| amerikangod |
09.27.2009 01:06 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous
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:
|
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. |
