Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Off Topic => Topic started by: goodsamaritan on August 15, 2011, 10:00:49 pm
-
Population Debate Thread was created so as not to disturb the women thread.
Debate population issues here.
----------
One big purpose of feminism is depopulation.
Seems to have worked pretty well.
-----------
what depopulation are you talking about? what worked well?
i think we are rapidly approaching 7B.
-----------
You haven't come across the true statistics of the world?
That fertility rates are all down down down for decades.
That population growth rates are down down down for decades.
That the math and statistics show the inevitable that eventually when the population growth rate is zero... what's next is negative.
And that with the population pyramids, it takes some time for absolute population numbers to follow.
----------
everything you say does not make sense. the world population is growing at the fastest pace ever. heard of india or china?
-----------
Ever heard of india and china with their 2 child and one child policy?
did you know that women in china who get PREGNANT without a marriage license can be forced to have an abortion by the "authorities"?
-
We need to go back to a smaller, paleo and robust population, rather than a larger population of weak, deformed grain eaters. I would be quite in despair if the fate of the human species were really a concern of mine.
-
There's nothing wrong with a shrinking global population. It means more food per person, and more higher quality food per person, and more space per person. I'd be quite comfortable with a global population of perhaps 10-20 million, distributed relatively evenly over the habitable land. Of course, getting there is another issue...
-
I fancy colonizing other planets.
Humans should not get stuck on earth.
If we play our cards right with technology, we can reach for the stars.
-
I fancy colonizing other planets.
Humans should not get stuck on earth.
If we play our cards right with technology, we can reach for the stars.
Have you been sniffing herbal sprays? joking.
-
Have you been sniffing herbal sprays? joking.
Watched too much star wars!
-
I fancy colonizing other planets.
Humans should not get stuck on earth.
If we play our cards right with technology, we can reach for the stars.
The only hope we have re space-travel, is that we manage to create fully conscious, fully self-aware artificial intelligences which are more intelligent than we are and capable of self-improvement. Trouble is that when we do manage that, the resulting AIs will go to the stars and leave us behind, as we will be nothing more than irrelevant apes to them. You overestimate the sheer level of complexity required for organic lifeforms to invent(and use) an FTL drive, let alone the need to survive in hostile environments in space, given the need of humans for Earth-like environments re air-pressure/gravity/oxygen/temperature, the dangers of sterilising cosmic rays and so on. AIs would not be so restricted. Plus, I once read a transhumanist article which suggested that humans could not improve beyond another 200 percent of what we have now, even if we used every possible futuristic means of eugenics and genetic engineering - again, AIs are not so restricted.
-
One big purpose of feminism is depopulation.
Seems to have worked pretty well.
Feminism... IMHO was a reaction that young girls had at the time to a perception that they were being shunted aside while men went out and did something important. It was a jealousy thing going on. There was a lot of children at the time (Baby boomers)
There was silliness of unbelievable proportions. Some girls were jealous that grown up boys were doing things that young boys were doing like having mens clubs, so they forced the issues by wasting court time by having these clubs allow women in. Men back then as they are now, just want some quality time away from women. Just like women want the same time away from men. To everything there is a season http://www.fleurdelis.com/toeverythingthereisaseason.htm (and no I am not a Christian) Girls (One of my daughters included) hated the knitting and making doilies in Girl Scouts.
Women saw men go to work and figured there must be some magic going on there. (jealousy)
Then of course when they got the job they realized it was not all that great. (surprise)
Basically it was angry women who had a chip on their shoulder maybe from an older brother/father/boyfriend who dismissed them or pi**ed them off. These women are all grown up now and have realized that you cannot change a tigers stripes.
The fact of the matter is that women are not men, you can make laws, but you cannot change people's inner instincts.
I doubt any women actually did any deep thinking about what they were doing/saying or what the short term or long term results would be. At the time they were getting mad because fishermen or garbagemen were labelled as men. They had to be fisher people or garbage people... LOL It was definitely media driven. Dumb girls making ridiculous statements about men conspiracies sells newspapers. Then they got a special arm of government to back them. They still do it at their websites. I recently listened to one of these idiots with her conspiracy theories.
The movement to have less children may have come from the women seeing their grandmothers have 20 or more children as the Catholic church at that time wanted. This was simple economics in some cases especially in agrarian areas where infant mortality was high and children equalled farm helpers.
BTW these statements are generalizations an do do not apply to all women or men and may even be classified as a pointless rant. ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Feminism... IMHO was a reaction that young girls had at the time to a perception that they were being shunted aside while men went out and did something important. It was a jealousy thing going on. There was a lot of children at the time (Baby boomers)
There was silliness of unbelievable proportions. Some girls were jealous that grown up boys were doing things that young boys were doing like having mens clubs, so they forced the issues by wasting court time by having these clubs allow women in. Men back then as they are now, just want some quality time away from women. Just like women want the same time away from men. To everything there is a season http://www.fleurdelis.com/toeverythingthereisaseason.htm (and no I am not a Christian) Girls (One of my daughters included) hated the knitting and making doilies in Girl Scouts.
Women saw men go to work and figured there must be some magic going on there. (jealousy)
Then of course when they got the job they realized it was not all that great. (surprise)
Basically it was angry women who had a chip on their shoulder maybe from an older brother/father/boyfriend who dismissed them or pi**ed them off. These women are all grown up now and have realized that you cannot change a tigers stripes.
The fact of the matter is that women are not men, you can make laws, but you cannot change people's inner instincts.
I doubt any women actually did any deep thinking about what they were doing/saying or what the short term or long term results would be. At the time they were getting mad because fishermen or garbagemen were labelled as men. They had to be fisher people or garbage people... LOL It was definitely media driven. Dumb girls making ridiculous statements about men conspiracies sells newspapers. Then they got a special arm of government to back them. They still do it at their websites. I recently listened to one of these idiots with her conspiracy theories.
The movement to have less children may have come from the women seeing their grandmothers have 20 or more children as the Catholic church at that time wanted. This was simple economics in some cases especially in agrarian areas where infant mortality was high and children equalled farm helpers.
BTW these statements are generalizations an do do not apply to all women or men and may even be classified as a pointless rant. ;D ;D ;D ;D
I disagree with most of that. I wish I could give my real opinion but would be kicked off this site.
-
The 1 child policy in China isn't working since only the urban Chinese are obeying orders. The rural Chinese all avoid when they can, especially if they are far from centres of authority. Plus, there are some unscrupulous Chinese who claim to US immigration authorities that they are political refugees fleeing the Chinese 1 child policy.
Sometimes, I think the only solution is to nuke all countries with a population-birth-rate of 2.1 or more, perhaps even in Western Europe which has almost no wild areas left. But then I'm a cynical animal-rights activist who prefers wild, untamed areas to the usual hideous urban sprawl.
-
I disagree with most of that. I wish I could give my real opinion but would be kicked off this site.
Aww, be like me and don't give a damn!
-
I disagree with most of that. I wish I could give my real opinion but would be kicked off this site.
"Go ahead make my day..."
Dirty Harry
Clint Eastwood.
tee hee.
Couldn't be worse than my rant LOL
-
I disagree with most of that. I wish I could give my real opinion but would be kicked off this site.
I would tie myself to the ip address in your defence, whether I agreed or not.
-
There's nothing wrong with a shrinking global population. It means more food per person, and more higher quality food per person, and more space per person. I'd be quite comfortable with a global population of perhaps 10-20 million, distributed relatively evenly over the habitable land. Of course, getting there is another issue...
This isn't true. Food is produced, not some fixed amount. With less people there would be less food.
-
This isn't true. Food is produced, not some fixed amount. With less people there would be less food.
I disagree. As technology keeps on improving, more food will be produced, not necessarily only low-quality foods.
-
I disagree with most of that. I wish I could give my real opinion but would be kicked off this site.
Duh, just go and blast away... it's just us cavemen sitting by a fire telling stories.
-
This isn't true. Food is produced, not some fixed amount. With less people there would be less food.
I've read that in the United States (don't know if this figure holds for the world as a whole) only 3% of the population is directly involved in growing or raising the food Americans eat. If we increased that to 5%, or 10%, then obviously we'd be producing more food (assuming we don't give up current technologies). If global population were to fall from current levels of ~7 billion down to 10-20 million, it seems to me like it would be easy to increase the percentage of the population who is actively producing food and thus have more food per capita and higher quality food. Again, assuming we don't give up technologies that contribute to producing high quality food.
-
I disagree. As technology keeps on improving, more food will be produced, not necessarily only low-quality foods.
Technology is not responsible for food production, individuals are responsible. Yes, we can produce food quite efficiently, but only the current capital structure makes it profitable for businesses engaged in food production to do what they are doing, and continue doing so. There are lots of inputs, from machines, to fertilizers, to warehouses and breeding programs. It is a complex, interconnected system. And there is always a lot of new technology "on the shelf." You can have the greatest technology in the world, but without the necessary capital (i.e. savings), nothing will be done with it.
If the world's population begins to fall, the market for food will shrink (assuming the population drop occurs evenly across all occupations). The market response is to produce less food, both because demand will have dropped and because there is less labor to support the labor inputs across the economy.
Also, why should technology "keep on improving"? That is an historic fallacy. Just because technology has improved from year X to year Y, does not mean the trend will continue, as if past developments had any bearing on future developments. And again, without a robust capital structure, technology is useless. Politicians are destroying the capital structure with their monetary inflation.
-
I've read that in the United States (don't know if this figure holds for the world as a whole) only 3% of the population is directly involved in growing or raising the food Americans eat. If we increased that to 5%, or 10%, then obviously we'd be producing more food (assuming we don't give up current technologies). If global population were to fall from current levels of ~7 billion down to 10-20 million, it seems to me like it would be easy to increase the percentage of the population who is actively producing food and thus have more food per capita and higher quality food. Again, assuming we don't give up technologies that contribute to producing high quality food.
First, the important part of what you said is "directly involved." And you are talking about the labor of individuals, who are backed by a large amount of capital in the form of cleared and improved land, agricultural implements, etc. You can't just increase it to 5 or 10 percent, as if by decree. First off, you need to increase not only manpower (and it would be unskilled and know nothing about farming), but arable land, agricultural implement, and so on. Resources would also need to be reallocated from other parts of the economy, which would need to shrink. Not to mention there is no "method of farming", but a multitude of methods pursued by many individual businessmen involved in the farming business to varying degrees of separation, in the pursuit of profit. Such a socialist program would fail because you would have no way of knowing how to best allocate resources, what land to use, what farming methods to adopt, and so on. Only a free market can allocate resources to where they are most demanded by individual consumers.
-
I have just one word to say: Distribution!
Increasing food production is easy. Distributing all that food in the right amounts and in a fresh condition to the population is complicated and costly. The infrastructure for food distribution and sales is huge.
When I read goodsamaritan's entries about the wet markets in his country, it sounds so good and simple. I would love to shop like that. But it's not to be... I'm here in metropolitan west coast USA, (with some 4 million immigrants from that wet market country and elsewhere), at the mercy of the groaning food distribution network.
-
Duh, just go and blast away... it's just us cavemen sitting by a fire telling stories.
Pretty sure a girl either googled the hell out of me and read my posts. Most of the time I don't care
I left my phone in her car too so...
-
Women saw men go to work and figured there must be some magic going on there. (jealousy)
Then of course when they got the job they realized it was not all that great. (surprise)
I like my job.
-
... you may find this video AMUSING! Click to play now :)
"Mentos presents National Night, a fresh new way to "celebrate" your love of Singapore on National Day.
This August 9th Mentos calls on you* to celebrate not just National Day, but National Night too..." ;D
http://bit.ly/OXGO0w (http://bit.ly/OXGO0w)
Mentos National Night (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jxU89x78ac#ws)
-
“May we live long and die out”
http://www.vhemt.org/ (http://www.vhemt.org/)
"Phasing out the human race by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health. Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense."
-
Some of us will voluntarily strive to live and thrive as caretakers of this planet when those who have volunteered to die out have died out.
What we can say is... "Thank you!"
-
Lol! Too right GS!
It's moot anyway, while they seem to have the best of intentions, we will either flourish and get our shit together or we'll die out in yet another mass extinction, what, the fifth or sixth for this planet now at least?
-
This August 9th Mentos calls on you* to celebrate not just National Day, but National Night too..." ;D
So, in Singapore, kissing begins with a candy mint, and the chicks think about $900 strollers when they think of sexual intercourse? So sorry to hear that.
-
Can someone explain to me the thought process behind your children being your immortality or however it is thought of. What does the mix of your genetics have to do with escaping oblivion..?
-
Not much. The notion behind having tons of children is futile as the human race will perish, c. 300 million years from now, as organic lifeforms will never have the capacity for interstellar flight.
-
Can someone explain to me the thought process behind your children being your immortality or however it is thought of. What does the mix of your genetics have to do with escaping oblivion..?
The meaning of life is to make more life.
Survival of the fittest... and another criteria is those who choose to reproduce.
I do not believe in an immortal soul (for those who are religious).
What I do believe is we live through our descendants.
It's a relay race. You pass it on and on and on.
So my ancestors live through me.
Trace your bloodline. Make your family tree.
Does your personal bloodline die out? Or flourish?
What does blood family mean to you? Parents, Children, grandchildren, Brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc.
It used to be that a nice greeting was "May your tribe increase!"
In ultra overcrowded urban settings... that may be an insult.
The ultra urban people have forgotten the basics of life, they are supreme EXTREMISTS at the opposite side of the pendulum swing and they do not know it. Voluntary extinction, abortions, euthanasia, gmo suicide food, condoms = safe sex, to singapore whose young people have to be taught the basics of dating, that pairing up is good and basic human sexuality.
In the movie TERMINATOR, the robot terminator cannot self terminate. Yet millions of brainwashed people today are into murdering their own children they deceive themselves by calling "choice" / abortion.
You detach yourself from your current urban programming, just as you detached yourself from western medical programming / nutrition. You look at human history and pre-history to our wish and celebration to survive to thrive. Voluntary human extinction is such an extremist stupid not even trying to survive crap slave to the overpopulation notion. We should be reaching for the stars instead of thinking Earth is the only island we can live on.
Every human for himself then. It has always been that way. Those who wish to be voluntarily extinct... let them. Those of us who wish to survive, let us, and let us protect our own descendants from the depopulationists... pushy brainwashing attitudes.
Life must go on, life will go on.
Those depopulationists want human population to be 500 million to 1 billion tops.
Some of us AIM to be those survivors, part of the 500 million.
The first step is having real sex, spread your bets to many children, take care of those children... see to it they make children themselves... back to the basics of being human.
-
The trouble is that the survival of the fittest hasn't been happening since well before the end of the Palaeolithic era. Now, it's more like survival of the weakest/fattest etc, given the welfare state and the ease with which humans can survive nowadays due to advancing medical technology etc. In a few thousand years, the human future will inevitably resemble the film "Idiocracy"/EM Forster's novella "The Machine Stops", but there won't be any successors, humans will just become extinct. It's inevitable - think about it, such a fate for all organic lifeforms would easily explain why we have never encountered or communicated with aliens.
-
Not much. The notion behind having tons of children is futile as the human race will perish, c. 300 million years from now, as organic lifeforms will never have the capacity for interstellar flight.
Who needs interstellar flight? With good enough technology, populating Mars, Pluto, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn wouldn't be too difficult.
-
Who needs interstellar flight? With good enough technology, populating Mars, Pluto, and the moons of Jupiter and Saturn wouldn't be too difficult.
Mars would still be too close for comfort once the Sun became a red giant and swallowed the Earth. And terraforming the moons of the larger planets would be a problem, with the gravity issue unlikely to ever be solved. The only consolation is that the Sun will never go nova, but the answer to the Fermi Paradox is that there are periodic supernovas and gamma ray bursts occurring all over the place which wipe out all life in their vicinity. Without interstellar travel, the human race is doomed.
-
Ahh, GS.. If you follow the family history of anyone back far enough, don't we all pretty much come from the same place? So really your genetic lineage has the same root as mine? I dont unerstand what your super special DNA means, unless you think that the shape of your face is important?
-
Ahh, GS.. If you follow the family history of anyone back far enough, don't we all pretty much come from the same place? So really your genetic lineage has the same root as mine? I dont unerstand what your super special DNA means, unless you think that the shape of your face is important?
Nothing special other than the will to actually live and do something about it. A sign of life is life reproduces.
-
I believe you can have a will to live, while exercising a concious choice to not reproduce (you can still have unprotected sex and not have children with the use of simple natural techniques).
I look at it as things like Bacteria and Animals will reproduce without any thought to the future consequences.
The people here are kind of saying that there isnt enough to go around and if we keep on reproducing like we are now, then times are going to get very tough for everybody. Is that the kind of future you want for your children? one of survival of the fittest?
You keep on saying Survival of the Fittest GS, what exactly does that mean to you? And do you consider your genetics superior? or are you just passing them on because they are yours and you want to?
I guess I am just trying to understand what your goal is with booming the population more.
I feel like my ideals are centered around the planet and humanity as a whole, where I personally am not as important as i like to think.
Your thinking just seems to be 'real sex is good sex; more life is better; I like babies"
-
Please go back to what i wrote.
I explained my personal philosophy in its entirety.
Including what you just asked.
-
Mars would still be too close for comfort once the Sun became a red giant and swallowed the Earth. And terraforming the moons of the larger planets would be a problem, with the gravity issue unlikely to ever be solved. The only consolation is that the Sun will never go nova, but the answer to the Fermi Paradox is that there are periodic supernovas and gamma ray bursts occurring all over the place which wipe out all life in their vicinity. Without interstellar travel, the human race is doomed.
Mars would not be too close. We could simply move into underground caves to avoid the Sun's heat.
You are also assuming we will never master controlling gravity. You might be right, but I doubt it.
-
Mars would not be too close. We could simply move into underground caves to avoid the Sun's heat.
You are also assuming we will never master controlling gravity. You might be right, but I doubt it.
Many disagree:-
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100316061038AApfgoR (http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100316061038AApfgoR)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110106195408AAbfG2j (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110106195408AAbfG2j)
Basically, we humans are perfectly adapted to Earth-like conditions. Surviving on Mars would require vast amounts of water, oxygen etc. which just isn't there. And terraforming is such a massive undertaking that it appears logistically impossible.
-
Humans will try and try.
-
Humans will try and try.
Current evidence indicates the opposite. The best thing would be for humans to build Strong AI as the latter is the only kind that can ever reach the stars.
-
So lets remind each other to revisit this interstellar travel thing in 50 years, shall we? We are raw paleo dieters so we can hope to all be alive in 50 years.
-
Lol, bumped in to this today while I was looking at ways for a friend to get in to a cow head she is going to broth...
"5. Do I have to kill myself?
Of course you don't have to kill yourself! If you really want to, though, wait until after you've joined the Church. That way, you automatically become a saint, without any additional paperwork. Don't forget to leave a note thanking and/or blaming the Church, and feel free to will us your estate, if you have one. "
http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/coefaq.html (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/coefaq.html)
-
Well, humans cannot survive in space, but one species can, albeit not forever:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2207828/This-bug--The-indestructible-micro-animals-survive-vacuum-space--blood.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2207828/This-bug--The-indestructible-micro-animals-survive-vacuum-space--blood.html)
-
Current evidence indicates the opposite. The best thing would be for humans to build Strong AI as the latter is the only kind that can ever reach the stars.
Seems the technology to colonize the solar system is here and now.
http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/space-travel-free-energy-nanotech-etc-keshe-foundation/ (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/space-travel-free-energy-nanotech-etc-keshe-foundation/)