TannyD

Your sooo right, no-one should ever have to die...

__________________
TannyD, like Sunny D only better!!

http://www.nationstates.net/01838/pa...n=mutantfreaks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XbOw...eature=related

http://www.answerbag.com

youcanhandlethetruth

Oh what a great argument !

Because "we all die" therefore "we should all die prematurely".

Will you be the first to volunteer and provide the earth with more room ?

I'm being serious - if it's so important, what makes you so special ?
Or are you happy to be wiped out in the interest of "life" ?

I'm sure the new world order elite would agree with you though.
After all they are the ones who are desperately seeking life extension technologies before wiping out 80% of the population.

I'd be tempted to laugh but it's actually true !

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

TannyD

I was joking, obviously you don't have a sense of humour.
Great this is going to be soooo much fun I have to deal with someone like you.

__________________
TannyD, like Sunny D only better!!

http://www.nationstates.net/01838/pa...n=mutantfreaks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XbOw...eature=related

http://www.answerbag.com

Geoffrey Collier

Aardvark: Let us not jump to conclusions too readily. I agree with birth control for a multitude of reasons, but we have to deal with the paradox of that policy. A massive birth control policy in the Third World, will result in the populations of those countries increasing for a generation or two. Why? Because such a policy will see a dramatic fall in the infant mortality rate (IMR), so, although the birth rate falls, the survival rate, of the reduced birth rate increases. This is the reality that will follow for many decades. Further more, to add to the problem, the life expectancy rate will also increase, thereby, increasing further the population. Not a simple problem, I fear.

Besoeker

Did you miss Aardvark's point?
The bolding is mine. Forgive me Mr Earth Pig.

Aardvark

Geoffrey, I agree, but less people living a longer and better life is IMHO desirable.

YCHTT, I am going to die prematurely. I know that to live a longer life I must exercise more, eat less fatty food, drink a lot less and generally be more puritanical. I don't smoke, but in all other respects live a risky life. If I live a long life I will be pleasantly surprised, but I'd rather die young enjoying myself. If people stopped focussing on a long life and lived a full life we could get the population down. (It doesn't matter at what age you die, you still make use of 90% of the NHS facilities you will use in life in the last 2 years of that life.)

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Geoffrey Collier

Aardvark: I want all to live a long and better life, but my point was, contrary to what Panorama viewers believe, birth control policies in the Third World,
increase substantially their populations for a couple of generations or so.

Perhaps we are inclined to associate population and poverty too closely. Western Europe, for example, is large in terms of population per square miles,
but we are rich. There are both poor and rich, large countries. There are poor and rich small countries. The dominant characteristic between rich/poor large/small countries, is economic infrastructure. This is the key to economic wellbeing.

Besoeker

I understand your explanation but I don’t think you can draw a firm conclusion about population increase. Population is about actual numbers rather than rates.

As an example, Chad has a fertility rate of about 5.6 children born/woman and an infant mortality rate of about one in ten live births.
For 100 women there would be 560 births and 56 child mortality cases. So, 504 surviving children.

Reduce the fertility rate to 4 children born/woman. Reduce IMR dramatically – to say, zero. You then get 400 surviving children.
A 30% reduction in fertility rate.
A 100% reduction in infant mortality rate.
A 20% reduction in the actual number of surviving children.

Sure, there are different fertility rates, different infant mortality rates, different traditional cultures, different religious influences..... My point is that there is no one size fits all conclusion about the effects of birth control on population growth.

In my opinion.

youcanhandlethetruth

I have a sense of humour.

But forgive me if I don't end up laughing on the floor about death or extermination.

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK

youcanhandlethetruth

I saw Aardvark's point - unlike some people I can actually read properly.

I was referring to other quotes made before Aardvark point that related to reducing the population.

Having said that I don't agree with population control either - there's enough room for everybody to live.

And don't give me rubbish about food running out or "lack of room"
If you examine the Club Of Rome/IMF documents they openly state they will engineer food crisises.

But of course people are so stupid and brainwashed they will refuse to believe it, let alone look into it.

I forgot too Besoeker that you see yourself as god - this could well explain why you think people should give up the right to have children.

__________________
Before tyranny and television, "conspiracy theorists" never existed.

cointelpro/halfwits: Akria,Clippo,Besoeker,Bear,Eurosceptic Antlantacist,MikeUK