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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (325989)	4/26/2020 9:56:00 PM
From: elpolvo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 362183

The short version is that it's 100 years too late for population control to make a difference, why do you say that? are you just making it up? people die EVERY DAY. this reduces the population EVERY DAY. the reason the population still grows EVERY DAY is because people become pregnant and give birth EVERY DAY. it's this pregnancy factor that increases the population EVERY DAY. if that were to stop, the population would go down EVERY DAY. how could it NOT be helpful for the population to go DOWN EVERY DAY? as opposed to going UP EVERY DAY?. how could it be 100 years too late for the world population to decline? seems to me that it could never be even one second too late to let the human population decline through slowing the rate of procreation?. sorry to be so dense. am i not making sense? this seems to be very simple arithmetic. grade school level. can ANYONE HERE explain this to me? PLEASE? Sun Tzu? ArtR? C_O? Ron? koan? tiger paw? bagwajohn? abuelita? the black swan? sultan? any lurkers? i can understand there will be a problem in getting people to comply but that's something to deal with AFTER we've made the decision that it's a helpful solution. why have we already made the decision that it would not help slow AGW by reducing the population? does anyone know whut i mean, verns?