Off-Topic DiscussionsThis is the area for general banter/chat. There are rules for this section, please read the sticky post in the section before participating. The short rules: Only work safe discussions, no religious/political debates!
What do you all think? I say it's necessary not nice but necessary. I prefer to leave out the abortion discussion because that will degrade quickly to a pi$$ing match. I'm thinking more of the economic and technical issue of 1.4 billion people in a country the size of ours or a billion in a country (India) smaller than ours. Food? Energy? Pollution? Water?
__________________
Too much junk/toys to mention, ever changing due to too getting bored too quickly. I need a 10 step program!
Want to call? I'm in the book. Want to argue....First explain the square root of negative one....lol
What do you all think? I say it's necessary not nice but necessary.
I agree. The latest National Geographic mag is totally about China and they go into that issue. As someone commented just the other day, with all the discussions regarding conservation, pollution, etc, loss of animal habitat, NO U.S. politicians are willing to ever touch the U.S. over-population "hot potato". Oddly enough, usually the hardcore environmentalists have about 1/2 dozen kids scattered nationwide from different women. Not that I think we here should have the one child policy, but all things considered I just never could understand people wanting an extra-large family.
What do you all think? I say it's necessary not nice but necessary. I prefer to leave out the abortion discussion because that will degrade quickly to a pi$$ing match. I'm thinking more of the economic and technical issue of 1.4 billion people in a country the size of ours or a billion in a country (India) smaller than ours. Food? Energy? Pollution? Water?
Doesn't the United States, a much less populous nation, also have a much lower birth rate?
As their quality of life increases, the Chinese birth rate should technically begin to fall should it not?
What do you all think? I say it's necessary not nice but necessary
I agree that it is necessary for something to be done; however, I would never comply to a rule like that...and I'm sure that I'm not alone there. Reduced birth rate is one solution that can help bring down the population in time; however, it would be difficult to impliment, and would take a long time to show any results. Plus by reducing the birth rate, you increase the average age of the population, and eventually the world will be filled with elderly people who can't take care of themselves, and there will not be enough young people to balance it out and take care of them all. Two possible means population control with guaranteed results are increasing the death rate of the non-breeding population and eugenics; however, you sound like Hitler the moment you start talking about them. All I know is that there is no way I would allow anybody but myself to restrict the amount of offspring that I want to bring into this world. There is nothing more important in life than passing on your genes, and if anyone tries to stop me from having kids, I have lots of 220 grain hollow-tip friends who will back me up in my fight. It is absolutely necessary that something is done about the population problem, but I believe in survival of the fittest. Preventing the strong and healthy from reproducing will promote the survival of unfavorable alleles in the population, and will slow the rate at which we as a species evolve. The sad truth is that this population problem cannot be solved by any sort of politically correct means. If we are going to start killing people off, why would we prevent the birth of the next generation which are the future of the human race, when we have lots of useless people eating up resources, polluting the world and wasting space already? Wouldnt it be much more sensible to reduce the amount of people who are past their reproductive stage, rather than preventing the birth of new healthy people who can actually contribute to society and the survival of our species? The two-makes-one solution does not make sense to me. Launching some bombs is a much quicker and easier solution, and I think if push comes to shove, that is the choice that our governments will take. We have been starting wars and killing innocent people for thousands of years...what's the big deal if we just up the ante a little bit. One of the most important rights is the right to breed. If they now take that away then what has this world come to? I'd be happier if they just launched a couple nukes and got it over with. I'm not trying to discriminate or target anyone specifically, but I think desperate times call for desperate measures. Sorry if I offended anybody, but I truly believe there is no way that 6.6 billion people can coexist on one small planet in a sustainable way.
__________________
2003 F-250 XLT FX4 6.0l powerstroke turbo diesel, supercab, shortbox, torqushift 5spd auto. Procomp 4" lift with dual shocks and steering stabilizers, 315-75-16R Toyo Open Country MT tires on 16x10 American Eagle Wheels, Edge Evolution tuner, Airaid intake, Magnaflow performance 4" turbo back dual exhaust with 5" dual wall tips, WARN Premium manual locking hubs, Bushwacker fender flares, Smoked cab and 3rd brake light, Aftermarket headlights, tail lights and reverse lights, TomTom GO 920 Navigation system, Ford custom seat covers, Lund tonneau cover.
Last edited by NBhunter80 : 08-11-2008 at 01:20 PM.
I agree that it is necessary for something to be done; however, I would never comply to a rule like that...and I'm sure that I'm not alone there. Reduced birth rate is one solution that can help bring down the population in time; however, it would be difficult to implement, and would take a long time to show any results. Plus by reducing the birth rate, you increase the average age of the population, and eventually the world will be filled with elderly people who can't take care of themselves, and there will not be enough young people to balance it out and take care of them all. Two possible means population control with guaranteed results are increasing the death rate of the non-breeding population and eugenics; however, you sound like Hitler the moment you start talking about them. All I know is that there is no way I would allow anybody but myself to restrict the amount of offspring that I want to bring into this world. There is nothing more important in life than passing on your genes, and if anyone tries to stop me from having kids, I have lots of 220 grain hollow-tip friends who will back me up in my fight. It is absolutely necessary that something is done about the population problem, but I believe in survival of the fittest. Preventing the strong and healthy from reproducing will promote the survival of unfavorable alleles in the population, and will slow the rate at which we as a species evolve. The sad truth is that this population problem cannot be solved by any sort of politically correct means. If we are going to start killing people off, why would we prevent the birth of the next generation which are the future of the human race, when we have lots of useless people eating up resources, polluting the world and wasting space already? Wouldn't it be much more sensible to reduce the amount of people who are past their reproductive stage, rather than preventing the birth of new healthy people who can actually contribute to society and the survival of our species? The two-makes-one solution does not make sense to me. Launching some bombs is a much quicker and easier solution, and I think if push comes to shove, that is the choice that our governments will take. We have been starting wars and killing innocent people for thousands of years...what's the big deal if we just up the ante a little bit. One of the most important rights is the right to breed. If they now take that away then what has this world come to? I'd be happier if they just launched a couple nukes and got it over with. I'm not trying to discriminate or target anyone specifically, but I think desperate times call for desperate measures. Sorry if I offended anybody, but I truly believe there is no way that 6.6 billion people can coexist on one small planet in a sustainable way.
Agree that 6.6 billion can not go to 10 billion and not have a major effect on the world. It is a double edge sword as you point out!
__________________
Too much junk/toys to mention, ever changing due to too getting bored too quickly. I need a 10 step program!
Want to call? I'm in the book. Want to argue....First explain the square root of negative one....lol
AutoForums.com is the premier network of enthusiast-owned
enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
We operate more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share
experiences and opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
