Thu January 28, 2016 3:42 am
Bammer wrote:Cancer is a sort of natural population control and we really shouldn't try to cure it.
Thu January 28, 2016 3:44 am
Thu January 28, 2016 3:50 am
Thu January 28, 2016 3:53 am
Bammer wrote: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.
Whoa. I didn't say that. I've heard others make the argument. My mom died of brain cancer a few years ago.
Thu January 28, 2016 3:54 am
Thu January 28, 2016 3:55 am
LoathedVermin72 wrote:I didn't mean you. I meant the people you've heard say it. That's really stupid. It's not like cancer only affects elderly people.
Thu January 28, 2016 3:56 am
Thu January 28, 2016 4:13 am
LoathedVermin72 wrote:Relax, Bammer. I was never saying you said it.
Thu January 28, 2016 1:38 pm
Green Habit wrote: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.bada wrote:The US is actually in better shape then most rich countries because of all the immigration. No ones told the Republicans.
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.
Thu January 28, 2016 2:16 pm
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.stip wrote: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?Green Habit wrote: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.bada wrote:The US is actually in better shape then most rich countries because of all the immigration. No ones told the Republicans.
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.
Thu January 28, 2016 2:35 pm
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.
It's not like cancer only affects elderly people.
Thu January 28, 2016 3:00 pm
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.
Thu January 28, 2016 3:04 pm
Thu January 28, 2016 3:07 pm
Thu January 28, 2016 3:10 pm
Thu January 28, 2016 3:11 pm
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.
Thu January 28, 2016 3:13 pm
Thu January 28, 2016 3:40 pm
Thu January 28, 2016 3:47 pm
McParadigm wrote:It's not like cancer only affects elderly people.
Population limiters that only affect elderly people would barely be population limiters at all.
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.
Thu January 28, 2016 3:57 pm
LoathedVermin72 wrote:McParadigm wrote: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.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.