# Far from the Myth of 'Overpopulation'



## Unkotare

Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.

We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like. 









						South Korea’s population paradox
					

With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.




					www.bbc.com


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood

Unkotare said:


> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com




we are mold on the bread


----------



## BULLDOG

Every person has 2 parents, 4 grand parents, 8 great grand parents, 16 great great grandparents, etc. etc. In view of all that, it seems that the world population is shrinking to an all time low.


----------



## Moonglow

Unkotare said:


> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com


Does this mean you will become a farmer to help feed all the new population explosion?


----------



## Unkotare

We're gonna have to figure out pdq how to manage an economy, a military, and a society with a rapidly declining population. Don't wanna drop this one on the doorstep of the next few generations.


----------



## Unkotare

Moonglow said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean you will become a farmer to help feed all the new population explosion?
Click to expand...


Can you read?


----------



## justinacolmena

Unkotare said:


> Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per.


That's planned parenthood bullshit. That only counts the circumcised and birth-certificated children who aren't aborted or murdered at birth unaccounted for. Not to mention the doctors are ripping up the women's wombs with C-sections, hysterectomies, and other routine mayhem and mass murder.


----------



## Unkotare

justinacolmena said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per.
> 
> 
> 
> That's planned parenthood bullshit. That only counts the circumcised and birth-certificated children who aren't aborted or murdered at birth unaccounted for. Not to mention the doctors are ripping up the women's wombs with C-sections, hysterectomies, and other routine mayhem and mass murder.
Click to expand...


Do you have a point related to the topic?


----------



## Unkotare

justinacolmena said:


> ... Not to mention the doctors are ripping up the women's wombs with C-sections, hysterectomies, and other routine mayhem and mass murder.



How are either of those things "mayhem and mass murder"? Do you even know what they are?


----------



## Agit8r

Am I understanding the OP correctly, that world population is going down?


----------



## Unkotare

Agit8r said:


> Am I understanding the OP correctly, that world population is going down?



Not yet, but fertility rates are trending down at a rate that suggests we give the inevitable some thought.


----------



## fncceo

Fretting about overpopulation is the ultimate in elitism.

"Far too many of YOU... just the right amount of ME."


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com


Why do we have to boost population levels?

Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?


----------



## Peace

Sooner or later humanity will go extinct and nothing we do will stop this.

Growth and shrinkage of the World Population will happen over time and I have maintained that we have never been overpopulated when you can fit the entire World Population into Texas, so we are under populated still but the question for me do we have the resources to maintain the current status when it come to water and natural resources...?

As to your point I doubt South Koreans will go extinct and they will start a breeding program like Australia had once and offer to pay people to have kids, so the chances of extinction is rare and unlikely because of lack of breeding...


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
Click to expand...






__





						guff.com
					

guff.com - the best distraction on the internet




					guff.com
				













						Will population decline create a richer society?
					

Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.




					www.japantimes.co.jp
				



.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I don't buy it.

I see no reason to make any efforts to increase the population or even to keep it stable at a predetermined number.

The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow and I just don't think it will have drastic effects on any economy except for may be areas of extremely low population density and even in that case people will move to more prosperous areas as they have always done even when people were far less mobile than they are today.

And if population numbers as a whole decline it only makes sense that the size of the workforce will decline as the demand for mass produced junk declines.


----------



## Likkmee




----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
Click to expand...


Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
Click to expand...


It's conjecture.

What makes the author's version of reality credible?


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ....The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow .....



On the contrary, when a turning point is reached things happen fast and can't be turned around on a dime. Take a look at South Korea today. Take a look at China 30 years from now.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
Click to expand...


Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, when a turning point is reached things happen fast and can't be turned around on a dime. Take a look at South Korea today. Take a look at China 30 years from now.
Click to expand...


One rather small country is hardly a good comparison to global populations.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, when a turning point is reached things happen fast and can't be turned around on a dime. Take a look at South Korea today. Take a look at China 30 years from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One rather small country is hardly a good comparison to global populations.
Click to expand...


I provided you with links. I am not going to teach you an entire course on Demographics here.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
Click to expand...


Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.

it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, when a turning point is reached things happen fast and can't be turned around on a dime. Take a look at South Korea today. Take a look at China 30 years from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One rather small country is hardly a good comparison to global populations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I provided you with links. I am not going to teach you an entire course on Demographics here.
Click to expand...

And I read them.

But there is nothing there that provides any real proof of what will happen it's all conjecture.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
Click to expand...


You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Unkotare said:


> We're gonna have to figure out pdq how to manage an economy, a military, and a society with a rapidly declining population. Don't wanna drop this one on the doorstep of the next few generations.


   I care more about a "willing population".
What I mean is since the far leftist infiltrated the American education system beginning in the 1970s.... for the past 25 years kids have grown up in an organized system that refuses to teach national loyalty, pride etc. And replaces it with teaching them their country is a fundamentally flawed nation that abuses the world. 
  Add to that, U.S. military recruitment offices have closed down across liberal cities. In an article by the WSJ in 2018, they correctly state "we are at the beginning of a recruitment crises". A crises not only of reduced enlistment, but the quality of those choosing the military is in a dramatic decline.
  This is by design.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
Click to expand...

I read all the links you posted.

Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.


----------



## Unkotare

iamwhatiseem said:


> ... replaces it with teaching them their country is a fundamentally flawed nation that abuses the world.
> ....



That is not what most students are taught.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
Click to expand...


Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
Click to expand...


No need.

The idea of comparing the productivity of a population of 7 billion to a population of 5 billion and coming to the conclusion that the larger population is "more productive" and therefore better is a specious argument.

in general people do produce more than they consume no matter how big the population is.

Saying that a decline in numbers inevitably results in a lower standard of living just doesn't make sense as an equilibrium of supply and demand will be achieved.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
Click to expand...


Maybe take a course while you're there.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
Click to expand...


Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.

Great argument


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
Click to expand...


You don't disagree with me, you disagree with economics. Hence my advice.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't disagree with me, you disagree with economics. Hence my advice.
Click to expand...


Oh and economics is infallible?

Every economist agrees 100% with every other economist?


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't disagree with me, you disagree with economics. Hence my advice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh and economics is infallible?
> 
> Every economist agrees 100% with every other economist?
Click to expand...


Again, go tell them about it. You can rewrite the entire field all by yourself since you know better.


----------



## Unkotare

https://web.stanford.edu/~chadj/emptyplanet.pdf


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Unkotare said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... replaces it with teaching them their country is a fundamentally flawed nation that abuses the world.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what most students are taught.
Click to expand...

 Oh yes it is.
I live in Indiana, hardly a bastion of liberal thought. The last time a Democrat won a Presidential election here was 1964.
We are the "reddest" state in a red region.
  Both my kids faced not so much anti-American rhetoric in K-12... but GONE was pro-American lessons. GONE was pledge of allegiance. GONE was the flags in all of the classrooms. But then there came college. And with that came liberal professors openly expressing their left rhetoric to students despite the fact it wasn't a political/history course. There is no argument American Universities are liberal think tanks and anti-military. Especially anti-military.


----------



## Unkotare

iamwhatiseem said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... replaces it with teaching them their country is a fundamentally flawed nation that abuses the world.
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what most students are taught.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yes it is.
> ....
Click to expand...


OH, no it's not.


----------



## Unkotare

iamwhatiseem said:


> ....But then there came college. And with that came liberal professors openly expressing .....



No one is obligated to attend college. Professors have heavily been silly-ass liberals since the 60s. By the time you get to college, if you choose to go, you should know your own mind well enough to weather the storm of a few courses taught by some far left asshole.


----------



## 2aguy

fncceo said:


> Fretting about overpopulation is the ultimate in elitism.
> 
> "Far too many of YOU... just the right amount of ME."




Yep.....funny how the left looks at brown and black people when they start talking about the world being over populated..............


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Unkotare said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....But then there came college. And with that came liberal professors openly expressing .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is obligated to attend college. Professors have heavily been silly-ass liberals since the 60s. By the time you get to college, if you choose to go, you should know your own mind well enough to weather the storm of a few courses taught by some far left asshole.
Click to expand...

 Well you are obligated if you want to devote yourself to providing healthcare. 
Both my kids did. They are both CORE RTs, my son specializes in NICU respiratory at one of the nations leading childrens hospitals. 
Ok... done bragging ....
Anyway... back to the point, I don't know how old you are, I am 55... and there is zero doubt in my mind that American loyalty is at an all time low. The 1960s would be the closest, but even then it was NOT anti-Americanism, but anti-establishment. People still loved and devoted to their country, but not it's leaders and establishment as a whole.
Today, in large circles in our society of young people where patriotism is literally taboo. And you may even experience violence against you for it.


----------



## Unkotare

iamwhatiseem said:


> .... there is zero doubt in my mind that American loyalty is at an all time low. The 1960s would be the closest, but even then it was NOT anti-Americanism, but anti-establishment. ....



Really? I don't see veterans returning from tours of duty abroad being spat upon today, do you? I don't see people screaming "baby killer!" in their faces (without a trace of irony, I might add).


----------



## francoHFW

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
Click to expand...

The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Unkotare said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... there is zero doubt in my mind that American loyalty is at an all time low. The 1960s would be the closest, but even then it was NOT anti-Americanism, but anti-establishment. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I don't see veterans returning from tours of duty abroad being spat upon today, do you? I don't see people screaming "baby killer!" in their faces (without a trace of irony, I might add).
Click to expand...

  The Vietnam war was a very different war.
#1 - we lost. WW I and WW II vets had a feeling of "you guys failed"... not knowing yet just how terrible the military leadership was... so they tended to blame these "kids" who wasn't tough enough.
 Young people, rightfully so, had problems with the war - and again the brunt of their opinions were errantly, and tragically manifested on the returning soldiers. 
  So there, I have no argument. In that sense you are correct... anti military sentiment among the young was even worse than now. But it didn't last. In my opinion, I think the current opinions of our young is going to be long term, and may never return unless there is some massive thing that happens. Much bigger than 9/11.
   We have a serious problem in this country of a lack of patriotism and loyalty to the country they were born in. It's okay for all other countrie sin the world to be proud of their heritage... but not us. We are not suppose to show pride. 
Self hating morons.


----------



## francoHFW

iamwhatiseem said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... there is zero doubt in my mind that American loyalty is at an all time low. The 1960s would be the closest, but even then it was NOT anti-Americanism, but anti-establishment. ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I don't see veterans returning from tours of duty abroad being spat upon today, do you? I don't see people screaming "baby killer!" in their faces (without a trace of irony, I might add).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Vietnam war was a very different war.
> #1 - we lost. WW I and WW II vets had a feeling of "you guys failed"... not knowing yet just how terrible the military leadership was... so they tended to blame these "kids" who wasn't tough enough.
> Young people, rightfully so, had problems with the war - and again the brunt of their opinions were errantly, and tragically manifested on the returning soldiers.
> So there, I have no argument. In that sense you are correct... anti military sentiment among the young was even worse than now. But it didn't last. In my opinion, I think the current opinions of our young is going to be long term, and may never return unless there is some massive thing that happens. Much bigger than 9/11.
> We have a serious problem in this country of a lack of patriotism and loyalty to the country they were born in. It's okay for all other countrie sin the world to be proud of their heritage... but not us. We are not suppose to show pride.
> Self hating morons.
Click to expand...

Yes there is a problem with jingoistic right wingers who talk about patriotism yet hate 90% of our country and disrespect all our institutions and public servants when they disagree with right-wing ridiculous propaganda..... Congratulations your idiocy and the orange clown have made of us the laughing stock and horror of the world and the leader in not following sane covid regulations. The UK and the US lead the world covid screw ups and are the only people who don't know the difference between socialism and communism. The UK got lucky right after world war II with healthcare etc.


----------



## Blues Man

francoHFW said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
Click to expand...

And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic


----------



## francoHFW

Blues Man said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
Click to expand...

Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.


----------



## Blues Man

francoHFW said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
Click to expand...

who mentioned the GOP?

I certainly didn't


----------



## francoHFW

Blues Man said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
Click to expand...

Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.


----------



## Blues Man

francoHFW said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world


----------



## Unkotare

francoHFW said:


> ....
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world.....



But, let me guess, YOU are oh-so cosmopolitan and sophisticated, right? Is that why you can read minds? Normal people disdain that sort of attitude, Jack.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
Click to expand...


Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
Click to expand...


and more so in affluent countries.

Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
Click to expand...


I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
Click to expand...


it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
Click to expand...


Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.


----------



## Likkmee

2aguy said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fretting about overpopulation is the ultimate in elitism.
> 
> "Far too many of YOU... just the right amount of ME."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.....funny how the left looks at brown and black people when they start talking about the world being over populated..............
Click to expand...

Get rid of da nigga and da world b much bigga !


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
Click to expand...


not if they do not directly affect you and the number of children any woman or couple decide to have is one of those things that does not affect you


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
Click to expand...


If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
Click to expand...


not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone

And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone
> 
> And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?
Click to expand...


Depends on how she goes about 'choosing' that.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone
> 
> And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how she goes about 'choosing' that.
Click to expand...


if it's legal it's none of your business


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone
> 
> And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how she goes about 'choosing' that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it's legal it's none of your business
Click to expand...


So, morality is determined by law, not the other way around?


----------



## francoHFW

Blues Man said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
Click to expand...

 not free obviously and the GOP fights it every step of the way and do not allow foreign aid to include it


----------



## francoHFW

Unkotare said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, let me guess, YOU are oh-so cosmopolitan and sophisticated, right? Is that why you can read minds? Normal people disdain that sort of attitude, Jack.
Click to expand...

Well informed people around the world know that the GOP base is out of their minds due to brainwashing by their tiny only in America right wing propaganda machine from Rupert Murdoch Rush Limbaugh and hangers on. Everything they know is wrong. Hundreds of phony scandals conspiracy theories and just pure misinformation.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone
> 
> And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how she goes about 'choosing' that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it's legal it's none of your business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, morality is determined by law, not the other way around?
Click to expand...

Morality is subjective.

You're always talking about society aren't you?

What a society deems legal it deems moral.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone
> 
> And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how she goes about 'choosing' that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it's legal it's none of your business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, morality is determined by law, not the other way around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality is subjective.
> ....
Click to expand...


By definition, it is not.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ....
> 
> What a society deems legal it deems moral.



Backwards.


----------



## Unkotare

Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.

We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.









						South Korea’s population paradox
					

With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.




					www.bbc.com


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, when a turning point is reached things happen fast and can't be turned around on a dime. Take a look at South Korea today. Take a look at China 30 years from now.
Click to expand...










						China’s Population Destiny: The Looming Crisis
					

China’s demographic landscape has been thoroughly redrawn by unprecedented population changes in recent decades. Wang Feng writes on China’s rapidly aging population, and its domestic and international ramifications.




					www.brookings.edu
				













						China Population: From Explosion to Implosion
					

China's one-child policy, which compelled couples to seek abortions or undergo sterilization procedures, ended in October 2015. Yet the country's birth rate hasn't increased, and Communist Party officials are concerned about economic growth.




					www.planetizen.com
				













						Population decline will hit China hard – DW – 09/09/2019
					

Business leaders and analysts see the global population declining in the next century, and China will be badly affected. The Asian nation is well-advised to make precautions soon to avoid a humanitarian crisis.




					www.dw.com


----------



## Unkotare

iamwhatiseem said:


> ... U.S. military recruitment offices have closed down across liberal cities. In an article by the WSJ in 2018, they correctly state "we are at the beginning of a recruitment crises". A crises not only of reduced enlistment, but the quality of those choosing the military is in a dramatic decline.
> ...



Do you see how a shrinking population would likely exacerbate such a situation?


----------



## Unkotare

2aguy said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fretting about overpopulation is the ultimate in elitism.
> 
> "Far too many of YOU... just the right amount of ME."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.....funny how the left looks at brown and black people when they start talking about the world being over populated..............
Click to expand...


Funny too that they are the first to define people by color whenever they get the chance.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone
> 
> And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how she goes about 'choosing' that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it's legal it's none of your business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, morality is determined by law, not the other way around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality is subjective.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
Click to expand...


Only if you except some outside moral authority.

I don't.  Any and all morals or ethics that have applied to the human race have all originated from humans themselves.


----------



## Blues Man

francoHFW said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not free obviously and the GOP fights it every step of the way and do not allow foreign aid to include it
Click to expand...

Who said anything should be free?  i certainly didn't

and if you want to make every single issue about the GOP go bark up another tree


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone
> 
> And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how she goes about 'choosing' that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it's legal it's none of your business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, morality is determined by law, not the other way around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality is subjective.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you except [sic] some outside moral authority.
> ....
Click to expand...


Ironic error. Morality isn't "outside."


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, when a turning point is reached things happen fast and can't be turned around on a dime. Take a look at South Korea today. Take a look at China 30 years from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China’s Population Destiny: The Looming Crisis
> 
> 
> China’s demographic landscape has been thoroughly redrawn by unprecedented population changes in recent decades. Wang Feng writes on China’s rapidly aging population, and its domestic and international ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.brookings.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China Population: From Explosion to Implosion
> 
> 
> China's one-child policy, which compelled couples to seek abortions or undergo sterilization procedures, ended in October 2015. Yet the country's birth rate hasn't increased, and Communist Party officials are concerned about economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.planetizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population decline will hit China hard – DW – 09/09/2019
> 
> 
> Business leaders and analysts see the global population declining in the next century, and China will be badly affected. The Asian nation is well-advised to make precautions soon to avoid a humanitarian crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dw.com
Click to expand...

it's only a crisis if you buy into the theory that any and all economic contractions are undesirable.

As long as supply meets demand it doesn't matter of there are 10 billion people or 5 billion people and since people generally produce more than they consume a lower population isn't the death knell you want it to be.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone
> 
> And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how she goes about 'choosing' that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it's legal it's none of your business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, morality is determined by law, not the other way around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality is subjective.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you except [sic] some outside moral authority.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic error. Morality isn't "outside."
Click to expand...

and there is no moral authority beyond human beings so morality is societal and therefore subjective.

any society can agree on their own moral code and as history has shown us there have been many different moral codes in our evolution.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, when a turning point is reached things happen fast and can't be turned around on a dime. Take a look at South Korea today. Take a look at China 30 years from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China’s Population Destiny: The Looming Crisis
> 
> 
> China’s demographic landscape has been thoroughly redrawn by unprecedented population changes in recent decades. Wang Feng writes on China’s rapidly aging population, and its domestic and international ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.brookings.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China Population: From Explosion to Implosion
> 
> 
> China's one-child policy, which compelled couples to seek abortions or undergo sterilization procedures, ended in October 2015. Yet the country's birth rate hasn't increased, and Communist Party officials are concerned about economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.planetizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population decline will hit China hard – DW – 09/09/2019
> 
> 
> Business leaders and analysts see the global population declining in the next century, and China will be badly affected. The Asian nation is well-advised to make precautions soon to avoid a humanitarian crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's only a crisis if you buy into the theiry [sic] that any and all economic contractions are undesirable.
> .....
Click to expand...


Now we're back to you not reading the links.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Unkotare said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... U.S. military recruitment offices have closed down across liberal cities. In an article by the WSJ in 2018, they correctly state "we are at the beginning of a recruitment crises". A crises not only of reduced enlistment, but the quality of those choosing the military is in a dramatic decline.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see how a shrinking population would likely exacerbate such a situation?
Click to expand...

 Sure, but honestly... I believe the other aspect of lower birth rates, namely less productive, dumber people still having 3 kids and more... while higher productive, more educated-smarter people having less, is actually a greater problem.
  The movie Idiocracy is a good parody of this. It is a parody, so obviously exaggerated, but the point it makes is valid.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, when a turning point is reached things happen fast and can't be turned around on a dime. Take a look at South Korea today. Take a look at China 30 years from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China’s Population Destiny: The Looming Crisis
> 
> 
> China’s demographic landscape has been thoroughly redrawn by unprecedented population changes in recent decades. Wang Feng writes on China’s rapidly aging population, and its domestic and international ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.brookings.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China Population: From Explosion to Implosion
> 
> 
> China's one-child policy, which compelled couples to seek abortions or undergo sterilization procedures, ended in October 2015. Yet the country's birth rate hasn't increased, and Communist Party officials are concerned about economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.planetizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population decline will hit China hard – DW – 09/09/2019
> 
> 
> Business leaders and analysts see the global population declining in the next century, and China will be badly affected. The Asian nation is well-advised to make precautions soon to avoid a humanitarian crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's only a crisis if you buy into the theiry [sic] that any and all economic contractions are undesirable.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we're back to you not reading the links.
Click to expand...


I read all the other ones and this is the theory you buy into so I assume the last couple were just going to support the theory you agree with.

Go ahead tell me I'm wrong.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Unkotare said:


> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com


What an ignorant propaganda statement---the world now has 7,8 BILLION people   verses the 5 Billion that it had when I was a kid.   But watch the lib/globalist Troll or trolls tried to piss on our legs and tell it is rain.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

In the developed world the trend toward declining population has been clear and is about as “natural” as anything can be in these societies. Of course choices of men and women to marry later and to have fewer children are mostly _*voluntary*_, if conditioned by economics. I see no problem here whatever. The planet will be better off if this is the way population is limited in future.

Population / pollution / ecological crisis will inevitably arise if under-developed countries succeed in raising their standards of living to the level of advanced countries. China has at most a third the per capita GDP of the U.S.and we already see the political panic and economic dislocation and pollution problems created by its own advance. But as China advances, it’s rate of population growth is leveling off and will start to fall. Probably quite rapidly. The universal desire for a higher quality of life on earth will naturally lower population growth and most likely lower it absolutely — if the world successfully resolves its many other pressing problems.

In any case I see no cause whatever to panic over population decline.


----------



## Turtlesoup

francoHFW said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, let me guess, YOU are oh-so cosmopolitan and sophisticated, right? Is that why you can read minds? Normal people disdain that sort of attitude, Jack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well informed people around the world know that the GOP base is out of their minds due to brainwashing by their tiny only in America right wing propaganda machine from Rupert Murdoch Rush Limbaugh and hangers on. Everything they know is wrong. Hundreds of phony scandals conspiracy theories and just pure misinformation.
Click to expand...


America has always been better than the foreigners around the world------why pretend that their opinions on america mean more than americans opinions on america.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone
> 
> And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how she goes about 'choosing' that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it's legal it's none of your business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, morality is determined by law, not the other way around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality is subjective.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you except [sic] some outside moral authority.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic error. Morality isn't "outside."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and there is no moral authority beyond human beings .....
Click to expand...


So insecure. Interesting. I'll leave aside your failure of logic as I suspect it is pretty far over your head. Regardless, laws reflect what society understands to be moral (humans are willfully fallible in this regard all too often). Case in point, if grand theft auto were made 'legal' tomorrow, would YOU go out and steal a car? Would you excuse auto theft on the part of your neighbor because "well, it's legal!"? If slavery were made legal tomorrow, would you go out and enslave your fellow man? Why or why not?


----------



## Unkotare

iamwhatiseem said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... U.S. military recruitment offices have closed down across liberal cities. In an article by the WSJ in 2018, they correctly state "we are at the beginning of a recruitment crises". A crises not only of reduced enlistment, but the quality of those choosing the military is in a dramatic decline.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see how a shrinking population would likely exacerbate such a situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but honestly... I believe the other aspect of lower birth rates, namely less productive, dumber people still having 3 kids and more... while higher productive, more educated-smarter people having less, is actually a greater problem.
> The movie Idiocracy is a good parody of this. It is a parody, so obviously exaggerated, but the point it makes is valid.
Click to expand...


Consider the consequences of having fewer and fewer younger people of working age and more and more elderly people living longer and longer. An increasingly imbalanced equation, and one that is playing out before our eyes in several countries now.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, when a turning point is reached things happen fast and can't be turned around on a dime. Take a look at South Korea today. Take a look at China 30 years from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China’s Population Destiny: The Looming Crisis
> 
> 
> China’s demographic landscape has been thoroughly redrawn by unprecedented population changes in recent decades. Wang Feng writes on China’s rapidly aging population, and its domestic and international ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.brookings.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China Population: From Explosion to Implosion
> 
> 
> China's one-child policy, which compelled couples to seek abortions or undergo sterilization procedures, ended in October 2015. Yet the country's birth rate hasn't increased, and Communist Party officials are concerned about economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.planetizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population decline will hit China hard – DW – 09/09/2019
> 
> 
> Business leaders and analysts see the global population declining in the next century, and China will be badly affected. The Asian nation is well-advised to make precautions soon to avoid a humanitarian crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's only a crisis if you buy into the theiry [sic] that any and all economic contractions are undesirable.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we're back to you not reading the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read all the other ones and this is the theory you buy into so I assume the last couple were just going to support the theory you agree with.
> 
> Go ahead tell me I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


What is the "theory" as you think you understand it?


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone
> 
> And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how she goes about 'choosing' that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it's legal it's none of your business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, morality is determined by law, not the other way around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality is subjective.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you except [sic] some outside moral authority.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic error. Morality isn't "outside."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and there is no moral authority beyond human beings .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So insecure. Interesting. I'll leave aside your failure of logic as I suspect it is pretty far over your head. Regardless, laws reflect what society understands to be moral (humans are willfully fallible in this regard all too often). Case in point, if grand theft auto were made 'legal' tomorrow, would YOU go out and steal a car? Would you excuse auto theft on the part of your neighbor because "well, it's legal!"? If slavery were made legal tomorrow, would you go out and enslave your fellow man? Why or why not?
Click to expand...


No I just disagree with you.  No insecurity involved.

Morality is subjective there is no universal code that has always applied to every human that has ever existed.

It used to be acceptable to kill any stranger that came into a tribes territory if fact warriors were celebrated for doing so.

And that moral code worked for eons until people started living in closer proximity that was a change on the morality of humans.

The death penalty is a prime example of the subjectivity of morality.  Either it's wrong to kill another human  or it's not. Sometimes it is OK to kill a person in self defense, sometimes it's not.  

There is no absolute moral code on the taking of a human life.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Unkotare said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... U.S. military recruitment offices have closed down across liberal cities. In an article by the WSJ in 2018, they correctly state "we are at the beginning of a recruitment crises". A crises not only of reduced enlistment, but the quality of those choosing the military is in a dramatic decline.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see how a shrinking population would likely exacerbate such a situation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, but honestly... I believe the other aspect of lower birth rates, namely less productive, dumber people still having 3 kids and more... while higher productive, more educated-smarter people having less, is actually a greater problem.
> The movie Idiocracy is a good parody of this. It is a parody, so obviously exaggerated, but the point it makes is valid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Consider the consequences of having fewer and fewer younger people of working age and more and more elderly people living longer and longer. An increasingly imbalanced equation, and one that is playing out before our eyes in several countries now.
Click to expand...

Absolutely


----------



## Unkotare

Turtlesoup said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an ignorant propaganda statement---the world now has 7,8 BILLION people   verses the 5 Billion that it had when I was a kid.   But watch the lib/globalist Troll or trolls tried to piss on our legs and tell it is rain.
Click to expand...


And what happens when there are not enough people of working age to support and sustain a rapidly growing and rapidly aging senior population beyond working age as we define it now? What happens when crucial industries lay idle? What happens when the country is faced with a real military threat but we cannot field a full response because there just aren't enough men of fighting age? A lot of people get their panties in a wad over illegal immigration, but when we literally don't have enough people to keep the economy going, will you change your position?


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, when a turning point is reached things happen fast and can't be turned around on a dime. Take a look at South Korea today. Take a look at China 30 years from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China’s Population Destiny: The Looming Crisis
> 
> 
> China’s demographic landscape has been thoroughly redrawn by unprecedented population changes in recent decades. Wang Feng writes on China’s rapidly aging population, and its domestic and international ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.brookings.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China Population: From Explosion to Implosion
> 
> 
> China's one-child policy, which compelled couples to seek abortions or undergo sterilization procedures, ended in October 2015. Yet the country's birth rate hasn't increased, and Communist Party officials are concerned about economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.planetizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population decline will hit China hard – DW – 09/09/2019
> 
> 
> Business leaders and analysts see the global population declining in the next century, and China will be badly affected. The Asian nation is well-advised to make precautions soon to avoid a humanitarian crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's only a crisis if you buy into the theiry [sic] that any and all economic contractions are undesirable.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we're back to you not reading the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read all the other ones and this is the theory you buy into so I assume the last couple were just going to support the theory you agree with.
> 
> Go ahead tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the "theory" as you think you understand it?
Click to expand...

 In a nutshell, smaller population leads to less productivity and that is undesirable.

But a smaller population will have fewer material needs so a lowering of productivity is to be expected.

There are pros and cons to both.

The population will peak then decline that is inevitable.  People adapt that's why there are 7 billion plus people on the planet


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone
> 
> And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how she goes about 'choosing' that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it's legal it's none of your business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, morality is determined by law, not the other way around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality is subjective.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you except [sic] some outside moral authority.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic error. Morality isn't "outside."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and there is no moral authority beyond human beings .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So insecure. Interesting. I'll leave aside your failure of logic as I suspect it is pretty far over your head. Regardless, laws reflect what society understands to be moral (humans are willfully fallible in this regard all too often). Case in point, if grand theft auto were made 'legal' tomorrow, would YOU go out and steal a car? Would you excuse auto theft on the part of your neighbor because "well, it's legal!"? If slavery were made legal tomorrow, would you go out and enslave your fellow man? Why or why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I just disagree with you.  No insecurity involved.
> ...
Click to expand...


Oh, of course not!


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Turtlesoup said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What an ignorant propaganda statement---the world now has 7,8 BILLION people   verses the 5 Billion that it had when I was a kid.   But watch the lib/globalist Troll or trolls tried to piss on our legs and tell it is rain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what happens when there are not enough people of working age to support and sustain a rapidly growing and rapidly aging senior population beyond working age as we define it now? What happens when crucial industries lay idle? What happens when the country is faced with a real military threat but we cannot field a full response because there just aren't enough men of fighting age? A lot of people get their panties in a wad over illegal immigration, but when we literally don't have enough people to keep the economy going, will you change your position?
Click to expand...

so technology can increase food production increase output of all industrial processes but cannot be used to fight a war with fewer soldiers?


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....



By definition, it is not.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ...
> so technology can increase food production increase output of all industrial processes but cannot be used to fight a war with fewer soldiers?



You wanna bet your existence on that?


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do we have to boost population levels?
> 
> Why do we even have to maintain a population of 7 billion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> guff.com - the best distraction on the internet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guff.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will population decline create a richer society?
> 
> 
> Inviting more highly talented and skilled workers from overseas will be crucial to raising Japan's productivity in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.japantimes.co.jp
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't buy it.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality doesn't hit any less hard just because this one or that one "buys it."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's conjecture.
> 
> What makes the author's version of reality credible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look into it further if you want. You'll only find more of the same. Economics is economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lower population, lower demand for products, an equilibrium will be reached.
> 
> it doesn't really matter if a global population of 5 billion consumes less than a global population of 7 billion in fact it's to be expected.  But some economist calls that a "less productive" society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't read the links all the way through, did you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read all the links you posted.
> 
> Just because i disagree with you doesn't mean I didn't read them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go find the nearest university and argue with some professors of economics then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe take a course while you're there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah yes I don't agree with you therefore I am ignorant.
> 
> Great argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the drivel you just posted has absolutely nothing to do with the topic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. The GOP base has no clue what is going on in the world they are brainwashed with misinformation and Miss 90% of the news, all the news they wouldn't like lol. in this case they don't know that the federal government has continued for decades to not allow any of our foreign services to do anything about birth control around the world and in the United states. There are too many goddamn people in the world and everyone who wants birth control should get it for free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who mentioned the GOP?
> 
> I certainly didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also known around the world by journalists and law enforcement as the problem. They will not allow birth control to be available in the United States or in the rest of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Birth control is widely available in the United States and the rest of the developed world
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fertility rates are falling all around the world anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and more so in affluent countries.
> 
> Gee i guess when women aren't relegated to the home they decide not to have as many kids
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess liberals 'approve' of some choices for women (but not for female babies), but not others. The hypocrisy abounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it matters not if anyone approves of another's choices since they are not the business of anyone else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes they are. Often, in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not if they do not directly affect you ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your neighbor chops his brother up with a meat cleaver, does that directly affect you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really but murder is one of those things we don't condone
> 
> And that's a far cry from a woman choosing not to have kids isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on how she goes about 'choosing' that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if it's legal it's none of your business
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, morality is determined by law, not the other way around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Morality is subjective.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if you except [sic] some outside moral authority.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ironic error. Morality isn't "outside."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and there is no moral authority beyond human beings .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So insecure. Interesting. I'll leave aside your failure of logic as I suspect it is pretty far over your head. Regardless, laws reflect what society understands to be moral (humans are willfully fallible in this regard all too often). Case in point, if grand theft auto were made 'legal' tomorrow, would YOU go out and steal a car? Would you excuse auto theft on the part of your neighbor because "well, it's legal!"? If slavery were made legal tomorrow, would you go out and enslave your fellow man? Why or why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I just disagree with you.  No insecurity involved.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, of course not!
Click to expand...

ah yes you are the intellectual paragon of the message board and anyone who disagrees with you is insecure


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Unkotare said:


> Consider the consequences of having fewer and fewer younger people of working age and more and more elderly people living longer and longer. An increasingly imbalanced equation, and one that is playing out before our eyes in several countries now.



 And not to mention how technology and globalism exacerbate these problems.
Several times here I have repeated what the Chinese Minister of Finance said several years ago when asked - 'what is the greatest challenge facing the world today economically" - his answer was a great one. "What to do with the excess population". Basically even though population is on a decline, the number of people needed to provide the needs and services for that countries population is becoming smaller every year.
 20 years ago, it might have taken 150,000 working people to provide for a million population. Today that number is more like 110,000 per say. Technology, corporatism and globalism is already creating a mass economic problem... as jobs for the masses are disappearing.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ....The death penalty is a prime example of the subjectivity of morality.  Either it's wrong to kill another human  or it's not. ...



Incorrect. The death penalty is not arbitrary killing, quite the contrary.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
Click to expand...


and who made up the definition?

some guy that's who.

And i gave you examples of the subjectivity of morals in both an anthropological and modern day context


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The death penalty is a prime example of the subjectivity of morality.  Either it's wrong to kill another human  or it's not. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The death penalty is not arbitrary killing, quite the contrary.
Click to expand...


It is a killing that serves no purpose.

and some people get the death penalty for murder and some don't that is pretty arbitrary.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ...There is no absolute moral code on the taking of a human life.



So, if such "taking" were made 'legal' tomorrow, you would have no problem grabbing some kid off the street at random and killing him?


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
Click to expand...


There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...There is no absolute moral code on the taking of a human life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if such "taking" were made 'legal' tomorrow, you would have no problem grabbing some kid off the street at random and killing him?
Click to expand...


A hypothetical.

I have been raised in a society that has had a prohibition of murder so I find it reprehensible.

Had I been raised on a society that celebrated the murder of strangers entering the defined territory of my society then I would not find murder on an interloper reprehensible.

How can there be some universal absolute moral code authored by man when in our history or even today we put different standards on killing another for no reason?

If you plan and commit a murder in MA you will not be put to death do the same in TX and you will be put to death.

In this case 2 states in the same country have taken 2 different moral stances.  How is that an absolute?


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The death penalty is a prime example of the subjectivity of morality.  Either it's wrong to kill another human  or it's not. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The death penalty is not arbitrary killing, quite the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a killing that serves no purpose.
> .....
Click to expand...


Incorrect. It is an endpoint of our judicial system intended to maintain security and order in society. YOU might disagree with the purpose, but it does serve a purpose.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
Click to expand...


So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, when a turning point is reached things happen fast and can't be turned around on a dime. Take a look at South Korea today. Take a look at China 30 years from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China’s Population Destiny: The Looming Crisis
> 
> 
> China’s demographic landscape has been thoroughly redrawn by unprecedented population changes in recent decades. Wang Feng writes on China’s rapidly aging population, and its domestic and international ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.brookings.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China Population: From Explosion to Implosion
> 
> 
> China's one-child policy, which compelled couples to seek abortions or undergo sterilization procedures, ended in October 2015. Yet the country's birth rate hasn't increased, and Communist Party officials are concerned about economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.planetizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population decline will hit China hard – DW – 09/09/2019
> 
> 
> Business leaders and analysts see the global population declining in the next century, and China will be badly affected. The Asian nation is well-advised to make precautions soon to avoid a humanitarian crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's only a crisis if you buy into the theiry [sic] that any and all economic contractions are undesirable.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we're back to you not reading the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read all the other ones and this is the theory you buy into so I assume the last couple were just going to support the theory you agree with.
> 
> Go ahead tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the "theory" as you think you understand it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a nutshell, smaller population leads to less productivity and that is undesirable.
> 
> But a smaller population will have fewer material needs so a lowering of productivity is to be expected.
> 
> There are pros and cons to both.
> 
> The population will peak then decline that is inevitable.  People adapt that's why there are 7 billion plus people on the planet
Click to expand...


Is it not prudent to plan for the inevitable so as to mitigate the suffering of people during the process of adaptation?


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The death penalty is a prime example of the subjectivity of morality.  Either it's wrong to kill another human  or it's not. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The death penalty is not arbitrary killing, quite the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a killing that serves no purpose.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect. It is an endpoint of our judicial system intended to maintain security and order in society. YOU might disagree with the purpose, but it does serve a purpose.
Click to expand...


As I said  we have various states in this country that say the death penalty is immoral and we have some that say it is.

Where is your absolute moral code in this instance?


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
Click to expand...


Do you breathe air?


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The fact is the decline if it happens will be quite slow .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, when a turning point is reached things happen fast and can't be turned around on a dime. Take a look at South Korea today. Take a look at China 30 years from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China’s Population Destiny: The Looming Crisis
> 
> 
> China’s demographic landscape has been thoroughly redrawn by unprecedented population changes in recent decades. Wang Feng writes on China’s rapidly aging population, and its domestic and international ramifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.brookings.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China Population: From Explosion to Implosion
> 
> 
> China's one-child policy, which compelled couples to seek abortions or undergo sterilization procedures, ended in October 2015. Yet the country's birth rate hasn't increased, and Communist Party officials are concerned about economic growth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.planetizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Population decline will hit China hard – DW – 09/09/2019
> 
> 
> Business leaders and analysts see the global population declining in the next century, and China will be badly affected. The Asian nation is well-advised to make precautions soon to avoid a humanitarian crisis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's only a crisis if you buy into the theiry [sic] that any and all economic contractions are undesirable.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now we're back to you not reading the links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read all the other ones and this is the theory you buy into so I assume the last couple were just going to support the theory you agree with.
> 
> Go ahead tell me I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the "theory" as you think you understand it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In a nutshell, smaller population leads to less productivity and that is undesirable.
> 
> But a smaller population will have fewer material needs so a lowering of productivity is to be expected.
> 
> There are pros and cons to both.
> 
> The population will peak then decline that is inevitable.  People adapt that's why there are 7 billion plus people on the planet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it not prudent to plan for the inevitable so as to mitigate the suffering of people during the process of adaptation?
Click to expand...

we can prepare the same way we have dealt with a rapidly increasing population by using technology.

if we automate more and more industrial processes fewer people can produce the same or more


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The death penalty is a prime example of the subjectivity of morality.  Either it's wrong to kill another human  or it's not. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The death penalty is not arbitrary killing, quite the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a killing that serves no purpose.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect. It is an endpoint of our judicial system intended to maintain security and order in society. YOU might disagree with the purpose, but it does serve a purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said  we have various states in this country that say the death penalty is immoral and we have some that say it is.
> 
> Where is your absolute moral code in this instance?
Click to expand...


What people disagree on there is ethics, not morality.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
Click to expand...


Are you sitting in a chair?


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The death penalty is a prime example of the subjectivity of morality.  Either it's wrong to kill another human  or it's not. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The death penalty is not arbitrary killing, quite the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a killing that serves no purpose.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect. It is an endpoint of our judicial system intended to maintain security and order in society. YOU might disagree with the purpose, but it does serve a purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said  we have various states in this country that say the death penalty is immoral and we have some that say it is.
> 
> Where is your absolute moral code in this instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people disagree on there is ethics, not morality.
Click to expand...


Saying it is wrong to use capital punishment is a moral judgement


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ...
> we can prepare the same way we have dealt with a rapidly increasing population by using technology.
> 
> if we automate more and more industrial processes fewer people can produce the same or more



Just by snapping our fingers, and there would be no disastrous economic consequences in the meantime?


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
Click to expand...


No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The death penalty is a prime example of the subjectivity of morality.  Either it's wrong to kill another human  or it's not. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The death penalty is not arbitrary killing, quite the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a killing that serves no purpose.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect. It is an endpoint of our judicial system intended to maintain security and order in society. YOU might disagree with the purpose, but it does serve a purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said  we have various states in this country that say the death penalty is immoral and we have some that say it is.
> 
> Where is your absolute moral code in this instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people disagree on there is ethics, not morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying it is wrong to use capital punishment is a moral judgement
Click to expand...


It is an ethical question for the very reason that the death penalty is not arbitrary killing.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ...
> 
> I have been raised in a society that has had a prohibition of murder so I find it reprehensible.
> 
> Had I been raised on a society that celebrated the murder of strangers entering the defined territory of my society then I would not find murder on an interloper reprehensible.
> ...




So, you do not have free will?


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ...
> 
> How can there be some universal absolute moral code authored by man when in our history or even today we put different standards on killing another for no reason?
> ...



We are not talking about killing for no reason. Find a death penalty case where the convicted was charged with "just because."


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ....
> 
> If you plan and commit a murder in MA you will not be put to death do the same in TX and you will be put to death.
> 
> In this case 2 states in the same country have taken 2 different moral stances.  How is that an absolute?



You're comparing two different laws, not morality itself. Murder is wrong in Texas and Massachusetts. Punishing murder is accepted in Texas and Massachusetts.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Unkotare said:


> You're comparing two different laws, not morality itself. Murder is wrong in Texas and Massachusetts. Punishing murder is accepted in Texas and Massachusetts.


 Correct.
Both agree it is immoral, but approach the punishment of said immorality differently


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....The death penalty is a prime example of the subjectivity of morality.  Either it's wrong to kill another human  or it's not. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. The death penalty is not arbitrary killing, quite the contrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a killing that serves no purpose.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incorrect. It is an endpoint of our judicial system intended to maintain security and order in society. YOU might disagree with the purpose, but it does serve a purpose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said  we have various states in this country that say the death penalty is immoral and we have some that say it is.
> 
> Where is your absolute moral code in this instance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people disagree on there is ethics, not morality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying it is wrong to use capital punishment is a moral judgement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is an ethical question for the very reason that the death penalty is not arbitrary killing.
Click to expand...


One could say no killing is arbitrary.  First degree murder requires malice aforethought so that's not arbitrary/  Second degree murder requires intent so that's not arbitrary.  Hell even manslaughter isn't arbitrary it's more accidental.

That still doesn't reconcile the fact that we have states that cannot agree that capital punishment is acceptable.  

That comes down to moral relativism.   Some people can justify capital punishment some can't.

So what is the absolute moral stance on that subject that you say exists?


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> If you plan and commit a murder in MA you will not be put to death do the same in TX and you will be put to death.
> 
> In this case 2 states in the same country have taken 2 different moral stances.  How is that an absolute?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're comparing two different laws, not morality itself. Murder is wrong in Texas and Massachusetts. Punishing murder is accepted in Texas and Massachusetts.
Click to expand...


Capital punishment is the planned killing of a person.  So is first degree murder.

and MA punishes murderers with a life prison term so why not kill the guy in MA?

our own state populations and state government cannot agree that capital punishment is acceptable so there is no absolute morality.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> How can there be some universal absolute moral code authored by man when in our history or even today we put different standards on killing another for no reason?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are not talking about killing for no reason. Find a death penalty case where the convicted was charged with "just because."
Click to expand...


So what of the wrongly convicted?


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I have been raised in a society that has had a prohibition of murder so I find it reprehensible.
> 
> Had I been raised on a society that celebrated the murder of strangers entering the defined territory of my society then I would not find murder on an interloper reprehensible.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you do not have free will?
Click to expand...


there really is no consensus among psychologists that free will exists or is an illusion.

Whether you like it or not we are conditioned from birth by our parents then society as a whole.

So the answer to the question is maybe.

But if I choose not to kill for any reason there is not necessarily some universal morality that is acting on me.  It's more a result of societal influence IMO.

So let's not use the killing of a person.

If  I am mowing a lawn and a flock of 100 baby chickens are in my way and I mow over them macerating them into pulp chances are people would be horrified to witness that and there's a good chance I would be arrested.

Now those people that were horrified by my killing those baby chickens all go out to breakfast for omelettes and  all talk about what a vile person I am yet the egg industry macerates live male newly hatched chickens by the thousands on a daily basis.

Subjective morality.  Cognitive dissonance.  Call it what you will but we do the same thing with murder.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
Click to expand...

I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
Click to expand...


I told you I was not.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
Click to expand...


If you were I could argue that you were not even though you might think you were.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
Click to expand...


For the third time, I was not. Let it go.


----------



## Unkotare

From 2019 to 2020 the US population grew at the smallest rate in 120 years.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
Click to expand...

so you don't understand the word if?

You asked if I breathed air 

It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception.  

I didn't think what I said would be so confusing to a person who thinks he's smarter than everyone else.

ARe you always so literal?  It would be nice to know for future reference?


----------



## Anomalism

With the population density of NYC you could fit the entire world inside Texas. Future infrastructure will no doubt make even more density sustainable. This planet could hold a lot more people than it currently does.


----------



## Blues Man

Anomalism said:


> With the population density of NYC you could fit the entire world inside Texas. Future infrastructure will no doubt make even more density sustainable. This planet could hold a lot more people than it currently does.



It could but what's the upside of a densely populated planet?


----------



## Anomalism

Blues Man said:


> It could but what's the upside of a densely populated planet?



If it ever got to that point I think it would be less of an upside/downside thing and more of a necessity thing.


----------



## sparky

Mad_Jack_Flint said:


> and they will start a breeding program like Australia had once



maybe i understand those nose rings now.....~S~


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
Click to expand...


Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.


----------



## Unkotare

Anomalism said:


> With the population density of NYC you could fit the entire world inside Texas. Future infrastructure will no doubt make even more density sustainable. This planet could hold a lot more people than it currently does.



Right, but it won't need to. Still, some people just can't let go of a false crisis they were fed as children.


----------



## Anomalism

Unkotare said:


> Right, but it won't need to. Still, some people just can't let go of a false crisis they were fed as children.



Hopefully you're right about the population leveling off. We have enough people.


----------



## Unkotare

Anomalism said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, but it won't need to. Still, some people just can't let go of a false crisis they were fed as children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully you're right about the population leveling off. We have enough people.
Click to expand...


Maybe someone said that moments before Edward Jenner was born.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
Click to expand...

you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.

you missed the point of my question


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
Click to expand...


MY question was entirely relevant.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
Click to expand...

no it wasn't.

My respiration has nothing to do with either the population density or the morals offshoot of the discussion


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
Click to expand...


Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
Click to expand...


it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
Click to expand...


It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
Click to expand...


no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist
Click to expand...


Just because you are incapable or unwilling to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't proven. Keep studying, and maybe some day you'll be equipped.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you are incapable or unwilling to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't proven. Keep studying, and maybe some day you'll be equipped.
Click to expand...


Please oh message board sage tell me how my respiration disproves moral relativism


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you are incapable or unwilling to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't proven. Keep studying, and maybe some day you'll be equipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please oh message board sage tell me how my respiration disproves moral relativism
Click to expand...


I already told you. Go back and re-read all the posts from yesterday if you'd like to take another shot at understanding it.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you are incapable or unwilling to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't proven. Keep studying, and maybe some day you'll be equipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please oh message board sage tell me how my respiration disproves moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you. Go back and re-read all the posts from yesterday if you'd like to take another shot at understanding it.
Click to expand...

 no you gave a non-answer by claiming morals are absolute by definition.

yet no dictionary definition says morals are absolute


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you are incapable or unwilling to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't proven. Keep studying, and maybe some day you'll be equipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please oh message board sage tell me how my respiration disproves moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you. Go back and re-read all the posts from yesterday if you'd like to take another shot at understanding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you gave a non-answer by claiming morals are absolute by definition.
> 
> yet no dictionary definition says morals are absolute
Click to expand...


Maybe when you're a little older you'll understand.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you are incapable or unwilling to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't proven. Keep studying, and maybe some day you'll be equipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please oh message board sage tell me how my respiration disproves moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you. Go back and re-read all the posts from yesterday if you'd like to take another shot at understanding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you gave a non-answer by claiming morals are absolute by definition.
> 
> yet no dictionary definition says morals are absolute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe when you're a little older you'll understand.
Click to expand...


Maybe you'll learn to think for yourself and not parrot whatever dogma you have been fed


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you are incapable or unwilling to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't proven. Keep studying, and maybe some day you'll be equipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please oh message board sage tell me how my respiration disproves moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you. Go back and re-read all the posts from yesterday if you'd like to take another shot at understanding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you gave a non-answer by claiming morals are absolute by definition.
> 
> yet no dictionary definition says morals are absolute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe when you're a little older you'll understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll learn to think for yourself and not parrot whatever dogma you have been fed
Click to expand...


What dogma have I been fed?


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you are incapable or unwilling to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't proven. Keep studying, and maybe some day you'll be equipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please oh message board sage tell me how my respiration disproves moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you. Go back and re-read all the posts from yesterday if you'd like to take another shot at understanding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you gave a non-answer by claiming morals are absolute by definition.
> 
> yet no dictionary definition says morals are absolute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe when you're a little older you'll understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll learn to think for yourself and not parrot whatever dogma you have been fed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What dogma have I been fed?
Click to expand...

that morals are absolute.

You claim that they are by definition yet you have not provided the definition of morals that states that have you?

So I can only come to the conclusion that you are merely stating a belief and cannot provide any evidence of this absolute moral code you say exists


----------



## gipper

The shit will hit the fan when science stops or slows aging, and life spans are greatly increased.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Overpopulation was the Left's fear tool 50 years ago.
Today's Left Wing fear tool is global warming.
The Left tells women that having children will increase global warming, so they decide to not have children.
This is Darwin in action.
Cultures that do not reproduce will go extinct.


----------



## Blues Man

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Overpopulation was the Left's fear tool 50 years ago.
> Today's Left Wing fear tool is global warming.
> The Left tells women that having children will increase global warming, so they decide to not have children.
> This is Darwin in action.
> Cultures that do not reproduce will go extinct.
> 
> View attachment 432587


I don't care if some cultures go extinct.

That's the way it has always been.

Nothing is permanent


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you are incapable or unwilling to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't proven. Keep studying, and maybe some day you'll be equipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please oh message board sage tell me how my respiration disproves moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you. Go back and re-read all the posts from yesterday if you'd like to take another shot at understanding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you gave a non-answer by claiming morals are absolute by definition.
> 
> yet no dictionary definition says morals are absolute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe when you're a little older you'll understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll learn to think for yourself and not parrot whatever dogma you have been fed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What dogma have I been fed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that morals are absolute.
> 
> You claim that they are by definition yet you have not provided the definition of morals that states that have you?
> 
> So I can only come to the conclusion that you are merely stating a belief and cannot provide any evidence of this absolute moral code you say exists
Click to expand...


If you're really interested in beginning your education:






						Moral Universalism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
					

Philosophy: Ethics > Moral Universalism




					www.philosophybasics.com
				




If ignorance is more comfortable for you, that's you shortcoming.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you are incapable or unwilling to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't proven. Keep studying, and maybe some day you'll be equipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please oh message board sage tell me how my respiration disproves moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you. Go back and re-read all the posts from yesterday if you'd like to take another shot at understanding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you gave a non-answer by claiming morals are absolute by definition.
> 
> yet no dictionary definition says morals are absolute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe when you're a little older you'll understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll learn to think for yourself and not parrot whatever dogma you have been fed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What dogma have I been fed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that morals are absolute.
> 
> You claim that they are by definition yet you have not provided the definition of morals that states that have you?
> 
> So I can only come to the conclusion that you are merely stating a belief and cannot provide any evidence of this absolute moral code you say exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're really interested in beginning your education:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moral Universalism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
> 
> 
> Philosophy: Ethics > Moral Universalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.philosophybasics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If ignorance is more comfortable for you, that's you shortcoming.
Click to expand...




i can post writings that say morals are not universal.

and I have given example of how morals have changed over time.

You simply agree with this particular idea and as we have seen you really get peeved when people disagree with you.


----------



## Unkotare

The idea of 'overpopulation' is so attractive to democrats, given their hostility to life in general, that they resist moving on from it no matter how clear the demographic trends become.  A shrinking population doesn't support the democrat enthusiasm for abortion either. On the other hand, those people who are terrified of immigrants ("shoot women and children if they set foot across the border! Kill 'em all! Aaaaaa!") will eventually have to come to terms with some legal process of increased immigration.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you are incapable or unwilling to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't proven. Keep studying, and maybe some day you'll be equipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please oh message board sage tell me how my respiration disproves moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you. Go back and re-read all the posts from yesterday if you'd like to take another shot at understanding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you gave a non-answer by claiming morals are absolute by definition.
> 
> yet no dictionary definition says morals are absolute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe when you're a little older you'll understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll learn to think for yourself and not parrot whatever dogma you have been fed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What dogma have I been fed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that morals are absolute.
> 
> You claim that they are by definition yet you have not provided the definition of morals that states that have you?
> 
> So I can only come to the conclusion that you are merely stating a belief and cannot provide any evidence of this absolute moral code you say exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're really interested in beginning your education:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moral Universalism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
> 
> 
> Philosophy: Ethics > Moral Universalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.philosophybasics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If ignorance is more comfortable for you, that's you shortcoming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can post writings that say morals are not universal.
> 
> and I have given example of how morals have changed over time.
> 
> You simply agree with this particular idea and as we have seen you really get peeved when people disagree with you.
Click to expand...


As I expected, you are more comfortable with ignorance. Ah well, there are only so many tricks you can expect a farm animal to learn.


----------



## gipper

Blues Man said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overpopulation was the Left's fear tool 50 years ago.
> Today's Left Wing fear tool is global warming.
> The Left tells women that having children will increase global warming, so they decide to not have children.
> This is Darwin in action.
> Cultures that do not reproduce will go extinct.
> 
> View attachment 432587
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if some cultures go extinct.
> 
> That's the way it has always been.
> 
> Nothing is permanent
Click to expand...

The US government believes it’s permanent.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Morality is subjective ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By definition, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and who made up the definition?
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are different words in different languages to describe things we experience in the course of living. The word "blue" does not make the sky blue. The word "time" did not 'invent' time just because the English language developed a word for it. If you suffered aphasia and forgot the word "mountain," would all mountains in the world suddenly vanish? Fish swim in the sea no matter what word in any language we use to describe it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So once upon a time morals were called something else.  That does not in any way mean that there is some moral absolute standard placed upon humans or inherent to human beings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you breathe air?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you sitting in a chair?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am not. Sitting in a chair is not an inescapable aspect of living as a sentient being in this plane of existence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can argue that you are not sitting on a chair even if you think you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you I was not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you were I could argue that you were not ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the third time, I was not. Let it go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you don't understand the word if?
> 
> You asked if I breathed air
> 
> It can be argued that I'm not and it is just my perception....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, I get that you are trying to be cute and cartesian. It is clumsy and amateurish, so I was magnanimously giving you a chance to let it go and save face. I guess you just can't help some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you asked me an irrelevant question about respiration.
> 
> you missed the point of my question
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> MY question was entirely relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no it wasn't.
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it was. I was demonstrating to you just how pointless your amateur attempts at semantics were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was you avoiding the argument on moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was part of me proving that doesn't exist, and you struggling with the English language.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no it wasn't because you didn't prove that moral relativism doesn't exist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you are incapable or unwilling to understand it doesn't mean it wasn't proven. Keep studying, and maybe some day you'll be equipped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please oh message board sage tell me how my respiration disproves moral relativism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already told you. Go back and re-read all the posts from yesterday if you'd like to take another shot at understanding it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no you gave a non-answer by claiming morals are absolute by definition.
> 
> yet no dictionary definition says morals are absolute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe when you're a little older you'll understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you'll learn to think for yourself and not parrot whatever dogma you have been fed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What dogma have I been fed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that morals are absolute.
> 
> You claim that they are by definition yet you have not provided the definition of morals that states that have you?
> 
> So I can only come to the conclusion that you are merely stating a belief and cannot provide any evidence of this absolute moral code you say exists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you're really interested in beginning your education:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moral Universalism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
> 
> 
> Philosophy: Ethics > Moral Universalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.philosophybasics.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If ignorance is more comfortable for you, that's you shortcoming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i can post writings that say morals are not universal.
> 
> and I have given example of how morals have changed over time.
> 
> You simply agree with this particular idea and as we have seen you really get peeved when people disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I expected, you are more comfortable with ignorance. Ah well, there are only so many tricks you can expect a farm animal to learn.
Click to expand...

all you did was give me the definition of universal morality.  You gave me no proof that morals are indeed universal and absolute.

all you did was give me a link that said what you particular belief was but no real proof that morals are absolute but rather that only some people think they are.

I gave you examples where morals have evolved as humans have evolved.  if morals can change then by definition they are not absolute

You're a teacher right?

Do you let your students get away with the  laziness you have shown here?


----------



## Blues Man

gipper said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overpopulation was the Left's fear tool 50 years ago.
> Today's Left Wing fear tool is global warming.
> The Left tells women that having children will increase global warming, so they decide to not have children.
> This is Darwin in action.
> Cultures that do not reproduce will go extinct.
> 
> View attachment 432587
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if some cultures go extinct.
> 
> That's the way it has always been.
> 
> Nothing is permanent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US government believes it’s permanent.
Click to expand...

the US government in not an entity capable of thought.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ...
> 
> I gave you examples where morals have evolved as humans have evolved.  ...



No, you didn't.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ...if morals can change then by definition t...



They can't.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Overpopulation was the Left's fear tool 50 years ago.
> Today's Left Wing fear tool is global warming.
> The Left tells women that having children will increase global warming, so they decide to not have children.
> This is Darwin in action.
> Cultures that do not reproduce will go extinct.
> 
> View attachment 432587
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if some cultures go extinct.
> 
> That's the way it has always been.
> 
> Nothing is permanent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The US government believes it’s permanent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the US government in not an entity capable of thought.
Click to expand...


Kind of like you!


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I gave you examples where morals have evolved as humans have evolved.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't.
Click to expand...


wow.

I did specifically give you an example where tribal societies would kill any stranger that came into their territory and how that the killing of interlopers was accepted and even promoted because any stranger was a threat to the tribe do you dispute that?  Do you think these tribal societies had a prohibition on murder similar to ours?

Morals change as societies change.  Just look at modern societies change of attitude on sex and sexuality.

Morals are a societal contract and that contract can and does change over time.

But let's get back yo your laziness.

I asked you to provide a definition of morals that said morals were absolute.

You provided a definition of moral absolutism not of morals.

Surely since you are the most intelligent poster here and the arbiter of all knowledge you must be able to see the difference


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...if morals can change then by definition t...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't.
Click to expand...

but they do


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I gave you examples where morals have evolved as humans have evolved.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow.
> 
> I did specifically give you an example where tribal societies would kill any stranger that came into their territory...
Click to expand...


Which would be immoral.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...if morals can change then by definition t...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but they do
Click to expand...


By definition, they do not.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ...
> 
> Morals change as societies change. ...



They do not. Laws change as societies develop.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ...Morals are a societal contract ...




Nope. Those are called laws.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Having enough workers in the future will be a problem.
Having enough taxpayers in the future will also be a problem.
So get out there and make some babies.
Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born - BBC News


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I gave you examples where morals have evolved as humans have evolved.  ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> wow.
> 
> I did specifically give you an example where tribal societies would kill any stranger that came into their territory...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which would be immoral.
Click to expand...

not to them it wasn't

in fact it was encouraged.

There are countless examples of moral relativism in modern society.

It's immoral to kill another for your own reasons but if the government tells you to kill that same person it's not immoral.

that is not an indication of humans possessing an absolute moral code.

It's immoral for you to kill a man that murdered your wife but it's not immoral for the government to kill the same man.


how many other societal morals have changed?

What about those concerning sex and sexuality what about drug use?

There in no absolute moral code.

Morals are nothing but societal rules that evolve as societies evolve.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...if morals can change then by definition t...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but they do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, they do not.
Click to expand...

and you have not provided me any definition of morals that says morals are universal and absolute.


----------



## Unkotare

I showed you how to start learning something. If you'd rather wallow in ignorance because it justifies the rest of the easy narrative you use to calm your fears, that's up to you.


----------



## Blues Man

TroglocratsRdumb said:


> Having enough workers in the future will be a problem.
> Having enough taxpayers in the future will also be a problem.
> So get out there and make some babies.
> Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born - BBC News
> View attachment 432673
> View attachment 432674


we will make up for the smaller workforce with technology.

technology has allowed us to produce more of everything why can't that same tech make the productivity of a smaller workforce just as or more efficient as a larger workforce?


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...if morals can change then by definition t...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but they do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you have not provided me any definition of morals that says morals are universal and absolute.
Click to expand...


The very notion terrifies you, doesn't it? I've seen your type before kid.  Closing your eyes doesn't change anything.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> TroglocratsRdumb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having enough workers in the future will be a problem.
> Having enough taxpayers in the future will also be a problem.
> So get out there and make some babies.
> Fertility rate: 'Jaw-dropping' global crash in children being born - BBC News
> View attachment 432673
> View attachment 432674
> 
> 
> 
> we will make up for the smaller workforce with technology.
> .....
Click to expand...


Instantly? And that absolves you of facing the challenge and the work? You're mentally lazy and existentially insecure. An empty shell of a human being.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> I showed you how to start learning something. If you'd rather wallow in ignorance because it justifies the rest of the easy narrative you use to calm your fears, that's up to you.


what fears?

See this is what you do.  When a person disagrees with you you endlessly dodge the discussion .

You think you are right all the time and anyone that disagrees with you is somehow uneducated, ignorant or afraid.

you have not provided any evidence that there is a universal absolute moral code beyond posting a description of the philosophy of moral absolutism and that some people believe it to be true.

it's you who took the lazy way out


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ...
> 
> how many other societal morals have changed?
> .....



Social mores are not morality writ large. They are at most a reflection of a given peoples fallible understanding of morality (which is universal).


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...if morals can change then by definition t...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but they do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you have not provided me any definition of morals that says morals are universal and absolute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very notion terrifies you, doesn't it? I've seen your type before kid.  Closing your eyes doesn't change anything.
Click to expand...

not at all.  Why would I be terrified?

it's you who are hiding under your rock. You say I'm right, you're wrong and that's all there is to it.

it is you who is refusing to delve into the topic


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> how many other societal morals have changed?
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social mores are not morality writ large. They are at most a reflection of a given peoples fallible understanding of morality (which is universal).
Click to expand...


Of course they are.

Humans have made up the idea of right and wrong and have defined it and have changed that definition as they go along


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you how to start learning something. If you'd rather wallow in ignorance because it justifies the rest of the easy narrative you use to calm your fears, that's up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> what fears?
> ...
Click to expand...


Your deep and abiding fear that there is something more than whatever _you_ might consider convenient at any given time. Arrested development.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> how many other societal morals have changed?
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social mores are not morality writ large. They are at most a reflection of a given peoples fallible understanding of morality (which is universal).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are.
> 
> Humans have made up the idea of right and wrong and have defined it and have changed that definition as they go along
Click to expand...


Don't bring it back to your inability to comprehend semantics and ontology. I showed you where to start learning, but you are unwilling or unable.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> how many other societal morals have changed?
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social mores are not morality writ large. They are at most a reflection of a given peoples fallible understanding of morality (which is universal).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are.
> 
> Humans have made up the idea of right and wrong and have defined it and have changed that definition as they go along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't bring it back to your inability to comprehend semantics and ontology. I showed you where to start learning, but you are unwilling or unable.
Click to expand...

and you assume I need to learn to agree with you.

I don't.

tell me humans didn't create the idea of right and wrong who did?


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...if morals can change then by definition t...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but they do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you have not provided me any definition of morals that says morals are universal and absolute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very notion terrifies you, doesn't it? I've seen your type before kid.  Closing your eyes doesn't change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not at all.  Why would I be terrified?
> .....
Click to expand...


Because your little ego has been conditioned to reject anything that suggests any truth or authority outside and above yourself (although you know there is). If you were caught in an avalanche, you wouldn't die of suffocation; you would die of impotent frustration. For perpetual children like you, every day in the real world is another stop-motion frame of the big avalanche. The only way a juvenile animal of your limitations can carry on is to pretend none of it is happening and you are in control of everything. Guess what, animal?


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> how many other societal morals have changed?
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social mores are not morality writ large. They are at most a reflection of a given peoples fallible understanding of morality (which is universal).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course they are.
> 
> Humans have made up the idea of right and wrong and have defined it and have changed that definition as they go along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't bring it back to your inability to comprehend semantics and ontology. I showed you where to start learning, but you are unwilling or unable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you assume I need to learn to agree with you.
> 
> I don't.
> 
> tell me humans didn't create the idea of right and wrong who did?
Click to expand...


We've been through this. You lack the tools to discuss semantics at the level you need to understand.


----------



## Anomalism

Unkotare said:


> If you were caught in an avalanche, you wouldn't die of suffocation; you would die of impotent frustration.



This actually got a laugh out of me. Well done.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...if morals can change then by definition t...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> but they do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By definition, they do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you have not provided me any definition of morals that says morals are universal and absolute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very notion terrifies you, doesn't it? I've seen your type before kid.  Closing your eyes doesn't change anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not at all.  Why would I be terrified?
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because your little ego has been conditioned to reject anything that suggests any truth or authority outside and above yourself (although you know there is). If you were caught in an avalanche, you wouldn't die of suffocation; you would die of impotent frustration. For perpetual children like you, every day in the real world is another stop-motion frame of the big avalanche. The only way a juvenile animal of your limitations can carry on is to pretend none of it is happening and you are in control of everything. Guess what, animal?
Click to expand...


wrong again.

You again assume that your position is the one and only right one.

If that's not a fragile ego speaking I don't know what is.

You can't even consider that you have been programmed to think that morality comes from some external source that is beyond humans.

I came at the subject of morals in my own self initiated course of inquiry.  You just believe what you have been told all your life which is why you can't even consider any other point of view because it threatens your world view


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> ...
> 
> I came at the subject of morals in my own self initiated course of inquiry. ...



In other words,  you haven't actually studied any of the subjects underlying the issues in question. You pretend your feeeeeelings are anything more than what they obviously are.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> I came at the subject of morals in my own self initiated course of inquiry. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words,  you haven't actually studied any of the subjects underlying the issues in question. You pretend your feeeeeelings are anything more than what they obviously are.
Click to expand...

actually I have and don't forget you're the one who specializes in ad hominem attacks not me.

That type of hostility over a conversation about a philosophical subject is more a sign of your fragile ego and outright immaturity as you have made it abundantly clear that you think anyone who holds a differing opinion that you is somehow intellectually inferior to you. 

People who always have to be right are insecure.

and let's not forget I have attempted to give you examples to discuss that touch on the differences of morals of different societies you not only refuse to discuss anything but you have not given me anything that supports your position other than a definition of moral absolutism and you constantly telling me I'm wrong.

Good bye and Merry Christmas


----------



## Unkotare

World population likely to shrink after mid-century, forecasting major shifts in global population and economic power
					

With widespread, sustained declines in fertility, the world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100 -- about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates, according to a new study.



					www.sciencedaily.com


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com



We could listen to you or the UN

Harrowing New UN Report Finds Humans Are The ‘Unequivocal’ Cause Of Climate Change​The latest review of climate literature finds that the window to avert catastrophic warming with existing tools is rapidly closing.









						Harrowing New UN Report Finds Humans Are The ‘Unequivocal’ Cause Of Climate Change
					

The latest review of climate literature finds that the window to avert catastrophic warming with existing tools is rapidly closing.




					www.huffpost.com
				




A new United Nations report reaffirms what world governments have known and failed to deal with for decades: that climate change is our fault, is already causing devastation around the globe and will continue to get worse.
How much worse is entirely up to us.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> World population likely to shrink after mid-century, forecasting major shifts in global population and economic power
> 
> 
> With widespread, sustained declines in fertility, the world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion, and then decline to about 8.8 billion by 2100 -- about 2 billion lower than some previous estimates, according to a new study.
> 
> 
> 
> www.sciencedaily.com


We better hurry.  How low is the number going to go?


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> We could listen to you or the UN
> 
> Harrowing New UN Report Finds Humans Are The ‘Unequivocal’ Cause Of Climate Change​The latest review of climate literature finds that the window to avert catastrophic warming with existing tools is rapidly closing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harrowing New UN Report Finds Humans Are The ‘Unequivocal’ Cause Of Climate Change
> 
> 
> The latest review of climate literature finds that the window to avert catastrophic warming with existing tools is rapidly closing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.huffpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new United Nations report reaffirms what world governments have known and failed to deal with for decades: that climate change is our fault, is already causing devastation around the globe and will continue to get worse.
> How much worse is entirely up to us.


That report is not about the myth of 'overpopulation.'


----------



## JoeBlow

The state of our environment and its continued decline are proof that there are already too many humans on this planet.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> We better hurry.  How low is the number going to go?


Good job contradicting yourself.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeBlow said:


> The state of our environment and its continued decline are proof that there are already too many humans on this planet.


Wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

fncceo said:


> Fretting about overpopulation is the ultimate in elitism.
> 
> "Far too many of YOU... just the right amount of ME."


Is that a quote from Cori Bush?


----------



## sealybobo

JoeBlow said:


> The state of our environment and its continued decline are proof that there are already too many humans on this planet.


Unkotare can't seem to connect the dots.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Wrong.


But there are so many of us driving cars and motorcycles and we have to produce so many things in polluting factories and we are depleting our natural resources too fast.  You're dumb.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> But there are so many of us driving cars and motorcycles and we have to produce so many things in polluting factories and we are depleting our natural resources too fast.  ....


Once again you drop the ball at the conclusion.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com


.


----------



## JoeBlow

Unkotare said:


> Wrong.


lol, that the best you can do, lol.


----------



## sealybobo

JoeBlow said:


> lol, that the best you can do, lol.


I made a valid point too and this is what he came back with

"Once again you drop the ball at the conclusion."

I said we are depleting our natural resources too fast.  Am I wrong?  

I don't think unkotare is smart enough to see the other side of this issue.  He's certainly not capable or willing to have a good discussion about it.  Fuck him.  









						Earth Overshoot Day 2022 home - #MoveTheDate
					

Overshoot occurs when humanity's demand on nature exceeds Earth's biocapacity. In 2021, Earth Overshoot Day fell on July 28.




					www.overshootday.org
				




*Earth Overshoot Day* marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. In 2021, it fell on July 29.

And what was it in 2020?  Earth Overshoot Day was *August 22*, more than three weeks later than last year. 

So what will be our overshoot day in 2022?  Early July?

Unkotare, you're as dumb as the citizens on Krypton.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeBlow said:


> lol, that the best you can do, lol.


I didn't ask you to be wrong.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> ...
> 
> I don't think unkotare is smart enough to ....


Coming from you, of all people...


----------



## JoeBlow

Unkotare said:


> I didn't ask you to be wrong.


You're wrong, and you know it.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeBlow said:


> You're wrong, and you know it.


No, I don't know it. There is no "overpopulation."


----------



## JoeBlow

Unkotare said:


> No, I don't know it. There is no "overpopulation."


You know there is, you just want to be a jackass on purpose. I know your kind. Now you're going to insult me, aren't you, lol?


----------



## sealybobo

JoeBlow said:


> You know there is, you just want to be a jackass on purpose. I know your kind. Now you're going to insult me, aren't you, lol?


He does make a compelling argument.  "No we aren't".  How can you argue with that?


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Coming from you, of all people...


You pretend to be smart but you never say anything clever.  Why is that?  We aren't worth your time?  Then why spend all your time here?


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> You pretend to be smart but you never say anything clever. ....


You don't pretend to be stupid, you really are.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeBlow said:


> You know there is, ......


I know there is not, and there will not be.


----------



## JoeBlow

Unkotare said:


> I know there is not, and there will not be.


There already is, why do you think there's too much pollution in the world?


----------



## sealybobo

JoeBlow said:


> There already is, why do you think there's too much pollution in the world?


He thinks, because we "COULD" engineer a solution to this problem that this means we are not overpopulated. He's a fucking retard who can't explain what he believes.  You have to drag it out of him over several posts.  Don't waste your time unless you like pushing his buttons.  He is after all an inner city public school teacher.  Not to bright.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeBlow said:


> There already is, why do you think there's too much pollution in the world?


Pollution is not an indication of overpopulation. When the first human settlement was established the first pollution was born as well. Put a whole lot of very neat, careful people in the most populated city in the world and there will be much, much, much less pollution than another city a fraction of its size full of other people with other priorities.

The world is NOT overpopulated, and it is not going to be. Time to let go of a false crisis you were force-fed as a kid.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Pollution is not an indication of overpopulation. When the first human settlement was established the first pollution was born as well. Put a whole lot of very neat, careful people in the most populated city in the world and there will be much, much, much less pollution than another city a fraction of its size full of other people with other priorities.
> 
> The world is NOT overpopulated, and it is not going to be. Time to let go of a false crisis you were force-fed as a kid.


Yea but we are putting up so much pollution that we are causing global warming.  

We're not concerned about "pollution" that isn't destroying the planet.  Look at the oceans.  Look at man made climate change.

So we're to believe you not the UN?









						U.N. climate change report sounds 'code red for humanity'
					

Global warming is dangerously close to spiralling out of control, a U.N. climate panel said in a landmark report Monday, warning the world is already certain to face further climate disruptions for decades, if not centuries, to come.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> He thinks, because we "COULD" engineer a solution to this problem ....


Humans (not you) have been engineering solutions to problems for about a million years. In a few years more global population will begin a precipitous decline, so you can unbunch your panties and lay off the panic button. Human beings have a responsibility to be good stewards of this planet, but hysterical idiots like you two are just irrelevant noise.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Humans (not you) have been engineering solutions to problems for about a million years. In a few years more global population will begin a precipitous decline, so you can unbunch your panties and lay off the panic button. Human beings have a responsibility to be good stewards of this planet, but hysterical idiots like you two are just irrelevant noise.


Hope you are right, asshole


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> Hope you are right, asshole


Don't worry, I am.


----------



## shimon

It is all relative if we are destined to populate other planets we don’t have enough.. The thing is if the population was condensed into a small area we would fit easily into let’s say Spain and France leaving the rest of the world unpopulated… These ideas smack of Malthism who said we would starve long ago with way less of the population then we have now…Look at the vast tracks of land that are scarcely populated worldwide even in the states the majority of the population can be found on the eastern seaboard and some 50 odd million on the western leaving very small populations on the rest of it..


----------



## JoeBlow

Unkotare said:


> Pollution is not an indication of overpopulation. When the first human settlement was established the first pollution was born as well. Put a whole lot of very neat, careful people in the most populated city in the world and there will be much, much, much less pollution than another city a fraction of its size full of other people with other priorities.
> 
> The world is NOT overpopulated, and it is not going to be. Time to let go of a false crisis you were force-fed as a kid.


You're talking theoretically, I'm talking about the real world. Sure, if everything was perfect, we could fit more people on this planet without damaging it further, but you're in dreamland. Time to wake up.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeBlow said:


> ... but you're in dreamland. ....


You're hysterical, Chicken Little.


----------



## JoeBlow

Unkotare said:


> You're hysterical, Chicken Little.


So you can't counter my actual point and have to resort to insults. How old are you?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeBlow said:


> So you can't counter my actual point and have to resort to insults. How old are you?


What "actual point"? Just claiming I'm "in dreamland" because I don't buy into your myth? Is that what you consider an "actual point"?


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com


.


----------



## Unkotare

Blues Man said:


> One rather small country is hardly a good comparison to global populations.











						China demographic crisis looms as population growth slips to slowest ever
					

China's population grew at its slowest in the last decade                  since the 1950s as births declined, sowing doubt over Beijing's ability to power its economy as it succumbs to the same ageing trends afflicting developed nations like Japan.




					www.reuters.com
				












						The Chinese Population Implosion: An Unparalleled Demographic Challenge with Global Consequences
					

Ljunggren, Borje . 2021. “The Chinese Population Implosion: An Unparalleled Demographic Challenge With Global Consequences”. https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/310791_hks_policy_brief_china_pop.pdf?.




					ash.harvard.edu


----------



## JoeBlow

Unkotare said:


> What "actual point"? Just claiming I'm "in dreamland" because I don't buy into your myth? Is that what you consider an "actual point"?


"in dreamland" is the only part of my answer that you were able to retain. Not very bright, are you?


----------



## Unkotare

JoeBlow said:


> "in dreamland" is the only part of my answer that you were able to retain. Not very bright, are you?



So you can't counter my actual point and have to resort to insults. How old are you?


----------



## JoeBlow

Unkotare said:


> So you can't counter my actual point and have to resort to insults. How old are you?


Now you're copying me. Must be a grade school drop-out. Bye.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeBlow said:


> Now you're copying me. Must be a grade school drop-out. Bye.


Your failure is recognized.


----------



## JoeBlow

Unkotare said:


> Your failure is recognized.


You must be a very lonely person.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeBlow said:


> You must be a very lonely person.


Not at all. What a strange thing to say.


----------



## westwall

sealybobo said:


> Yea but we are putting up so much pollution that we are causing global warming.
> 
> We're not concerned about "pollution" that isn't destroying the planet.  Look at the oceans.  Look at man made climate change.
> 
> So we're to believe you not the UN?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.N. climate change report sounds 'code red for humanity'
> 
> 
> Global warming is dangerously close to spiralling out of control, a U.N. climate panel said in a landmark report Monday, warning the world is already certain to face further climate disruptions for decades, if not centuries, to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com






There is NO empirical data that supports your claim.


----------



## JoeBlow

Unkotare said:


> Not at all. What a strange thing to say.


103k posts and you still couldn't answer my post properly.


----------



## DGS49

Margaret Sanger and her posse had the right notion.  The problem isn't overpopulation; the problem is that the people one would WANT to procreate are declining to do so (statistically speaking), and the ones who would better be sterilize are popping them out with reckless abandon.

This is especially true for POC's.  The educated, industrious Blacks and Hispanics are declining to have kids as they chase the American Dream, while their friends and family who are sucking at the Government's ever-more capacious teats are having the field day.

Doesn't bode well for the future.  Glad I won't be around to see how it plays out.


----------



## sealybobo

westwall said:


> There is NO empirical data that supports your claim.











						Climate Change Evidence: How Do We Know?
					

The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia.




					climate.nasa.gov
				




The key word is empirical.  Maybe there isn't but there is enough other evidence that man made climate change is now a fact.









						Island nations react to devastating U.N. climate change report: "We are on the edge of extinction"
					

The U.N.'s latest climate change report was a "code red for humanity." For island nations, it's an urgent plea to the world to prevent them from getting completely wiped off the map.




					www.cbsnews.com


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> The entire GOP base has to be ignorant to believe their ridiculous propaganda about phony scandals and conspiracies with no evidence behind them, just high School grad excokehead DJs and scumbag pundits repeating the same bologna endlessly. They seem to be unable to watch real journalists and what law enforcement have to say. Poor america. Rupert Murdoch is a total scumbag who's not allowed to be on tv anywhere else in the world.


Wow, you got almost all of your favorite buzz words into one rant. Don't strain yourself.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> Wow, you got almost all of your favorite buzz words into one rant. Don't strain yourself.


Also pure fact, brainwashed functional moron.


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> Also pure fact, brainwashed functional moron.


In your mind of course. So there's that.


----------



## sealybobo

westwall said:


> There is NO empirical data that supports your claim.





> Empirical evidence: also known as sense experience, is the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.




Empirical evidence is data collected in an experiment. Honestly, I never emphasize the _empirical_ part---I just call it data. Sometimes people add "empirical" to mean that it is absolutely true. Unfortunately, no such truth exists in science.  No one has ever _seen_ an electron. You can't see them with the naked eye; they're too small. However, there is great experimental evidence that electrons do exist, and scientists are pretty confident about some of their properties. But I wouldn't call it _the truth_.

Climate science also is difficult to measure. How do you know the temperature of the Earth? You can't measure it directly. You can't take a giant thermometer and stick it up the Earth's butt to find out if it has gotten warmer. Instead you must use many indirect measurements obtained via many different methods to estimate the temperature. It's not perfect, but it's the best available. With this, science always includes uncertainty in its measurements. But scientists are confident that the global temperature is rising, just as they are fairly sure about the mass of an electron.

This is the graph of global temperature that Cox used to support climate change. Let's be clear---this graph shows the data for global temperatures. westwall said he wants the empirical data (I'm not sure what he really wants) and suggested that perhaps this data has been manipulated by NASA. I think westwall is waiting for the temperature-up-the-butt graph. He won't get it.









						What Climate Change Skeptics Aren’t Getting About Science
					

In a recent discussion, Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts debated on the merits of climate change. This brings up some common ideas about the nature of science.




					www.wired.com
				




What is scientific consensus?

You sir are anti science and a fucking idiot.


----------



## Unkotare

JoeBlow said:


> 103k posts and you still couldn't answer my post properly.


Pretty sure I made my views quite clear.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> Empirical evidence is data collected in an experiment. ....Sometimes people add "empirical" to mean that it is absolutely true.....


That is not correct.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> That is not correct.


What's not true?  Is Man Made Climate Change real?


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Pretty sure I made my views quite clear.


No you didn't.  Try again.


----------



## sealybobo

JoeBlow said:


> 103k posts and you still couldn't answer my post properly.


He won't.  Told you so.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Not at all. What a strange thing to say.


It's not so strange.  It's obvious.  I mean besides the fake life you claim to have which doesn't seem to jive with the persona you have here or the amount of time you spend here.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> So you can't counter my actual point and have to resort to insults. How old are you?


Hypocrite.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> .... besides the fake life you claim to have ....


What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> What the hell are you talking about?


You know, the great husband, father and coach you claim to be.  Plus the great wrestler you used to be.  The time when you were a stupid youth and beat up moi tai guys and jujitsus.  The business experience you claim you have in the private sector on top of being a scrub public school teacher now.  And you do it because you want to help.  HA!  What a joke.  You're never home.  And when you're home you're here.  If you were my daddy I'd say you were an asshole daddy.  A prick.


----------



## francoHFW

hadit said:


> In your mind of course. So there's that.


And every respected media outlet in the world and every court room decision, everybody but GOP ignoramus base voters who can't change the channel. Poor America.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> You know, the great .......you claim to be.  .....


I never claimed to be a "great" anything, you liar.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> ....  And you do it because you want to help.  ....


You can't even comprehend anyone who wants to devote their professional lives to helping others? Typical democrat hypocrite. Go hump your boat some more.


----------



## Dr Grump

westwall said:


> There is NO empirical data that supports your claim.


Doesn't mean it isn't happening...


----------



## hadit

francoHFW said:


> And every respected media outlet in the world and every court room decision, everybody but GOP ignoramus base voters who can't change the channel. Poor America.


Ah, yes, the echo chamber you keep looking in for validation.


----------



## Blues Man

Unkotare said:


> China demographic crisis looms as population growth slips to slowest ever
> 
> 
> China's population grew at its slowest in the last decade                  since the 1950s as births declined, sowing doubt over Beijing's ability to power its economy as it succumbs to the same ageing trends afflicting developed nations like Japan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chinese Population Implosion: An Unparalleled Demographic Challenge with Global Consequences
> 
> 
> Ljunggren, Borje . 2021. “The Chinese Population Implosion: An Unparalleled Demographic Challenge With Global Consequences”. https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/310791_hks_policy_brief_china_pop.pdf?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ash.harvard.edu


So you responded to  post from last December?

Why?


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Some people still insist on fomenting pointless panic over the idea of global 'overpopulation.' There is no such thing, never has been any such thing, and the world is trending strongly in the other direction (as I've been saying for years). Global fertility rates are converging around 1.7 children per woman of childbearing age. Remember, the 'break even' point for fertility is 2.1 children per. In South Korea, the population decline is so dramatic several sources calculate that if current trends remain unchanged, South Koreans will go extinct by 2750.
> 
> We have to start thinking creatively about boosting, or at least maintaining population levels, or plan with open eyes what a world with far fewer people might look like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea’s population paradox
> 
> 
> With a rapidly ageing population, low birth rates and young people who are increasingly shunning marriage, South Korea is in a population conundrum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com


First-ever water shortage on the Colorado River will bring cuts for Arizona farmers​
mandatory cutbacks next year that will bring major challenges for Arizona farmers and reduce the water allotments of Nevada and Mexico.

The declaration of a shortage by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has been anticipated for months and was triggered by the spiraling decline of Lake Mead, which stores water used by Arizona, Nevada, California and Mexico.

The reservoir near Las Vegas has fallen to its lowest levels since Hoover Dam was built in the 1930s and is continuing to drop after years of chronic overuse and drought intensified by climate change. It now stands at just 35% of full capacity.

Federal water managers said the first shortage declaration shows how severe the drought has become and how climate change is having serious effects on the river, which provides water for about 40 million people.

The cuts will be the largest to date on the river, shrinking the flow of water through the 336-mile Central Arizona Project Canal, which for more than three decades has supplied Arizona’s growing desert cites and vast stretches of farmlands.

“The cutbacks are happening. The water's not there,” said Will Thelander, whose family has been farming in Arizona for three generations. “We’ll shrink as much as we can until we go away. That’s all the future basically is.”

the levels of the Colorado’s largest reservoirs have fallen faster than had been expected.

"There's no doubt that climate change is real. We're experiencing it every day in the Colorado River Basin and in other basins in the West,"

The 2019 drought agreement included a backstop provision that called for the states to reconvene to consider additional measures, if necessary, to guard against the risk of Lake Mead falling to critically low levels below the elevation of 1,020 feet.

Too many people sucking on Lake Mead's tit.









						First-ever water shortage on the Colorado River will bring cuts for Arizona farmers
					

'We are in unprecedented territory': As the federal government declares a first-ever shortage on the Colorado River, Arizona farmers prepare for cuts.



					www.azcentral.com


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> You can't even comprehend anyone who wants to devote their professional lives to helping others? Typical democrat hypocrite. Go hump your boat some more.


On September 24-25, world leaders will gather at the United Nations in New York to review progress toward the UN’s 2030 Agenda and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. The SDGs, which aim “to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all,” are commendable, and summarize the kind of world many of us wish to see in 2030. But if this vision is to have any chance of materializing, governments must now add an 18th goal: “Dampen population growth.”









						The World and the UN Must Reduce Population Growth
					

The United Nations' 17 Sustainable Development Goals imply that there is no longer any need to reduce global population growth, even though it is a serious problem that undermines most of the SDG targets. By adding a further SDG aimed at slowing the increase in population, the world could yet...




					populationmatters.org
				




But you know more than world leaders and scientists huh?


----------



## sealybobo

hadit said:


> Ah, yes, the echo chamber you keep looking in for validation.


The challenges that humanity faces today stem mainly from overconsumption and overpopulation. Yet policymakers often fail to consider the two factors together, and largely neglect population growth in particular.

The overall human impact on the global environment is the product of population size and average _per capita_ consumption. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that population growth and economic (consumption) growth are the two main causes of global warming. _Per capita_ resource consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions are highest in developed economies, while rapid population growth in developing countries contributes to the loss of forests and biodiversity.

Between 1960 and 2000, the world’s population doubled from three billion to six billion. This growth contributed to greater pollution of land, lakes, rivers, and oceans, as well as urban overcrowding and a higher demand for agricultural land and freshwater (in turn encroaching on natural ecosystems). Despite significant technical advances in agriculture, famines killed millions of people over this 40-year period. And in developing countries, rapid population growth left poor people at greater risk of death, injury, and disease resulting from pollution, floods, droughts, and other disasters.

There are now 7.7 billion people on Earth. The UN forecasts that this figure will rise to 11 billion by 2100 (and that assumes steady fertility declines in many countries that have tended to resist this trend). A population increase on this scale would create more pollution, require a doubling of global food production under difficult conditions (including climate disruption), and result in more people suffering during conflicts and famines.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> On September 24-25, world leaders will gather at the United Nations in New York ....


The UN.....


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> The UN.....


And over 80% of US Scientists.  You're smarter than them too?


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> And over 80% of US Scientists.  .....


100% of democrat scientists making a buck off gullible fools like you.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> 100% of democrat scientists making a buck off gullible fools like you.


That's why I believe you are a Republican.  Republicans have convinced you that it's not the oil companies, lobbyists and Republicans who are lying, it's the media and scientists.  You're brainwashed.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> That's why I believe you are a Republican.  Republicans have convinced you that it's not the oil companies, lobbyists and Republicans who are lying, it's the media and scientists.  You're brainwashed.


If you don't realize that EVERYONE is likely to lie, you are even more of a brainless fool than I thought.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> If you don't realize that EVERYONE is likely to lie, you are even more of a brainless fool than I thought.


Thanks Captain Obvious.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Pollution is not an indication of overpopulation. When the first human settlement was established the first pollution was born as well. Put a whole lot of very neat, careful people in the most populated city in the world and there will be much, much, much less pollution than another city a fraction of its size full of other people with other priorities.
> 
> The world is NOT overpopulated, and it is not going to be. Time to let go of a false crisis you were force-fed as a kid.



When we only had 10 billion people on the planet and only so many factories we weren't even making a dent as far as pollution.  Today, yes, pollution is an indication that we are overpopulated.  So is this:

Death’s come knocking a last time for the splendid ivory-billed woodpecker and 22 more birds, fish and other species: The U.S. government is declaring them extinct.
It’s a rare move for wildlife officials to give up hope on a plant or animal, but government scientists say they’ve exhausted efforts to find these 23. And they warn climate change, on top of other pressures, could make such disappearances more common as a warming planet adds to the dangers facing imperiled plants and wildlife.









						US Says Ivory-Billed Woodpecker, 22 Other Species Extinct
					

Others such as the flat pigtoe, a freshwater mussel in the southeastern U.S., were identified in the wild only a few times and never seen again.




					www.huffpost.com


----------



## Blues Man

The idea that a closed system can support unlimited population growth is the myth


----------



## sealybobo

Blues Man said:


> The idea that a closed system can support unlimited population growth is the myth




*Earth Overshoot Day* marks the date when humanity’s demand for ecological resources and services in a given year exceeds what Earth can regenerate in that year. In 2021, it fell on July 29.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> ..., yes, pollution is an indication that we are overpopulated.  ...



It most certainly is not. There has always been pollution.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> It most certainly is not. There has always been pollution.


Yea but not as much as today.  

By some estimates, the total number of vehicles worldwide could double to 2.5 billion by 2050.

China still has far fewer vehicles per person than Western countries; it has 1.3 billion of the world's 7 billion residents, but only 100 million or so vehicles.

If ownership in China were to equal the U.S. rate, the country would have 1 billion vehicles all by itself.

In 1960 the USA had *61.6 million* registered automobiles. Compare that to 128.3 million cars by 1995, and 253.6 million cars by 2012.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> Yea but not as much as today.
> ....


Los Angeles was more polluted in the 1980s than it is today, but today it is more heavily populated. Pollution is not population.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Los Angeles was more polluted in the 1980s than it is today, but today it is more heavily populated. Pollution is not population.


I don't understand.  Most of the air pollution takes place due to *the burning of fossil fuels* such as coal, oil, gasoline to produce energy for electricity or transportation. 

So if twice as many people are driving today than in the past, of course the pollution is worse.

The cars pollute less today than they did in the past sure but I don't think they've solved the pollution problem because so many people are now driving.

Before the EPA and the Clean Air Act, many of America’s most iconic cities were environmental disaster areas. During WWII, Los Angeles experienced its first major smog, panicking residents who thought they had been exposed to a Japanese gas attack. After the war, industrial emissions and packed freeways made Los Angeles synonymous with smog. In New York, air pollution ate away at stone façades, leaving once bright marble a dirty black and grey. One could only imagine the effects on residents’ lungs. In manufacturing centers like Detroit, toxic waste accumulated, turning vast stretches of Lake Erie into dead zones.

After decades of improving air quality, Carnegie Mellon researchers found that pollution levels are rising across America. A key driver has been the Trump Administration’s all-out assault on environmental regulations. Since taking office, Trump has eliminated or announced plans to eliminate nearly 100 different regulations.

One of the largest rollbacks concerns fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions standards. Lower efficiency standards will hit American consumers with billions in extra fuel costs while spiking U.S. transportation emissions over 10%. Not only did the administration’s own experts find that the rollback would hurt consumers, but automakers themselves have raised alarms. Last year, 17 major automakers sent the White House a letter saying the reduced standards would hurt their global competitiveness and put American jobs at risk.

Beyond harming the planet and the American economy, these additional emissions will increase the number of pollution-related deaths and illnesses. Air pollution already kills 130,000 Americans each year. The growing links between Covid-19 fatality rates and air quality make this issue more urgent than ever.

For a half-century, the Clean Air Act has helped us all breathe easier. Now, we must defend our right to clean air as if our lives depend on it, because they do.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> I don't understand.  ....


Of course not.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> .. Most of the air pollution takes place due to *the burning of fossil fuels* such as coal, oil, gasoline to produce energy for electricity or transportation.
> 
> ...



Pollution:    "the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects."


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> It most certainly is not. There has always been pollution.











						Planet Lost Startling Amount Of Coral Reefs In 10 Years, Report Finds
					

Climate change remains the greatest threat to the iconic structures, which are disappearing around the globe at dire rates.




					www.huffpost.com
				




Joe Manchin has a solution to lower the population









						Sen. Joe Manchin Wants Fewer Households Getting Child Tax Credit Payments
					

Democrats may have to compromise on their most prized policy initiative.




					www.huffpost.com
				




Finally a Democrat who gets it


----------



## Unkotare

The democrat hostility toward life is most certainly NOT proof of any so-called "overpopulation."


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> The democrat hostility toward life is most certainly NOT proof of any so-called "overpopulation."


I'm sitting on 65 acres right now.  Certainly doesn't seem overpopulated up here.  But then it would suck if you all spread out and moved up here.  Then "we'd" have to share.  No thanks.  You could never afford 65 acres boy.  Unfortunately you have 3 generations living under one roof.  Or will someday.  You'll say how nice to have the family together.  Not just on holidays though.  365 24/7.  And when the pandemic hits then you'll be stuck together for over a year in isolation.

Meanwhile I'm on 65 acres.  All alone.  Lonely boy.  

P.S.  Didn't work out with the doctor lady.  Too chubby.  Checked all the other boxes but this one's a deal breaker.  If I can't get it up then.....next.  Plus she didn't like the age difference.  Almost 11 years.  I told her I'm retiring in 11 years she's telling me she has frozen eggs and wants to have twins.  NEXT.  

Actually I told her it would be perfect.  In 11 years the kids would be 10 and I'd be a stay at home dad.  She didn't seem to like that idea.  I don't think she understood I have a lot of money already saved.  She probably thought I meant she'd be taking care of both of us financially.  It didn't matter.  She was fat and I can't stand that.


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> ... I'm on 65 acres.  All alone.  Lonely boy.
> ....


Of course.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Of course not.


If this is true

a study found that the lifetime earnings, on average, of mothers with one child is 28*%* less than the earnings of women without children.

Same way I make more than you


----------



## Flash

Try driving around Boston during rush hour and then tell me there is no over population.


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> Try driving around Boston during rush hour and then tell me there is no over population.


And for any small town conservative who says there’s plenty of room where you live. Would you like it to be as busy as it is in Boston where you live?

Perfect example. Gwinnett County. 30 miles from Atlanta. Used to be the sticks. Now over a million people. Now gang drugs and homicides.


----------



## francoHFW

francoHFW said:


> Speak for yourself and the GOP base Propagandists lol...


----------



## Unkotare

sealybobo said:


> If this is true
> 
> a study found that the lifetime earnings, on average, of mothers with one child is 28*%* less than the earnings of women without children.
> 
> Same way I make more than you


Once again shallow boy equates money with the value of life. Pathetic.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> Try driving around Boston during rush hour and then tell me there is no over population.


I do all the time. There is no overpopulation.


----------



## Flash

The US would a much more comfortable place to live with a population of 150 million.

We could start to get to that number by sending all the Negroes to Africa and the Illegals back across the border.


----------



## Unkotare

Flash said:


> The US would a much more comfortable place to live with a population of 150 million.
> 
> ...



America is anything but “overpopulated.”


----------



## francoHFW

Flash said:


> The US would a much more comfortable place to live with a population of 150 million.
> 
> We could start to get to that number by sending all the Negroes to Africa and the Illegals back across the border.


You still need another hundred and 20 million to throw out lol. Many thanks to the GOP for stopping every birth control possibility, especially in our foreign policy and foreign aid, forever!. All these damn people and get off my lawn you idiots...


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> Once again shallow boy equates money with the value of life. Pathetic.


Besides that, think about this sad fact. A woman who has no kids makes 28% more than a woman with a child. Should be the other way around. Seems to me a woman with a kid needs more than a woman with no kids.


----------



## sealybobo

Flash said:


> The US would a much more comfortable place to live with a population of 150 million.
> 
> We could start to get to that number by sending all the Negroes to Africa and the Illegals back across the border.


Republican policies have already worked. Birth rates are way down. Poor women aren’t having kids like they used to. Women have listened. Don’t have kids you can’t afford.

Seems like the one successful government program is planned parenthood.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> It most certainly is not. There has always been pollution.


The first global estimate of the number of whales killed by industrial harvesting last century reveals that nearly 3 million cetaceans were wiped out in what may have been the largest cull of any animal—in terms of total biomass—in human history

Too many humans on this planet and not enough whales


----------



## Unkotare

There is NO "overpopulation," and whale is delicious.


----------



## BULLDOG

Unkotare said:


> There is NO "overpopulation," and whale is delicious.


----------



## sealybobo

Unkotare said:


> There is NO "overpopulation," and whale is delicious.


So is human prepared properly.


----------



## hadit

sealybobo said:


> So is human prepared properly.
> 
> View attachment 623487


Speaking from personal experience? Asking for a uniformed friend.


----------



## sealybobo

hadit said:


> Speaking from personal experience? Asking for a uniformed friend.


IDK I don't eat human or whale.  Unkotare no doubt defends the practice of slaughtering whales like we have because asians are the criminals continuing to do it.

Supposedly it's good for their little peckers.


----------



## Unkotare

Humans eat animals. Always have, always will. Snowflakes be damned.

Humans generally don't eat humans.


----------



## westwall

sealybobo said:


> The first global estimate of the number of whales killed by industrial harvesting last century reveals that nearly 3 million cetaceans were wiped out in what may have been the largest cull of any animal—in terms of total biomass—in human history
> 
> Too many humans on this planet and not enough whales







Pales in comparison to the 150,000,000 plus human beings murdered by socialists.


----------

