The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
Post subject: Re: rats on a sinking ship: the aging/overpopulation thred
Posted: Thu January 28, 2016 1:38 pm
The worst
Joined: Thu December 13, 2012 6:31 pm Posts: 39459
Green Habit wrote:
bada wrote:
The US is actually in better shape then most rich countries because of all the immigration. No ones told the Republicans.
Actually, establishment Republicans know this well. Dubya tried real hard to get a guest worker program passed when he was president. The problem arose when you had the predecessors to the xenophobic Donald Trumps of the world pushing back.
But to answer this thread in general, you're absolutely right that in the short term, immigration is the solution, and by "short term" that probably means within our entire lifetimes. But in the long term, I'm actually quite opposed to any government effort to either encourage or discourage births, and the reason why is that it necessarily places a disproportionate burden on women. Let them decide on their own terms how many children they want to bear.
I don't know that i disagree, but children enter into a community and require resources from that community. Some sort of larger collective input into how large that community should be, what it can sustain, etc. is not unreasonable, is it?
Post subject: Re: rats on a sinking ship: the aging/overpopulation thred
Posted: Thu January 28, 2016 2:16 pm
Site Admin
Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm Posts: 6932
stip wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
bada wrote:
The US is actually in better shape then most rich countries because of all the immigration. No ones told the Republicans.
Actually, establishment Republicans know this well. Dubya tried real hard to get a guest worker program passed when he was president. The problem arose when you had the predecessors to the xenophobic Donald Trumps of the world pushing back.
But to answer this thread in general, you're absolutely right that in the short term, immigration is the solution, and by "short term" that probably means within our entire lifetimes. But in the long term, I'm actually quite opposed to any government effort to either encourage or discourage births, and the reason why is that it necessarily places a disproportionate burden on women. Let them decide on their own terms how many children they want to bear.
I don't know that i disagree, but children enter into a community and require resources from that community. Some sort of larger collective input into how large that community should be, what it can sustain, etc. is not unreasonable, is it?
For the time being, adjusting rates of immigration should take care of this. Another point that I forgot to make is whether populations of any size are a problem to begin with. It's always struck me as something that sounds scarier than it really is.
Post subject: Re: rats on a sinking ship: the aging/overpopulation thred
Posted: Thu January 28, 2016 2:35 pm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am Posts: 21812
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
Bammer wrote:
Cancer is a sort of natural population control and we really shouldn't try to cure it.
Anyone who says this is a shithead and can fuck right off.
The second part (that we should avoid developing cures) is preposterous, but the idea that disease has served that function naturally throughout time certainly isn't.
Quote:
It's not like cancer only affects elderly people.
Population limiters that only affect elderly people would barely be population limiters at all.
Post subject: Re: rats on a sinking ship: the aging/overpopulation thred
Posted: Thu January 28, 2016 3:00 pm
mXn
Joined: Thu January 24, 2013 4:32 am Posts: 20850 Location: Surrounded by Wokes. Please send help.
Here again is my original post, in full, which got bottom-paged and is being taken wildly out of context by only being quoted partially:
Bammer wrote:
I've heard arguments that:
- Cancer is a sort of natural population control and we really shouldn't try to cure it. All that will leave us with are a bunch more people living to age 90 (as opposed to like 70), straining resources and not contributing anything.
- The villain in the latest Dan Brown novel (Inferno) who, as I recall, wanted to wipe out like 1/3 of the world's population as a way to preserve human kind in the long run, wasn't actually such a bad guy.
Post subject: Re: rats on a sinking ship: the aging/overpopulation thred
Posted: Thu January 28, 2016 3:04 pm
Guys, I am not a moderator! I swear to God! Why does everyone think I'm a moderator?
Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 2:48 pm Posts: 47200
Bammer,
We can't control what parts of your posts people choose to quote. I'm sorry they aren't quoting your full post, but if we had to go back and correct every post that didn't include a full original post, you guys would need to donate a shit ton more money.
_________________ Clouuuuds Rolll byyy...BANG BANG BANG BANG
Post subject: Re: rats on a sinking ship: the aging/overpopulation thred
Posted: Thu January 28, 2016 3:10 pm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am Posts: 21812
I think the biggest problem with Bammer's "we need more cancer" proposal is that cancer is hard to use directively. There would be no process by which we could ensure appropriate control. It could over or under correct, in any given generation.
Post subject: Re: rats on a sinking ship: the aging/overpopulation thred
Posted: Thu January 28, 2016 3:11 pm
AnalLog
Joined: Wed April 03, 2013 8:10 pm Posts: 1833
Bammer wrote:
Here again is my original post, in full, which got bottom-paged and is being taken wildly out of context by only being quoted partially:
Bammer wrote:
I've heard arguments that:
- Cancer is a sort of natural population control and we really shouldn't try to cure it. All that will leave us with are a bunch more people living to age 90 (as opposed to like 70), straining resources and not contributing anything.
- The villain in the latest Dan Brown novel (Inferno) who, as I recall, wanted to wipe out like 1/3 of the world's population as a way to preserve human kind in the long run, wasn't actually such a bad guy.
One could make the population control argument about homosexuality.
Post subject: Re: rats on a sinking ship: the aging/overpopulation thred
Posted: Thu January 28, 2016 3:13 pm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am Posts: 21812
Unless the alternative is reading more Dan Brown novels. Then I'm all in favor of what I think we are all now calling The Bammer Cancer and Antisemitism Solution.
Post subject: Re: rats on a sinking ship: the aging/overpopulation thred
Posted: Thu January 28, 2016 3:57 pm
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 1:56 am Posts: 21812
LoathedVermin72 wrote:
McParadigm wrote:
Quote:
It's not like cancer only affects elderly people.
Population limiters that only affect elderly people would barely be population limiters at all.
This is what I get for not quoting the whole post, I guess.
Quote:
All that will leave us with are a bunch more people living to age 90 (as opposed to like 70), straining resources and not contributing anything.
I was aware of the original post. I was following up your thought with another reason Bammer's Solution doesn't add up.
Cancer doesn't only effect old people, so it won't be culling the cream at the top the way he intends + diseases that primarily affect old people would be a shitty way to control population, anyway = Bammer's pro-cancer platform doesn't work.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
