2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum

GLD 379.91

+0.4%

4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: skinowski who wrote (94663)	9/15/2012 10:30:56 PM
From: Maurice Winn	4 Recommendations Read Replies (2) of 217679

Human population has never been stable. Populations of animals and people rise and fall depending on what's going on, with upward pressure the constant. < It takes 2.1 children on the average per female to keep the population levels at a stable level. One child per woman would lead to a pretty serious population crash within a generation or two.> There is no particular reason to think that the number of people alive now is just right. A population crash wouldn't be necessarily a bad thing. If we had quarter as many people with triple the per capita quality I'd consider it a very good thing. But double the present population with 5 times the per capita quality would be even better. There is a big shortage of good quality people. The cost of producing good people is low and their value is very high. So a lot more of them would be a very good thing since there is no shortage of places for them to live or of supplies they would need. The human eugenics programmes are heading in that direction, slowly, but relentlessly, mercilessly and pleasingly. Mqurice

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next