with it, shall we give you and your family the first prick?

 

[UnbredCylinder7]

I think that Over-population is not the problem, the earth could easily support 7 billion humans. I am thinking the problem is that a large portion will/do want to have thier own car, house, much more food than is neccisary, and live in ways that are inefficient and harmfull to the enviorment, I myself am no exception. The earth cant support the type of lifestyle that people like me and and most of the people here in the states have. Even if there is no large disater like a viral epidemic something will give before long.

 

[jverne]

I think that Over-population is not the problem, the earth could easily support 7 billion humans. I am thinking the problem is that a large portion will/do want to have thier own car, house, much more food than is neccisary, and live in ways that are inefficient and harmfull to the enviorment, I myself am no exception. The earth cant support the type of lifestyle that people like me and and most of the people here in the states have. Even if there is no large disater like a viral epidemic something will give before long.

sure, the earth could sustain 100 billion of us...if we were stacked upon each other and vegetating all our living days. but where's the point?

i'd like to see a population just enough that we have a minimal economy growth...like 0.005% per year. most of our investment should go directly into medicine and education...everything else will just follow.

 

[UnbredCylinder7]

i'd like to see a population just enough that we have a minimal economy growth...like 0.005% per year. most of our investment should go directly into medicine and education...everything else will just follow.

I agree, but I really dont think this is going to happen.

 

[jverne]

I agree, but I really dont think this is going to happen.

me neither...that's why i fruitlessly hope for cancers

 

[Mr Stabby]

We need to find out what causes homosexuality and spread it in the third world.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

The big reveal will be that Man causes homosexuality.

 

[jverne]

We need to find out what causes homosexuality and spread it in the third world.

that's easy...we just send ZT there















(i hope he realizes it's a compliment)...shhhh

 

[CrazyHarij]

The big reveal will be that Man causes homosexuality.

speak for yourself

 

[15357]

Seriously speaking for a change, I don't think that depopulating vast sectors of the world is a moral idea, and goes against my ethics code of "everything goes except this".

To be honest, I think that continuing population increase will be good for humanity, as we will be able to harvest vast labor resources while at the same time trying to tap the ocean depths and reach the stars in order to house them.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

Yes, the third world has no gays. It's not that in the vast majority of those countries they would be executed for coming out, or anything.

 

[unozero]

I sincerely hope that in the event of a viral epidemic wiping out significant portions of the world's population that those of you who are wishing for it suffer.
Human life ain't worth shit if they're in poor countries lolol just let em die!!

I'm certainly not wishing for any of this to happen...but it's fact that AIDS is a huge problem and it is in fact already regulating the population in Africa,and our economy is about/already (it could get worse even) to collapse I doubt Americans can afford to be one of the most charitable nations on earth in the future if we cant even feed ourselves.
maybe Im being a pessimist....I hope everything will get better of course it just seems unlikely.

 

[jverne]

Seriously speaking for a change, I don't think that depopulating vast sectors of the world is a moral idea, and goes against my ethics code of "everything goes except this".

To be honest, I think that continuing population increase will be good for humanity, as we will be able to harvest vast labor resources while at the same time trying to tap the ocean depths and reach the stars in order to house them.

you do have a good point...but i think in real life it just doesn't work. now that machines are becoming more and more capable physical laborers are not that crucial (i'm talking for the first world). i'd like to think that even with a reduced population we could still keep a decent economic growth. i might be wrong, but i think a lot of the surplus workforce in advanced countries just ends up doing stuff that is not really needed.

as for the stars ...bla bla bla...stuff. you do realize we probably won't colonize anything in the next 300 years.
colonizing everything that is different than earth will have vast consequences on the human biology. colonizing space is a pipe dream. but that doesn't mean we wont exploit its resources, but that's probably gonna be a robotic endeavor.