Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (17952)	12/5/2007 5:06:50 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Biology includes brains. <You views on population growth are not in tune with biology.> Humans are not brainless reproductive tracts, like worms or frogs. People think, plan, predict, imagine, and change the future to make it how they want it to be. I'd say your response was largely a counterexample of people having brains, but instead illustrates the point that humans also reproduce at rates which finally lead to a struggle for live. JMHO :)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (17952)	12/7/2007 8:51:03 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Ah, yes, Club of Rome. The anthrogenic global warming scare of the '60s and '70s. I am a lawyer therefore preumptively ergo, ipso facto, ipse dixit, res ipsa loquitor, innumerate. No statistics for me, thank you. If I need to understand epidemiology or biomechanics or some esoteric subject rife with numbers, I don't tackle the subject myself, I hire someone to explain it to me. But I can think, something your pal neo seems to have a great deal of difficulty doing. It seems obvious that in order for populations to remain static, each pair of bonded males and females must produce at least two children to replace the mother and father who will eventually die. Actually, slightly more than two, probably 2.01 children or so, because, unfortunately, some of the two produced children will die before reaching maturity, some of the population will be homosexual, some infertile, etc. Absent a minimum average reproduction rate of 2, plus, children per bonded pair, populations will inevitably decline. Simple arithmetic, not very hard to deduce, even for an innumerate barrister like me. Neo seems to have a hard time with this, however. The geezers, thanks to the miracles of modern medicine, will live longer lives at the same time that that their collective offspring decline. Also perfectly easy to comprehend, inevitable, right as rain and preordained. Not replacing sustainable population levels is quite probably a disastrous thing for nations. Unless there is an enormous upsurge in productivity, fewer people means less Gross National Products, smaller tax bases, less consumption, more use of resources to support the retired, less contributions into social welfare schemes like Social Security, smaller markets, less of everything. Less progress, in a word. And where is this happening? In the post-industrial 'advanced' Western countries, of course, because it appears that education is the surest and most effective form of birth control. Europe is suffering the most from this, even the lusty Italians are not replacing their populations with the requisite 2.01 children per married couple. America is OK, but probably only because of Latin immigration. Like your call for more CO2, I hereby issue a call for more children because the health and vigor of our Western economies and nations depends on it as only the less developed and the aggressively backward are growing or properly replacing their populations. I recall some cunning and astute MadMullah say that fanatical Islam can conquer the world peacefully, that there is no need for war or violence because it can use its women's wombs as weapons. He's right.