Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: acsinuk on 29/03/2021 10:12:59
-
Well done Chris Packham for a super Horizon program on BBC2 last night. The World Health Organisation monitors show world population now 7.9 billion already up by 200 million https://www.worldometers.info/population/ .
We need to plan ahead and reduce this increasing population to save the planet. Here are some ideas
1. Reduce childbirth by contraceptive pills and educating young girls to feel free, safe and secure if un-married.
2. Reduce elderly population by encouraging euthanasia for those who cannot look after themselves at home
3. Allow God to choose who lives or dies when He sends a pandemic to protect us from overpopulation.
4. Have a world war noting that Chris sees this as negative as it causes a baby boom due to insecurity.
CliveS
-
Here are some ideas
Yes, those are some ideas.
Did you consider posting good ideas?
-
1. Reduce childbirth by contraceptive pills and educating young girls to feel free, safe and secure if un-married.
Marriage is irrelevant, and most abuse occurs within marriage, but free contraception is a good idea.2. Reduce elderly population by encouraging euthanasia for those who cannot look after themselves at home
Allow, don't encourage. 3. Allow God to choose who lives or dies when He sends a pandemic to protect us from overpopulation.
Is that the god that created cholera and blessed both the Spanish Inquisition and ISIS. Or were you thinking about the benign and omnipotent being that allowed the Romans to crucify his son? Anyway, the past pandemic killed those of working age and the present one preferentially kills those too old to reproduce, so unless you want a biblical plague that kills the firstborn, it won't have the desired effect.4. Have a world war noting that Chris sees this as negative as it causes a baby boom due to insecurity.
and doesn't kill many people. COVID has now killed more Americans in one year than died in WWII. The Russians lost at least 20,000,000 people over 6 years in that conflict but again mostly people of working age.
If we do nothing, people will eventually starve or kill each other anyway.
-
Increased life expectancy in the elderly will cause a bit of a bulge in population. But, if they aren't having kids, I don't worry about them. They'll eventually pass on. I'd hate to imagine a society that used forced euthanasia of the elderly to keep up with a over population problem of the young.
And, some of the matriarchs and patriarchs are the glue that hold society together.
As you mentioned education helps. I'd like to see the government talk about family size as a major issue. I'd be happy enough if over the next couple of centuries the human population slowly declined to half or less, but governments seem to think a decrease in population is a major problem. Reducing population growth would help with global warming, transitioning to renewable energy, and resource depletion.
It may well also increase society wealth (no building bigger and bigger roads to keep up with population growth, and new construction limited to rebuilding old houses, not always needing new housing).
There are a lot of society benefits for young children from free schools to tax incentives.
I would like to see domestic tax incentives change to normal deductions for up to 1 kid per person, 2 per couple. But, after that increase taxes so 3, 4, 5 kids would incur a significant tax burden. Encourage that 1 each/2 couple, and birth rate would naturally decline.
Of course "grandfather" in those that are already born or past conception for the old system.
The issue then becomes international communities, some who have large families, then emigrate to more affluent places.
Internationally it is a complex issue from requiring government supported retirement (don't depend on kids and family), and back to strongly encouraging small families.
Immigration/emigration would likely become a non-issue if the standard of living was increased globally, and countries could maintain the zero population growth. In fact, make it much easier to move between nations that have the population under control.
-
Abolish all child support grants and statutory maternity leave. Pay every woman £500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant, with one "bye" for the first child. Prosecute anyone who preaches that contraception is against the will of the Almighty, unless he can prove it by having his god testify in court. Pretty soon the reproduction rate will reduce to around 1 per woman - no additional education necessary - and within 100 years the population will have reached a sustainable level.
En route to that desideratum, the working fraction of the population, i.e. those aged between 20 and 60, will increase, and the cost of state education, health and social services and policing will decrease significantly, so there will be more money to pay pensions and more working age folk who might previously have been involved in child services will be available to look after the elderly.
Ban all immigration except for genuine refugees. The UK will be the demonstration laboratory for a social experiment that anyone else can copy, so we can't tolerate arbitrary increases in the population.
Will it be popular? A government that gives you money for doing nothing and pays bigger pensions, will have no problem selling the policy to the electorate.
-
Pay every woman £500 every 6 months if she is not pregnant, with one "bye" for the first child.
You could probably do that in the UK- where the birth rate is already les than the death rate, so there's not much point.
But if you tried doing it everywhere then you would discover that you have just made the women (even more of) a target to be attacked. Not just for the "traditional reasons"- but also because they would have money.
The first thing you need to do is ensure that women are granted freedom of choice and action.
Once you do that, you probably won't need to offer the cash.
En route to that desideratum, the working fraction of the population, i.e. those aged between 20 and 60, will increase,
Really? Are you proposing a pensioner cull?
Under your policy the birth rate would drop to roughly half what it currently is. The death rate would remain largely unchanged.
So, consider what happens 20 years down the line.
There are only half as many 20 year olds, but the number of pensioners is the same.
The following year we only have half as many 20 and half as many 21 year olds, and the number of pensioners is the same.
And after, 60 years there will only be half as many* people in the 20 to 60 age group, but they will be supporting the same number of pensioners.
Is your view that the pensioners will starve, or that the taxpayers will be happy to spend twice as much (per capita) supporting them?
* the fall in numbers will be a bit steeper really, because, with a smaller adult population from about year 20, there will be fewer adults so there will be even fewer parents and the birth rate will drop even more.
-
Those under 20 do not make a net contribution to the economy and currently form about 25% of the population. If their numbers decrease, the "working fraction" of those aged 20 - 60 increases smoothly from 0.5 to about 0.65 in the short term.
My £1000 grant per annum is less than half of what the taxpayer currently contributes to the welfare etc of other people's children.
Attacking a woman doesn't give you access to her bank account. Being kind, might.
As I pointed out, I have no interest in what happens in the rest of the world. If the experiment works, others would be well advised to try it. If not, we will at least have reduced the pressure on UK housing and thus improved the productive economy by reducing the national mortgage debt.
-
Attacking a woman doesn't give you access to her bank account.
Oh boy!
Alan thinks women all have their own bank accounts.
-
Those under 20 do not make a net contribution to the economy and currently form about 25% of the population.
Which means "the rest" are about 75% of the population.
And in that - much bigger- group, the fraction of over 60s grows.
The average age at death in the UK is about 82.
So a person typically spends 20 years being under 20 and 22 years being over 60.
Your proposal would shrink the small group, and not affect the big one.
But it would also halve the number of people paying in.
-
Yes, "The average age at death in the UK is about 82.
So a person typically spends 20 years being under 20 and 22 years being over 60"
But what about the quality of life of our pensioners???? Everyone wants to be at home looking after themselves and inviting friends and family for visits. But what happens when they cannot look after themselves and wet the bed at night??
Most people want to die at home so will have to pay helpers to care for them. But if the pensioner cannot afford that home care then they will have to go into a state funded care home and thus loose their freedom,
Many care home are run on prison lines where the inmates are closely monitored and isolated from all risks.
Euthanasia may not be such a bad idea and it will certainly help the state and their children by releasing assets early. Better still would be for the pensioner to live with one of their children who would become their carer!
.
-
The crude model I used assumed a linear decline in population from age 60 to 100, that every female gave birth to one child at age 20, and instant recruitment from parasite to full taxpayer at age 20.
By the time the first "new cohort" joins the working fraction, the birth rate will have declined again, so although the number in the working fraction decreases, so does the number of children they support.
By all means feel free to tweak the numbers and soften the curve a bit. The general retirement age of 65 already makes my model look better!
-
It's a tough one, population will increace and resource use will increace exponentially as the world develops. War is a very real possibility, look at the Falklands, the south China Sea, race for the Arctic. 15 million by 2100 is within the bounds of possibility, the peace of the latter 20th century was mostly due to resources and consumerism. When populations feel aggrieved there is a drift to the extremes as seen recently.
Problem with reducing a population is that to just push it over a cliff as in China and its one child policy is you end up with an aged population. If a couple in China are fron the one child era and their parents where from a one child era, their teenage child and their partner will have 4 parents 8 grandparents and now the possibility of 2 children to support. That is 14 people on two workers in the worst case scenario.
The best we can hope for is a gradual decline at a rate of 2 children per couple. Population will still increace but will start to rationalise. Mass migration of people to countries that implement this idea would also have to ceace as countries like the USA and Brazil where population is at a reasonable level bearing the burden for countries like Britain where population densities are astranomical.
-
If a couple in China are fron the one child era and their parents where from a one child era, their teenage child and their partner will have 4 parents 8 grandparents and now the possibility of 2 children to support. That is 14 people on two workers in the worst case scenario.
A very common mistake - at least if applied to the UK, where you spend the first quarter of your life consuming, not producing. The elderly are supported by the taxpayers, not the students. And the taxpayers also support the students.
If you reduce the population, you have more resources available per capita. In the UK, this means that house prices will decline and most working people will have more disposable income, which they can invest for their old age.
-
If a couple in China are fron the one child era and their parents where from a one child era, their teenage child and their partner will have 4 parents 8 grandparents and now the possibility of 2 children to support. That is 14 people on two workers in the worst case scenario.
A very common mistake - at least if applied to the UK, where you spend the first quarter of your life consuming, not producing. The elderly are supported by the taxpayers, not the students. And the taxpayers also support the students.
nope I am on about the teenager as they grow.
If you reduce the population, you have more resources available per capita. In the UK, this means that house prices will decline and most working people will have more disposable income, which they can invest for their old age.
As the population of working age decreases, cash devalues, the housing crash will bring down the banks, the government will follow, leaving the couple with 14 people to support guarding their food supply with a pointy stick whilst the heathens sacrifice people unto the gods.
-
It costs about £300,000 to support a UK baby to age 20. The published figures generally ignore State support, so you have to approximate from the US figure where the taxpayer contributes less to the upbringing and health of your child, then add a bit for policing. 50% of UK kids receive a student loan, of which about 50% are never repaid in full.
£300,000 is over 30 years of state pension.
The housing "crash" (more like a slow reversion to 1930's valuations over the next 50 years) will not bring down the banks - they will continue to lend money but for more useful ventures than buying and selling second-hand houses. Banks survive in North America where the price per square foot is less than half the going UK rate.
The most prosperous countries have a very low population density. Think USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden....Why not the UK?
-
The most prosperous countries have a very low population density. Think USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden....Why not the UK?
You are stretching it there Alan, they are also mostly new countries. No mention of Japan there nor Germany, I'm sure they may fall into the bracket of ''most'
-
I wouldn't call Sweden a new country. They were trading with the British Isles 4000 years ago and had a significant empire until 1720.
North America has been colonised by Europeans for around 500 years.
Home ownership is unusual in Germany: farmers and some traders and craftsmen "live over the shop" but the majority of the population live in rented accommodation in a very competitive market, so their disposable income is greater than in the UK and it shows in the ease with which industry is able to borrow money and raise capital at all levels.
If anything, Japan and Korea should be counted as "new" countries, having been radically overhauled and reconsitututed in the last 100 years, but I don't know too much about mortgage rates in either!.
-
I wouldn't call Sweden a new country.
I wouldn't call them mostly either
The rest of it has nothing to do with countries with population overburden offloading them to countries with a sensible population who take measures to keep population within sensible levels.
On an economic note, the increaced in population is regarded as great for the economy, by default a drop must be seen as bad.
-
"Good for the economy" includes starting a war (though not losing it) and failing to institute timely and proper quarantine in a time of pandemic. Likewise increasing house prices to the extent that villages become depleted and Londoners cannot afford to live in London - the Press always get excited when "the housing market is picking up" because it makes easy headlines at the expense of investment into productive industry and social services.
An increasing population demands increasing production and more trade, and results in increasing consumption, which is "good for the economy" until the primary resource runs out. The Common Fisheries Policy was good for the economy and turned the North Sea into a desert. The Aral Sea has dried up, for the benefit of the economy.
Political economics is all about short-termism. What interests me is what is good for my grandchildren in the next 50 years, not what benefits bankers and politicians tomorrow, and that demands sustainability.
I am unaware of any "country" (by which I assume you mean government) that takes "measures to keep population within sensible levels". The Chinese attempted it rather badly as you pointed out in reply #11 above.
-
An increasing population demands increasing production and more trade, and results in increasing consumption, which is "good for the economy" until the primary resource runs out.
Thank you for agreeing.
The trouble is that places such as the USA with a moderate population should not be over populated by places like Europe emmegrating to them. You will end up with one country implementing procedures and suffering loss for it.
-
The definition of a country is a geographical area with a border defended by a military system answerable to one government. Immigration is at the discretion of the said government.
-
The definition of a country is a geographical area with a border defended by a military system answerable to one government. Immigration is at the discretion of the said government.
Good luck explaining that to the Scots and the Welsh.
-
I'm looking forward to Scottish independence. Patrolling half the mainland coastline and lots of islands is an expensive business for the English taxpayer, but Hadrian's Wall can be secured by ground troops and a couple of helicopters (did you know the Romans had helicopters?)
Offa's Dyke has been very quiet lately. Has she retired?
-
I'm looking forward to Scottish independence. Patrolling half the mainland coastline and lots of islands is an expensive business for the English taxpayer, but Hadrian's Wall can be secured by ground troops and a couple of helicopters (did you know the Romans had helicopters?)
Offa's Dyke has been very quiet lately. Has she retired?
The Romans still do today, April the 1st eh?
-
In my opinion it would be helpful, to have a better sex education. Worldwide. So young people would have more information on how to prevent pregnancy. This would reduce the number of accidental pregnancies, and thereby also the population.
-
how about something in the lines of the 'one child policy' that China adopted in the near past?
-
In my opinion it would be helpful, to have a better sex education. Worldwide. So young people would have more information on how to prevent pregnancy. This would reduce the number of accidental pregnancies, and thereby also the population.
The major part of the problem isn't unwanted or accidental pregnancies, of which most women rarely have more than one, but intentional ones.
-
It takes two to tango, and a big part of the problem is men.
-
In my opinion it would be helpful, to have a better sex education. Worldwide.
Interestingly there is clear evidence worldwide that just educating girls has a significant effect on birthrate, they tend to have smaller families. In some cases that will include sex education, but in many places it is limited by religion.
-
It takes two to tango, and a big part of the problem is men.
I think the term you are looking for is "small but significant".
-
In some cases that will include sex education, but in many places it is limited by religion.
The world's greatest problems would be quickly solved if we could ban religion.
-
In some cases that will include sex education, but in many places it is limited by religion.
The world's greatest problems would be quickly solved if we could ban religion.
I agree. Religion has been a kind of "first attempt" at understanding how the Universe works.
But the problem with Religion is that it relies entirely on "Faith". Not on experimental evidence.
Experimental evidence has in recent times been gathered, and incorporated into a new way of looking at the Universe. Called, as we know, "Science".
Science has a great advantage over Religion, in that it always works, and produces demonstrable results.
In the form of things like flying machines, steamships, cars, trains, electric light, telephones , televisions, and many other things.
These things should make us see "Science" as demonstrably superior to outmoded "Religion". And therefore "get rid" of Religion, as you say. Consign it to the dustbin of history, in the famous phrase.
Yet we don't. Religion is still around today. Is that because our brains are naturally "wired" to readily accept Religion, but not Science?
I think that must be it. Science is difficult, and requires hard analytical "thinking".
Whereas Religion is easy, and requires no real thinking, only "faith."
Sorted!
-
Religion has been a kind of "first attempt" at understanding how the Universe works.
No. Religion consists of arbitrary statements which have nothing to do with understanding. Indeed the current best-seller in the western hemisphere relies on the Holy Trinity being inherently mysterious.
Religion is a disgrace to the human intellect, but is more profitable than pornography and illegal drugs because there is no risk, no capital outlay,and no mechanism for complaining if the product doesn't work. Worse, it is actually protected by law.
-
Religion has been a kind of "first attempt" at understanding how the Universe works.
No. Religion consists of arbitrary statements which have nothing to do with understanding.
I think you're perhaps going too far, Alan, in dismissing the role played by Religion.
As I said earlier, Religion was a "first attempt" to create an explanation of how the Universe operates - without relying on the mere "arbitrary statements" that you refer to in your post.
For example, to take the question: "Why does rain fall from the sky?"
An arbitrary answer might be - well who knows. Rain falls when it wants to. It has no cause. It just happens.
This is not a satisfying answer. Because It offends against the human instinct to find a "reason" for why it happens.
One reason was suggested in ancient Greek religion - that rain is caused by an almighty sky-god "Zeus", who urinates through a sieve onto the Earth, to show his contempt for earthly beings such as humans.
You may not agree with that. But it was a least a "reason".
And it provided a spur to look for better and more satisfactory explanations Which culminated in modern Science.
.
-
It has been argued that Christianity promoted scientific thinking because it presumes order and consistency in the universe. Problem is that whenever anyone pointed out that the official model was not orderly or consistent, he was punished instead of respected. And it turns out that if the universe were indeed orderly and consistent, it wouldn't exist.
-
It has been argued that Christianity promoted scientific thinking because it presumes order and consistency in the universe. Problem is that whenever anyone pointed out that the official model was not orderly or consistent, he was punished instead of respected. And it turns out that if the universe were indeed orderly and consistent, it wouldn't exist.
Yes, I think the concept of "One God" presiding over everything, as in Christianity, did help to to promote the idea of a Universe governed by a single set of laws.
Unlike the earlier concept of multiple gods, more or less doing their own things, according to their own whims and desires. Like in the ancient Greek religion, which had multiple gods.
I've sometimes wondered whether that was why the Greeks never developed real Science.
It was, obviously, partly because of the vagueness and lack of precision in the Greek language. Accompanied by their failure to devise a proper system of numerals. Which gravely hampered their mathematics.
But most of all perhaps, it was because in their "polytheistic" religious system, there was no single, central authority to "lay down the law", so to speak, and establish Universal Truth.
-
It has been argued that Christianity promoted scientific thinking because it presumes order and consistency in the universe. Problem is that whenever anyone pointed out that the official model was not orderly or consistent, he was punished instead of respected. And it turns out that if the universe were indeed orderly and consistent, it wouldn't exist.
I would strongly disagree. Islam was at one stage quite an outward look g religion full of science. They where astronomers whilst vicars stoned the heliocentricists. I don't know where the problem arose, most likely in politics in the ottoman mongol or Persian empires, always the way, look at the wars of power using religion as a pretex fought in Europe.
-
"It has been argued that" is pretty standard code, similar to "with the greatest respect" and means "the next [last] statement is bullshit".
Anyway Islam seems to have followed Christianity by descending into intolerance and murderous sects, as expected. And now we have peaceloving Buddhists killing Muslims.
-
We are drifting off the main point. Over population can only be controlled by making people feel secure thus needing fewer children. Wars and oppression will cause population explosions and hence the need to look after and educate everyone regardless of their gender, creed or colour.
-
Throughout history, those most secure (royalty and prime ministers) have fornicated and bred like pigs. Populations tend to explode after wars, when returning soldiers feel secure. The birthrate in concentration camps is pretty low.
-
Those under 20 do not make a net contribution to the economy and currently form about 25% of the population. If their numbers decrease, the "working fraction" of those aged 20 - 60 increases smoothly from 0.5 to about 0.65 in the short term.
Time to give up on those trips to Starbucks, or your favorite coffee shop.
Cut out the restaurants.
No more retail sales.
Shoes and clothing manufacture? I suppose they are unnecessary for society.
While a lot of older teens are still in school of one sort or another, it would be unwise to ignore the contributions to society of those say from 16 to 20. Even seasonal employment of youth.
Gross wages are not necessarily the only measurement of the contribution to society.
-
Current UK policy is for 50% of the population to go to university so they end up at 21 with a debt which half never repay, thus negating whatever tax the rest of their cohort may have paid on their minimum wage and undeclared tips.
UK youth unemployment generally runs at 12 - 15%, showing that half of those who do not go to university do not do anything else that might be considered work
Anyone who pays £3 for 20p worth of coffee (or "Starbucks" - same color, but tastes of dishwater) is a fool.
High street retail has taken a bashing and is unlikely to recover.
Not sure when anyone last made significant quantities of clothes and shoes in the UK. Most seasonal employment is of professional migrant agricultural workers.
Gross wages do not reflect the societal value of what we do, but taxes are what pays state pensions and those who look after the elderly.
-
Unfortunately, as a human species, we can't just skip being young. We don't need families with 6 or 8 children, but we do need some children.
A large number of high school kids and college kids get "summer jobs", as well as "after school jobs". I'm not sure the impact of those workers on the labor market. There are certainly many jobs like mowing yards and yard cleanup which is seasonal by nature. Part time employment of say 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM can be very helpful for companies wishing to keep the doors open for more than 8 hours a day. They might also be involved in seasonal tourist work.
Your clothes may not be made in the UK... but that doesn't mean kids don't have a hand in their production.
The impact of kids on agriculture shouldn't be underestimated, in part because the only way to get adult farmers is to have juvenile farmers.
-
As far as UK is concerned we feel secure but need to improve our environment and thus create opportunities for jobs for our school leavers probably through apprenticeship schemes and our population is stable or not rising much.
But look at worldometer figures https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/population-by-country/
Look at the central African countries where there is no security and little education, The stats show where the problem lies?
Worrying about climate change is a waste of time as it is caused mostly by world population increase which results in us needing more of everything. More food leads to deforestation, overfishing, more cattle methane, more cars, more fuel, more pollution and more carbon dioxide!!
-
As far as UK is concerned we need to ....... create opportunities for jobs for our school leavers probably through apprenticeship schemes
Simpler just to create fewer school leavers. The money saved could support apprenticeships and scholarships.
and our population is stable
but unsustainable. In fact it has grown by 33% in my lifetime and whilst currently at a lower rate than recently, there is no objective limit.
Having a clear geographical and now political boundary, the UK or indeed the entire British Isles is an ideal place for a demonstrative experiment. We can calculate the population that could be indefinitely sustained at a desirable standard of living without net imports, then take steps to achieve it.
-
Why should an increase in human population be regarded as a "problem".
Humans are the most advanced species that the Earth has produced, after 4 billion years of organic evolution.
We stand at the apex of evolution. As the supreme product. We are far better than inferior life forms, such as insects, worms and fish. These lower organisms are quite disgusting in their cruel and mindless behaviour, and complete lack of artistic and scientific qualities. They remain locked in a meaningless cycle of life and death.
Only humans have evolved into creatures that can go on to higher things. Therefore, don't you think that the more human beings there are, the better the planet will be, in terms of progress.
-
Only humans have evolved into creatures that can go on to higher things. Therefore, don't you think that the more human beings there are, the better the planet will be, in terms of progress.
Until sustainability becomes a problem, that is. Then you can expect an increase in conflict due to resource shortages.
-
Only humans have evolved into creatures that can go on to higher things. Therefore, don't you think that the more human beings there are, the better the planet will be, in terms of progress.
Until sustainability becomes a problem, that is. Then you can expect an increase in conflict due to resource shortages.
Humans will find an answer to "resource shortages" . Do you think we are mere koala bears, worried about running out of eucalyptus leaves?
We will use science to synthesise all our needs.
-
How do you know that will happen before sustainability becomes an issue? There are plenty of people who are starving right now despite what science might allow us to do in the future. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum: we also have human nature to contend with. What science is theoretically capable of is going to be limited by our own choices on how to deal with it. Our inherent selfishness is a problem.
-
How do you know that will happen before sustainability becomes an issue? There are plenty of people who are starving right now despite what science might allow us to do in the future. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum: we also have human nature to contend with. What science is theoretically capable of is going to be limited by our own choices on how to deal with it. Our inherent selfishness is a problem.
I think you're too pessimistic. Nowadays we have Science. That makes a fundamental difference.
If our inherent selfishness is a problem, couldn't we get rid of it, by injecting chemicals into our bodies, to make us more sociable.
Science can do anything we wish for
I
-
If science could do anything we wished for, we wouldn't have any problems. Yet we do. Science is good, but it ain't a silver bullet.
-
If science could do anything we wished for, we wouldn't have any problems. Yet we do. Science is good, but it ain't a silver bullet.
I respectfully disagree - Science is actually the long sought for "silver bullet" that could solve all our problems
The trouble is most people don't care about Science All they're interested in is money, fighting, and sex
-
How do you expect science to fix the problem of the Universe's heat death?
-
Viewing the inevitable as a problem isn't very scientific.
Wondering how an entity destined for total entropy and stasis ever came into being in the first instance, is.
-
We stand at the apex of evolution. As the supreme product. We are far better than inferior life forms, such as insects, worms and fish. These lower organisms are quite disgusting in their cruel and mindless behaviour, and complete lack of artistic and scientific qualities. They remain locked in a meaningless cycle of life and death.
Other species have evolved since homo sapiens. Most of them consider us as food and transport.
Humans who considered themselves superior to all others have a history of disgusting, cruel and mindless behavior, even regarding the depiction of crucifixion as art, and invoking "scientific research" as an excuse for more sophisticated forms of torture.
The cycle of life and death has no meaning outside of the organism itself. It's just chemistry.
-
If increases in the global population causes an increase in the CO2 emissions then that will cause global warming problems that scientists must correct somehow, by carbon capture and sequestration.
-
10% of anthropogenic CO2 comes from humans breathing. 25% comes from the animals we farm to feed ourselves. Reducing the human population is a zero-cost way to improve practically everything about our lives and the future of the planet, and incidentally to test the hypothesis that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.
So why not?
-
So should the NHS in all countries be encouraged to set an upper age of say 80 beyond which they only render free emergency treatments not scheduled operations that may extend the pensioners life?? Euthanasia is an available option to those suffering chronic terminal illnesses in some more socially advanced countries.
-
I see from your profile that you are 79. Very generous of you.
But at the tender age of 76 I have paid a lot of tax in the hope that the NHS will provide a full cradle-to-grave service.
I distinguish between extending life and extending healthy life. The former is prohibited by the second half of the Hippocratic Oath "....nor strive officiously to sustain life...." but religious perverts keep objecting to any law that would allow a sane man to avoid pointless and endless pain and suffering if he can't actually top himself, so doctors have to resort to criminal neglect (known as the Liverpool Pathway) instead.
Having swapped defective products for a free hip and two good lenses, I intend to continue flying around the world doing good for profit for as long as I am able, and hope to end up in a civilised State that permits euthanasia when it becomes unbearable to continue and no further maintenance or remedial work is possible. If I go on for another 25 years, it will be a Good Thing and no more than I have paid for.
I take this opportunity to wish a slow and painful death followed by an eternity in Hell on all those who oppose voluntary euthanasia. I understand that is the correct form for a class curse, and I bestow it with all my heart.
-
I take this opportunity to wish a slow and painful death followed by an eternity in Hell on all those who oppose voluntary euthanasia. I understand that is the correct form for a class curse, and I bestow it with all my heart.
Crikey, that seems a bit extreme. No-one can stop you committing voluntary euthanasia, if you want to do it.
You can do it quickly, by stepping off a tall building. Or in a slower way, by just not eating any more food.
Both these methods are readily available to you. It's entirely up to you.
Why "bestow a class curse", to use your memorable expression, on those people who might try to stop you.
They're only trying to help you. Life is short enough as it is. There's no justification for throwing in your towel prematurely. Who knows what might happen if you carry on your life? You might win the Lottery and become rich.
Or scientific advances could enable you to acquire a new body. Made of stainless steel and plastic.
Just wait and see what happens. Don't quit too soon.
-
No-one can stop you committing voluntary euthanasia, if you want to do it.
True in my case and right now, but the perverts who sell religion have continually prevented Parliament from decriminalising assisted suicide, so causing unlimited pain and suffering to those who want to end their lives but are too crippled or institutionally restricted to kill themselves.
I'm happy to be counselled. Indeed I've been a counsellor for those contemplating suicide, and never lost a client. But stopping anyone from ending his own intractable and inevitable suffering simply because you like to interfere in other people's lives is pernicious, officious and vicious, and prosecuting those who help is utterly inhumane.
There's no justification for throwing in your towel prematurely.
There's every justification for throwing in the towel when you are getting beaten to a pulp with no hope of recovery.
Don't quit too soon.
Rubbish. A successful gambler quits when he is winning. Only a fool chases his losses.
My curse is sincere. May the parasites who preach Hell and Damnation to the suffering, experience it.
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
P.S. - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement
-
Thanks Zero,
Well, we obviously agree that global warming is caused by world population increases https://www.google.com/search?q=worldometer+population&oq=world&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j69i59j35i39j0i131i433j0i433j46i433j0i131i433j0i433j0i131i433j0i433.7234j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
1.05% each year is 78 million extra mouths to feed and keep warm.
-
10% of anthropogenic CO2 comes from humans breathing. 25% comes from the animals we farm to feed ourselves. Reducing the human population is a zero-cost way to improve practically everything about our lives and the future of the planet, and incidentally to test the hypothesis that CO2 is an important greenhouse gas.
So why not?
And once again, we have Alan pretending that he doesn't know what the real problem is.
The CO2 that my cattle and I breathe out was CO2 earlier this year when I grew the plants my cattle and I ate.
It does not contribute to an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2.
The problem is the CO2 from my tractor- which had been sequestered as oil for millennia.
Alan keeps trying to ignore the distinction.
-
The CO2 your cattle breathe out would otherwise have been sequestered in the plants and eventually as peat or coal. Farm animals are not a natural part of the environment but entirely "man-made", and disturb the pre-agricultural equilibrium. A fair bit of the CO2 emitted by your tractor, grain dryer, trucks, refrigerators etc is required to raise, feed, slaughter, process and preserve said cattle meat.
Anyway it's kind of you to refer to a paper I wrote about 16 years ago that has formed the basis of United Nations policy. Current thinking at UNFAO is that farming animals and distributing the products accounts for up to 50% of anthropogenic CO2. What a bunch of deluded idiots, eh?
-
If population grows at 1% per year then when your baby reaches 75 years old there will be twice as many people living on this planet and twice as much CO^2. Not 7.7 billion but 15 billion people to fed and nurture.
Sounds unsustainable unless we can capture the carbon dioxide and bubble it through calcium water to turn it into chalk. There could have been an ancient human civilisation 60 million years ago that formed the chalk downs but how??
-
All the chalk and limestone represents once-atmospheric CO2, which is another reason not to knot one's underwear too tightly about the stuff - it won't be the end of the world, just a very uncomfortable few millennia for homo sapiens.
The only significant source of calcium hydroxide is....er.....chalk. Or limestone if you are desperate. If you heat it, it releases carbon dioxide.....Don't waste your time trying to disprove the most fundamental principles of chemistry!
-
The CO2 your cattle breathe out would otherwise have been sequestered in the plants and eventually as peat or coal.
Which is why burning coal is a problem.
Anyway it's kind of you to refer to a paper I wrote about 16 years ago that has formed the basis of United Nations policy.
I wasn't aware that anyone had.
Farm animals are not a natural part of the environment but entirely "man-made", and disturb the pre-agricultural equilibrium
Previously, wild animals did the same thing.
-
A fair bit of the CO2 emitted by your tractor, grain dryer, trucks, refrigerators etc is required to raise, feed, slaughter, process and preserve said cattle meat.
And, if all that energy was supplied by solar power, we wouldn't have a net gain in CO2.
The tractor was just an example.
-
from: alancalverd on 06/06/2021 15:52:49
Farm animals are not a natural part of the environment but entirely "man-made", and disturb the pre-agricultural equilibrium
Previously, wild animals did the same thing.
Not to the same extent.Wild herbivores are not bred to fatten quickly and their numbers are kept in check by wild carnivores. We have got rid of most of the latter and vastly increased the mass of herbivores, clearing forests and draining swamps in order to feed them.
However, in 2002, the United Nations FAO estimates that there were 19 billion chickens in the world, with China having the largest number, followed by the US, Indonesia, and Brazil. By this calculation, for every person in the world, there were three chickens. By 2009 the global chicken population was estimated to have climbed to 50 billion.
and 8000 years ago, there were just a few scrawny birds scratching about on forest floors. Add a billion sheep, a similar number of cows, and around 800,000,000 pigs, and you have a lot of man-made animals exhaling CO2 where once were trees, shrubs and tall grasses inhaling it.
Compare these numbers with 1.2 million wildebeeste and a maximum of about 5 million caribou, and you might get the point that the plant/animal mass ratio has changed rather sharply with the expansion of meat farming, and that ratio, along with burning both fossil and wood fuels, is what determines the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
The politically important point is that humans can live perfectly well - and many would argue better - without farming meat, so it is an expanding source of CO2 that is not essential to our standard of living, unlike burning fuel.
-
Not to the same extent.Wild herbivores are not bred to fatten quickly and their numbers are kept in check by wild carnivores. We have got rid of most of the latter and vastly increased the mass of herbivores,
All that means is that we are turning over the carbon faster. Essentially, all the "extra" people are breathing out CO2 so we have to grow plants that absorb it- or we would run out of food to oxidise.
The draining swamps etc is, of course, a double whammy.
-
Imagine a world with plants but no animals. What happens to the atmospheric CO2 level?
Imagine a world where there are no living plants but plenty of animals eating dead plant material. What happens to the atmospheric CO2 level?
So what do you think happens if you increase the number of herbivores from N to 1000 N?
-
Imagine a world with plants but no animals.
The fungi will fill the gap.
Imagine a world where there are no living plants but plenty of animals eating dead plant material. What happens to the atmospheric CO2 level?
It rises to roughly the same as the initial O2 concentration, because all the animals die and rot.
So what?
The point remains that people eating plants does not remove long-buried carbon from the depths of the earth, but fossil fuel use does.
When you have finished arguing, that will still be true.
-
The point remains that people eating plants does not remove long-buried carbon from the depths of the earth, but fossil fuel use does.
Undeniable but irrelevant.
-
If we become vegetarians that would help but without some sort of fuel we are likely to freeze to death.
-
The point remains that people eating plants does not remove long-buried carbon from the depths of the earth, but fossil fuel use does.
Undeniable but irrelevant.
Well, you are half right.
-
Here's a fun fact. The peak wavelength of infrared emission from human bodies is around 10 - 11 microns. So if you believe that infrared absorption by carbon dioxide is the cause of all our woes to come, reducing the human population will give you a double advantage - less CO2 produced, and less IR for it to absorb!
-
Here's a fun fact. The peak wavelength of infrared emission from human bodies is around 10 - 11 microns. So if you believe that infrared absorption by carbon dioxide is the cause of all our woes to come, reducing the human population will give you a double advantage - less CO2 produced, and less IR for it to absorb!
What do you propose to reduce human population?
Is releasing more deadly and infectious virus an option?
What about gene drive?
-
Pay women not to have babies. Then wait. The passage of time is very effective at culling the population, with no human intervention required.
-
Pay women not to have babies. Then wait. The passage of time is very effective at culling the population, with no human intervention required.
How much?
For how long?
-
Many people think that having kids are a form of investment. They take extra effort now for future benefits. They take care of their kids hoping for payback when they are old.
Others just follow their sexual instinct without thinking any further.
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-population-growth-slows-birth-rate-decline-economic-risk-11627231536?ns=prod/accounts-wsj
America’s weak population growth, already held back by a decadelong fertility slump, is dropping closer to zero because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
In half of all states last year, more people died than were born, up from five states in 2019. Early estimates show the total U.S. population grew 0.35% for the year ended July 1, 2020, the lowest ever documented, and growth is expected to remain near flat this year.
Some demographers cite an outside chance the population could shrink for the first time on record. Population growth is an important influence on the size of the labor market and a country’s fiscal and economic strength.
How many people is necessary to sustain advancement in science and technology?
If the population of ancient Egyptians were only 1000, was it possible to build the great pyramid?
With current number of people, is it possible to build a multiplanetary society?
-
Pay women not to have babies. Then wait. The passage of time is very effective at culling the population, with no human intervention required.
How much?
For how long?
My model pays £500 every 6 months from age 14 to 60 if you are not pregnant. You get one "bye", so each woman can have one child without losing her benefit. There are no child benefits, grants, maternity leave, etc. but health and education services remain free. So having a child is a serious and significant financial decision. In terms of the UK economy this costs the state less than a second or any subsequent child.
I've projected the model for about 100 years, by which time the UK population will have decreased to an indefinitely sustainable level (about 5,000,000) with a significantly better quality of life than we have now, and the "bye" can be raised to 2 children.
-
Many people think that having kids are a form of investment. They take extra effort now for future benefits. They take care of their kids hoping for payback when they are old.
Experience will show that they are wrong, at least in the UK.
Others just follow their sexual instinct without thinking any further.
The instinct is to copulate at every available opportunity. We have already learned not to do that.
-
How many people is necessary to sustain advancement in science and technology?
One Einstein per generation.
If the population of ancient Egyptians were only 1000, was it possible to build the great pyramid?
would it have been necessary?
With current number of people, is it possible to build a multiplanetary society?
You just need to seed the new planet with one pregnant human. But if we reduce the earth's human population to a sustainable level, there would be no need to look elsewhere and every reason not to.
The best way to solve any problem is to eliminate it, and if you can do so by doing nothing (i.e not making babies), you have found the most intelligent solution of all.
-
The instinct is to copulate at every available opportunity. We have already learned not to do that.
Science and technology in the form of contraceptions let us follow the instinct without dealing with its side (or main? depends on perspective) effect.
-
How many people is necessary to sustain advancement in science and technology?
One Einstein per generation.
If the population of ancient Egyptians were only 1000, was it possible to build the great pyramid?
would it have been necessary?
With current number of people, is it possible to build a multiplanetary society?
You just need to seed the new planet with one pregnant human. But if we reduce the earth's human population to a sustainable level, there would be no need to look elsewhere and every reason not to.
The best way to solve any problem is to eliminate it, and if you can do so by doing nothing (i.e not making babies), you have found the most intelligent solution of all.
Just googled for minimum sustainable population.
They created the “50/500” rule, which suggested that a minimum population size of 50 was necessary to combat inbreeding and a minimum of 500 individuals was needed to reduce genetic drift.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population
Minimum viable population (MVP) is a lower bound on the population of a species, such that it can survive in the wild. This term is commonly used in the fields of biology, ecology, and conservation biology. MVP refers to the smallest possible size at which a biological population can exist without facing extinction from natural disasters or demographic, environmental, or genetic stochasticity.[1] The term "population" is defined as a group of interbreeding individuals in similar geographic area that undergo negligible gene flow with other groups of the species.[2] Typically, MVP is used to refer to a wild population, but can also be used for ex-situ conservation (Zoo populations).
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Minium_Viable_Population_Graph.svg/220px-Minium_Viable_Population_Graph.svg.png)
-
To reduce the risk of overpopulation needs a system of education that makes our teenage children understand the consequences to the planet of overproduction and how it causes poverty. They must be taught that 2 is enough if the family is to enjoy a high standard of living.
Government could try large tax reductions for women who have less than 3 children but really its about understanding that climate change is caused by overpopulation and not just CO2 emissions.
-
They must be taught that 2 is enough if the family is to enjoy a high standard of living.
You can not teach them that if it is not true. In many parts of the world, the only security you have in your old age is that your children will look after you.
So having just two would be stupid.
Experience will show that they are wrong, at least in the UK.
Earth calling Alan; most people do not live in the UK (or anywhere much like it).
-
You will find that wherever there are established state education and pension schemes, the young do not support the old: that is done by the 20 - 60 cohort of working taxpayers. Given that the 0 - 20 year-olds are also supported by that group, reducing the 0 - 20 cohort increases the working fraction and thus the available resources for the elderly.
Even in nascent civilisations like the USA, the over-60s are supported by the investments they made in their own working years, not by infant labor.
Alternative means of reducing the population to a sustainable level would be welcome, but one that doesn't involve mass murder, uncontrolled pandemic, starvation, or anyone actually doing anything, seems the most attractive to me.
-
Given that the 0 - 20 year-olds are also supported by that group, reducing the 0 - 20 cohort increases the working fraction and thus the available resources for the elderly.
What would happen the next 20 years? The work forces would be reduced. The next 40 years would be worse.
-
Not so. My crude model assumed that almost all babies are born to women around age 20 (it's fairly accurate), so the number of fertile women decreases with time and the birth rate thus drops again. The "working fraction" increases steadily from 0.5 to about 0.65 and the per capita natural resource availability increases as the population decreases.
Remember a substantial part of the workforce is employed in cleaning/feeding/educating/policing/repairing the youngest cohort, or paying someone to do it.
-
Not so. My crude model assumed that almost all babies are born to women around age 20 (it's fairly accurate), so the number of fertile women decreases with time and the birth rate thus drops again. The "working fraction" increases steadily from 0.5 to about 0.65 and the per capita natural resource availability increases as the population decreases.
Remember a substantial part of the workforce is employed in cleaning/feeding/educating/policing/repairing the youngest cohort, or paying someone to do it.
It ends up with balancing resources production with consumption. Reducing population reduces both, although not necessarily to the same extent. That's why more accurate and precise model is important.
There are some options to increase ratio of resources production to consumption. Reducing unproductive population is one of them. Another option is improving production technology. Empowering unproductive population to become more productive or less consumptive, e. g. by genetic and epigenetic editing, robotic, nanotechnology, AI.
Expanding humanity beyond earth is another option.
-
Production depletes resources by turning them into products and waste.
Extending the curse of homo sapiens to other planets does not make life on this one any better.
-
Production depletes resources by turning them into products and waste.
Extending the curse of homo sapiens to other planets does not make life on this one any better.
Define better.
-
Having more, cleaner food and water.
-
Having more, cleaner food and water.
Why so?
-
Don't ask me. Ask the starving, diseased millions who have never seen a water tap. They appear fairly regularly on TV.
-
Don't ask me. Ask the starving, diseased millions who have never seen a water tap. They appear fairly regularly on TV.
Why do they want more and cleaner water and food?
Is current condition not good enough?
What can possibly be done to improve it?
-
Why do they want more and cleaner water and food?
Is current condition not good enough?
Are you being deliberately offensive?
-
Why do they want more and cleaner water and food?
Is current condition not good enough?
Are you being deliberately offensive?
I'm being thorough in identifying hidden assumptions we usually take for granted, which often becomes the source of disagreements in discussion.
Let me try to answer my own questions. I try as far as I can to avoid offending someone, though it seems to be inevitable.
They want more and cleaner water and food because they want to stay alive and thrive. Billions of years of evolutionary process has shaped their instinct, as well as ours, that way. Those who lack these basic instincts didn't survive, or won't survive for long.
-
If you have a point, it might be a good idea to state it sooner, rather than later.
-
If you have a point, it might be a good idea to state it sooner, rather than later.
I tried to apply Socratic method here.
Explore the technique known as the Socratic Method, which uses questions to examine a person’s values, principles, and beliefs.
--
Socrates, one of the founding fathers of Western philosophical thought, was on trial. Many believed he was an enemy of the state, accusing the philosopher of corrupting the youth and refusing to recognize their gods. But Socrates wasn’t feared for claiming to have all the answers, but rather, for asking too many questions. Erick Wilberding digs into the technique known as the Socratic Method.
Lesson by Erick Wilberding, directed by Draško Ivezić.
The video is related to morality especially at 1:30.
-
Don't ask me. Ask the starving, diseased millions who have never seen a water tap. They appear fairly regularly on TV.
Why do they want more and cleaner water and food?
Is current condition not good enough?
What can possibly be done to improve it?
They want it for the same reason that if you were drinking sh1t, watching your children die from drinking sh1t, and wondering what sort of super-humans can possibly live on fish and chips and clean beer without having to worry about whether there will actually be any fish chips or beer tomorrow, you might just aspire to a western lifestyle.
Is their defined current condition good enough for you?
What can be done to improve it? Reduce the population to a sustainable level.
An action that costs nothing and achieves everything is called an ideal solution.
-
If you have a point, it might be a good idea to state it sooner, rather than later.
I tried to apply Socratic method here.
Explore the technique known as the Socratic Method, which uses questions to examine a person’s values, principles, and beliefs.
--
Socrates, one of the founding fathers of Western philosophical thought, was on trial. Many believed he was an enemy of the state, accusing the philosopher of corrupting the youth and refusing to recognize their gods. But Socrates wasn’t feared for claiming to have all the answers, but rather, for asking too many questions. Erick Wilberding digs into the technique known as the Socratic Method.
Lesson by Erick Wilberding, directed by Draško Ivezić.
The video is related to morality especially at 1:30.
I'm aware of the idea.
At about 4 minutes in, the video points out that, to use this method, the teacher must understand the subject.
I was hoping that you might demonstrate that you do so.
But what I got was a patronising lecture.
-
I'm aware of the idea.
At about 4 minutes in, the video points out that, to use this method, the teacher must understand the subject.
I was hoping that you might demonstrate that you do so.
But what I got was a patronising lecture.
You can point out where I got wrong, and tell me how to fix it.
-
They want it for the same reason that if you were drinking sh1t, watching your children die from drinking sh1t, and wondering what sort of super-humans can possibly live on fish and chips and clean beer without having to worry about whether there will actually be any fish chips or beer tomorrow, you might just aspire to a western lifestyle.
Is their defined current condition good enough for you?
What can be done to improve it? Reduce the population to a sustainable level.
An action that costs nothing and achieves everything is called an ideal solution.
What is good now isn't necessarily good enough in the future.
Their current condition isn't good enough for me.
Your previously proposed solution will take time, and obviously cost something. To actually reduce population, someone has to die, either naturally, forcefully, or voluntarily.
-
Hamdani,
Nobody needs to die. Chairman Mow introduced draconian measures to limit population in China which worked but was totally unfair and unnecessary.
Western nations can encourage population reduction by educating people to improve their standard of living by having small families. They can also subsidise contraception or even arrange for free vasectomy's all of which is good.
But should they be providing free food aid to developing nations that are not tackling the over population problem head on ???
-
Western nations can encourage population reduction by educating people to improve their standard of living by having small families.
Are you actually so unobservant that you think it's the Western world where the population is growing?
-
Hamdani,
Nobody needs to die.
How can a population decrease when nobody dies?
-
The only way to drop the death rate is to drop the birth rate.
-
What is good now isn't necessarily good enough in the future.
Their current condition isn't good enough for me.
Your previously proposed solution will take time, and obviously cost something. To actually reduce population, someone has to die, either naturally, forcefully, or voluntarily.
Everyone has to die, so no problem there. Half of the current population will be dead in the next 40 years. The trick is to reduce the population without harming or inconveniencing anyone who matters.
My calculations are based on the UK, where the population is clearly unsustainable at a decent standard of living (we import about 50% of our food) and cannot maintain its current standard of living without burning fossil fuels.
The exchequer cost of £1000 per woman per year is much less than the cost to the taxpayer of a second child, and the increase in working fraction (i.e.the percentage of taxpayers) resulting from a reduction in birthrate guarantees a greater tax take for public works, or a reduced tax burden on the workers.
The advantage of doing it in the UK is a clear immediate need, easy calculations, a clear and defensible national boundary, and adequate public benefit systems and records to implement it and chart the effect - good experimental conditions for a demonstration project. Whether others follow is up to them.
-
Everyone has to die, so no problem there. Half of the current population will be dead in the next 40 years. The trick is to reduce the population without harming or inconveniencing anyone who matters.
Is it a problem if they die sooner?
Is it a problem if they die later?
There is someone alive today who will live to be 1,000 years old: Why we are living longer than ever?
Researchers are getting a better understanding of the ageing process and the ways it could be slowed, halted or even reversed
https://www-independent-co-uk.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/long_reads/live-longer-longevity-stem-cells-ageing-a8332701.html
How would you decide who matters, and who doesn't?
-
I'm aware of the idea.
At about 4 minutes in, the video points out that, to use this method, the teacher must understand the subject.
I was hoping that you might demonstrate that you do so.
But what I got was a patronising lecture.
You can point out where I got wrong, and tell me how to fix it.
If you only want to learn things from someone who already understand it, you won't be an inventor. You will only be a follower.
-
The only way to drop the death rate is to drop the birth rate.
If the birth rate can be kept at 0, the death rate will eventually drop to 0 too.
-
How would you decide who matters, and who doesn't?
Anyone who preaches religion is top of the list of those we can do without. Next, career politicians, i.e those who have never had a proper job or a legitimate interest in the outcome of their work. Then economists, particularly those who insist that human happiness depends on increasing economic activity. Commodity speculators and anti-vaxers. Then anyone with a Twitter following, and anyone who follows them.Not a vast number, all told, but if anyone must be harmed or inconvenienced to achieve the desired result, these are the preferred candidates.
-
top of the list of those we can do without.
So, if someone can be eliminated without causing collapse of society, they don't matter?
-
More to the point, if we got rid of priests and career politicians, stopped making decisions based on expansionist economics, and didn't reward people who gamble without investing their own money, society would actually benefit.
Ask any dog whether he would collapse or rejoice if his fleas died.
-
Anyone who preaches religion is top of the list of those we can do without. Next, career politicians, i.e those who have never had a proper job
I'm not sure about the order of those two; mainly because I'm not sure I can distinguish the two groups.
-
A politician's motives for lying are usually obvious, and in most cases he is at least answerable to an opposition that is equally devious and incompetent. This makes him marginally less dangerous than a priest - those parasites form ecumenical councils and interfaith groups to protect themselves, whilst lying to their congregations about the dangers of dissent.
-
Ask any dog whether he would collapse or rejoice if his fleas died.
What makes dogs more important than fleas?
-
(a) ask the dog
(b) ask the dog's owner
(c) compare the probable life of a dog in the absence of fleas, with the probable life of a flea in the absence of dogs.
(c) is a fine example of utility function analysis!
-
1. Reduce childbirth by contraceptive pills and educating young girls to feel free, safe and secure if un-married.
2. Reduce elderly population by encouraging euthanasia for those who cannot look after themselves at home
3. Allow God to choose who lives or dies when He sends a pandemic to protect us from overpopulation.
4. Have a world war noting that Chris sees this as negative as it causes a baby boom due to insecurity.
CliveS
A good start would be to empty prisons rope is far cheaper than the running cost of a prison so we get two birds with one stone.
-
A good start would be to empty prisons rope is far cheaper than the running cost of a prison so we get two birds with one stone.
In fact the death penalty is not cheap.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/policy-issues/costs
I understand that, in the USA a prison runs at a substantial profit.
Since this situation came into being, the US prison population has increased significantly.
Perhaps the rope should be reserved for those who brought this idea into practice.
-
Perhaps the rope should be reserved for those who brought this idea into practice.
I agree they are probably imprisoning people just to get cheap labour. I would still use the rope on the worst of them.
-
Good idea. Let's begin with the politicians who insisted on transferring infectious COVID patients to unprotected nursing homes.
But it won't solve the problem of overpopulation - one politician doesn't eat much but can do a huge amount of damage to everyone else.
-
(a) ask the dog
(b) ask the dog's owner
(c) compare the probable life of a dog in the absence of fleas, with the probable life of a flea in the absence of dogs.
(c) is a fine example of utility function analysis!
Why don't you ask the fleas?
Fleas have been around since Jurassic era.
-
Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 19:06:10
(a) ask the dog
(b) ask the dog's owner
(c) compare the probable life of a dog in the absence of fleas, with the probable life of a flea in the absence of dogs.
(c) is a fine example of utility function analysis!
Why don't you ask the fleas?
Fleas have been around since Jurassic era.
I have been praying for a couple of asteroids to impact the earth just in the right spots.
-
Life is competitive. I choose the dog.
Legs have been around since our ancestors left the sea, but most people take the bus. Life evolves.
-
I have been praying for a couple of asteroids to impact the earth just in the right spots.
A priest and a thief were playing golf.
A bolt of lightning fried the thief to a crisp.
The Voice Of God said "Bugger, missed again."
-
Life is competitive. I choose the dog.
Legs have been around since our ancestors left the sea, but most people take the bus. Life evolves.
Fleas are parasites. That's a good idea get rid of anything that is a parasite but go easy on the aged disability and the unemployed and start supporting them equally.
-
A priest and a thief were playing golf.
A bolt of lightning fried the thief to a crisp.
The Voice Of God said "Bugger, missed again."
It should have been a double bolt.
-
Theft contributes to economic activity, and feeds the thief's family. Religion just debases humanity.
-
Carl might have gazed at the Stars.
We are pretty small.
There is ample space around.
We could Adapt.
We can't End here n like this.
We can do it...with or without GOD.
🖖
-
Life is competitive. I choose the dog.
Is there any particular reason that someone else can agree or disagree on?
Legs have been around since our ancestors left the sea, but most people take the bus. Life evolves.
It's because of efficiency. People want to spend less time and energy to move from one point to another.
-
I have been praying for a couple of asteroids to impact the earth just in the right spots.
Which gods have you been praying to?
-
Fleas are parasites. That's a good idea get rid of anything that is a parasite but go easy on the aged disability and the unemployed and start supporting them equally.
What's the reason for condemning some forms of parasitism but supporting the others?
The entomologist E. O. Wilson has characterised parasites as "predators that eat prey in units of less than one".
Which one is worse? dog parasite or dog predator?
-
Which gods have you been praying to?
The same one that allowed the earth to be flooded 4000 years ago.
-
What's the reason for condemning some forms of parasitism but supporting the others?
The entomologist E. O. Wilson has characterised parasites as "predators that eat prey in units of less than one".
Which one is worse? dog parasite or dog predator?
I think the true definition for a parasite is one that attaches its self to the host to sustain its needs. The aged the disabled and the unemployed merely receive a gift from the hearts of all their loving brothers and sisters. A dog only thinks it is his a man knows it is his.
-
What's the reason for condemning some forms of parasitism but supporting the others?
The entomologist E. O. Wilson has characterised parasites as "predators that eat prey in units of less than one".
Which one is worse? dog parasite or dog predator?
I think the true definition for a parasite is one that attaches its self to the host to sustain its needs. The aged the disabled and the unemployed merely receive a gift from the hearts of all their loving brothers and sisters. A dog only thinks it is his a man knows it is his.
What makes you think that your definition is truer than the others? Do you think that cuckoos are parasites?
-
What makes you think that your definition is truer than the others? Do you think that cuckoos are parasites?
I think it strives to fit in by introducing its offspring to the other birds in its surroundings right from the start. This is a form of family establishment by means of acceptance.
-
Which gods have you been praying to?
The same one that allowed the earth to be flooded 4000 years ago.
No wonder it didn't work.
-
No wonder it didn't work.
History repeats its self maybe now we are better educated it may work next time. Third time lucky.
-
A dog only thinks it is his a man knows it is his.
So you know what a dog thinks? Your Nobel prize is in the post.
-
So you know what a dog thinks? Your Nobel prize is in the post.
It's about time I hope it's something I will like.