Well, we're getting there then!

I protect myself from aids the best I can, but every now and then I'll wank-dream of wild barebacking with van drivers in a car park.

AIDS stands for "Alright, I'm Dying Soon!"

I have an uncle who is HIV-positive and has been for a good 13 years or something. He contracted it from fucking a guy in a bathroom in Florida. True story. He has to take like 15 different medications a day. Pretty fucked up, but he doesn't seem too upset about it.

Not alwways controllable, unless they took some sort of drug or what have you to cause the 8 fetuses.

+1

At my job, I see so many pregnant mothers with 4 or more kids that they can barely control.

Just because you're married doesn't mean you can throw away all your condoms.

that is a bunch of bullshit. overpopulation is a social darwinist myth! the world can handle 48 billion people so long as we stop living greedy, wasteful and consumer based lives.. at the present rate of consumption however the rate is 2 billion.. its not the planet that can not handle the people, its the people who can not handle sharing with other people. there is no such thing as overpopulation, it is a man-made disaster :(

yeah thats working REAL well for china..

I'm sorry but I am simply just too special. It'd make more sense for unspecial people to die. China has so many people, every person probably has a duplicate. They should round everyone up, group them by similarities, and then just pick the best person in each group of similar people and kill the rest.

First of all, even if all of your figures are true there is still certainly such a thing as overpopulation. You say the world can handle 48 billion people? So then what does 49 billion people make? One billion too many people. Overpopulation.

And even if we can sustain more people right now simply by changing our lifestyles, why ignore the problem of overpopulation until it becomes unavoidable? If we do that, our response will have to be much more severe.

Also, you ignore human nature. Sure, more people would have more resources if the greediest cut back... but since when does that happen?

It makes mores sense tackling the problem facing the reality of it versus only striving for the ideal. If you try to get everyone to do a little, you have a chance. If you try to get everyone to do a lot at once, nothing will happen. Ultimately, the biggest steps to repair things won't happen until everyone feels the strain.

Also, penis.

... meaning AIDS doesn't work very well, but it looks real nice?

that is more nonsense. as human societies develop their birth rates DECLINE, so if we focus on development and balancing our consumption, then humans never will reach 48 billion in the first place. Our population is sky-rocketing in the developing world, and yet actually declining in the developed nations, just as a hundred years ago the birth rates in Europe and the United States were unbelievable. Again, overpopulation is a myth. It is an impossibility.

... do you actually believe what you're saying?

First of all, yes, demographics have shown that in some developed western societies birth rates have declined. Since when does 'declined' mean a decrease in population? Sure, people in these areas are pumping out babies at a decreased rate, but in most cases the population is still growing. It may not be growing as exponentially as it was, but it's still growing. And the places that have shown a decrease in population certainly don't mark a long or permanent trend, nor do they outweigh the areas with more growth. If a car going 100 mph on a road with a speed limit of 50 mph slows down and is now going 90 mph, it's still over the fucking speed limit and you're still in trouble.

But let's pretend that in every developed nation the population was actually steadily decreasing. As you noted, it's still skyrocketing in the developing world. Your plan is to counteract this by focusing on development of all of these areas? That shows little understanding of what the third world is. In our current economic and political set-up, it's impossible to develop the entire world. 'Developed' nations enjoy unprecedented wealth and comfort because of their dominance over the third world. We use their resources. The third world is largely trapped where it is as long as we remain on top. It's simply not possible to bring them up to our level of development, nor is it on the agenda.

"Overpopulation is a myth. It is an impossibility."
Comments like these make it hard to take you seriously. How is it impossible for there to be too many people for our limited resources, whether it be now or eventually? That's extremely possible, and in fact very likely, especially if things continue as they do.

tl;dr: penis penis penis penis penis penis

can somebody rep amerikangod? He's been my favourite poster in quite some time. At least he bothers making sure that he deserves a big ego.

there are so many things wrong here..

a) from The Times: "EUROPE’S population will continue to decline for decades even if birthrates improve significantly, researchers have calculated. Trends towards smaller families and later motherhood mean that there are too few women of childbearing age to reverse the decline in the near future, according to an Austrian study. The year 2000 marked a turning point, with the population’s “momentum” becoming negative; there will be fewer parents in the next generation than in this one.
At present 1.5 babies are born for every European Union woman, when two births are required for the population “replacement rate” to be maintained. Even if women started to have more children again, at younger ages, the tendency to population decline would continue for decades, as there would be too few potential mothers to make a difference.
so yes sir, as nations develop their birth rates decline below 2.0 and the over-all population declines. At the turn of the century the birthrate in Europe was as high as 7.0, as it is in places like rural India today, but today they are at 1.5! The trend is that as nations develop, birthrates DECLINE, so the logical conclusion (and observed reality) is that as under-developed nations develop, their natural birth rates also decline ;)



b) yes, every country can develop their infrastructures, their resource distribution, their public services, this is for the interest of the entire world. You mistake development for over-development, I am not talking about turning East-Africa into Santa Monica. Without development, as you called, 'third-world' nations actually consume MORE resources. In africa 70% of household fuel comes from wood charcoal, which is leading to massive deforestation. The solution? ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS.. every 15 seconds a child dies from no access to drinking water, the solution? Water infrastructure.. these are not luxuries of the developed world, they are absolute necessities for human health!

c) overpopulation is a concept of unequal distribution of resources. If is simple math, if it is an observed phenomon that in in the developed world, birth and death rates reach an equilibrium (hence the potential even for population decline) then if there is an equitable distribution of resources, there will be no problems related to overpopulation. Overpopulation by definition is when a species or organism becomes to large a population for a given set of resources, but as I said, with humans this is a myth. We, unlike other organisms, have the ability to balance and produce resources on our own. We alter nature, so if we alter in in a beneficial way, we will not fall into overpopulation.
According to the U.N. Population Database, using the historically accurate low variant projection, the Earth's population will only add another billion people or so over the next thirty years, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline. Source: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision, http://esa.un.org/unpp, Saturday, September 26, 2009; 2:57:15 PM.

as I said, social darwinism is evident in your perspective. So the 'third world' could never develop eh? what, are the negroids not worth it? So human beings die of preventable diseases because of the rule of natural selection? thats a bit insensitive if you ask me, the diseases are called preventable for reason. or should we just let people continue to die and let God sort it all out? Kyrie Eleison!

" and then it will begin to decline. "
you may feel a sting, that's just pride, fucking with you:

Has it?

I like it how your username is keeping it simple.

Yeah.

FYI for the Magic Johnson conspirator. I have 3 friends who have the HIV virus since the 80's. There all still here. All three contracted the virus from IV drug use. What's a real shocker is one of the women that's still here, her husband contracted full blown Aids and died in 94.

R.I.P. Barry..........

48 billion people=

I love you too bro <3

1) Your source notes that the decline in Europe could last 'for decades' ... that isn't a very long or even guaranteed set of time and while it could shave the numbers down a bit it certainly doesn't return things to homeostasis. It also doesn't even remotely imply that the slightly smaller population will use less resources. Overpopulation doesn't occur at a fixed number of people. It occurs when more people exist than their environment can handle. And you can say "People don't need to use so many resources, if they just balanced things more, more people could get what they need and..." ... well, what could work and what actually happens are two different things. We need to account for things when we're at our worst, as we're rarely at our best.

2) "yes, every country can develop their infrastructures, their resource distribution, their public services"

Having access to clean water and better public services doesn't necessarily 'develop' one to the point of population decline. It takes a more care-free lifestyle experienced by much larger portions of the population before you can note this. Even in first-world nations, the sections of the population that don't have the luxury to do whatever they want haven't slowed down their procreating.

And that said, no, every country cannot develop their infrastructures. Many have infrastructures that have been intentionally broken and re-worked to benefit those that benefit from this outside of the country. Want something to back this up? Watch a documentary called 'Life and Debt.' It's about Jamaica, so you should be way into it.

3) "We, unlike other organisms, have the ability to balance and produce resources on our own. We alter nature, so if we alter in in a beneficial way, we will not fall into overpopulation." As I already said above, what we can do and what we actually do are two different things. I'd like it to happen, I'd like everyone to have what they need, and I certainly think nothing will change if we don't try, but I also think I'd be a huge jackass to say "Overpopulation can never happen." A crisis around overpopulation doesn't have to happen. But that doesn't mean it won't.

"as I said, social darwinism is evident in your perspective. So the 'third world' could never develop eh? what, are the negroids not worth it? So human beings die of preventable diseases because of the rule of natural selection? thats a bit insensitive if you ask me, the diseases are called preventable for reason. or should we just let people continue to die and let God sort it all out? Kyrie Eleison!"

Uh, you're not aware of my perspective then. I don't adhere to social Darwinism. If you're referring to my initial comment of support of the dude who said something about AIDS and cancer being population control, I was joking. Well, I was serious about people getting off of his back, but I was joking about AIDS being a good form of population control. That's what I do on here. I joke. That said, I do feel that the negroids are not worth it. Did you know that black people can't even swim?

And I'll start using sources when this stops being a message board I visit when I feel like being a dick on the internet.

And sir, I'll have you know that I feel no sting as you alleged I should. All I feel is my severely engorged erection. It's always been this way and it'll always be this way, and nothing you can do will change it.

Can I just point out that it would actually be shit if all individuals and nations were to be living on just what they "needed" as SuchFriends suggests. In that situation there would be no sophisticated culture develop nor technology or science. We wouldn't have the resources nor the leisure to develop these things. There would be no space program for example. The whole world be living pretty primitively without any advancement.

stupid

Why? Is what people "need" much more than what I would class as "needed"?

EDIT - What I was saying was in regards to if everyone was forced to live on what they need.

I think the association between excess and innovation is too tenuous to make as a self-evident truth.

I'm not saying there's a link between excess and innovation in the way you think I am. Consider something like architecture. If we are using just what we need and are therefore building what is practical then there wouldn't be any great architecture, no ornate carvings no skyscrapers. Scientific investigation can require a lot resources. Also if people are working for their requirements ie enough food to survive then I imagine other preoccupations won't make take hold.

Nobody suggested that. He suggested that if we went closer to what we need versus our insane lives of luxury and waste, there would be enough energy, food, etc for the people dying in Africa and other countries to live off of. This is proven fact. It doesn't have anything to do with innovation, and it won't stop it because people always want more

Well what you describe is exactly what I thought you were saying. The fact is that a large portion of the population is always struggling just enough to survive and so your argument comes to the conclusion that all public prosperity comes from the expense of the resourceful wealthy. However, commercial expenditures are always driven by commercial interests. Thus, what beneficial qualities that do come from them are always either accidental (with scientific investigation) or secondary (architecture).

What you overlook is that the most beneficial innovation comes from philanthropic spending in that it allows innovation for its own sake. Of course, philanthropy is usually associated to wealthy individuals but the government also funds programs for the public good.

Still, though, I don't accept the belief that innovation itself is economically driven. However, I think the application of innovation is economically driven which confuses some people. What should be done is reducing the economic disparity between the wealthiest and poorest so that the innovation can benefit the greatest number, either by commercial or public means.

True. What I said wasn't part of the main argument, just a side note in response to this:


If we had maximum capacity population it would be pretty shit.

I'm saying that with maximum capacity population there won't be any "resourceful wealthy".


Does poetry fit into that? I don't think so as you can't make any money from it even nowadays when not everyone is working just to live and people have money to spend on books of poetry.


Again, in the situation I'm talking about in which we have the biggest population that can survive, everyone will be living on the bare minimum they nees. There won't be any philanthropy: there'll nothing to give!

No, not all innovation is economically driven. I mentioned poetry. Companies on the other will be driven to innovate to make money. My point is that in the situation I'm talking about there won't be any money for innovation because all funds will go into survival...in fact there wouldn't be any funds, everyone would be given rations: rationed food, rationed clothes etc.


This isn't relevant to what I was saying.

Then I suppose I did misunderstand your original point, itself being largely irrelevant to this thread.

Well, none of your posts seems to be relevant to the actual discussion so I guess we're all even.

Brilliant. In future I'll try and be more discerning about what is relevant and what isn't.

Arent you the one who bitched at someone for not being relevant? I was just pointing out that you weren't being relevant either.

Simple facts:
1.Most of the population cannot even afford to go to the doctor for an ear infection..let alone anything more complicated than that.

2.Most of the population cannot afford health insurance

3.Most of the population is not elligible (poor enough) to recieve government health assistance

4.Most of the population overcrowds the ER when they HAVE to see the doctor

5.Then they will not pay the bill

6.Most of the population will die of a preventable disease that could have been eased if not for thier monetary disposition

7.Aids is not the worst of our problems

Good point!

when god gives u the aids- make lemonaids.

Um when? I can't remember. I probably meant something wasn't relevant to a particular argument and that what was being said couldn't be used as an argument. When I wrote my original post I did "Can I just say" to indicate that it wasn't part of the main argument so not relevant but not relevant in a way that doesn't matter.