If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   World's population may soon start declining; feel free to start screwing like rabbits   (slate.com) divider line 205
    More: Interesting, incentive programs, Stony Brook University, demographic trends, Census Bureau  
•       •       •

9536 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jan 2013 at 7:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



205 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-09 05:31:51 PM
World's population may soon start declining

i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-01-09 05:56:58 PM
www.truehealthfacts.com
 
2013-01-09 05:59:17 PM
This is a pretty easy fix, so how about we don't do anything to encourage the decline to stop.  Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.  The world's population is too high given our current rates of resource usage.
 
2013-01-09 06:10:08 PM
You're welcome, world.
 
2013-01-09 06:34:37 PM
The problem with this analysis, however, is that the author is making the same mistake he accuses Malthus of making: namely, making straight-line projections hundreds of years into the future regarding population growth.  At least the suggestion that human population could go to zero.  That part was pretty unbelievable.
 
2013-01-09 07:14:36 PM

GAT_00: Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.


Figuring out how to extend lifespans to 150+ years or more while keeping our bodies young is going to be one of those paradigm shifts in society that nobody living today is going to accurately be able to predict.

Are we going to have a dystopian future as depicted in Logan's Run where you surrender your life at some fixed point, say 250 years? Do we add a plutocracy twist where the rich can essentially live forever by purchasing life credits as depicted in In Time? Maybe wars regarding finite resources will lead to periodic cullings that keep the population in check.  Regardless, it will mean huge changes (or lack of change) in culture and work.
 
2013-01-09 07:17:09 PM
Fark
 
2013-01-09 07:29:57 PM

Dinjiin: GAT_00: Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.

Figuring out how to extend lifespans to 150+ years or more while keeping our bodies young is going to be one of those paradigm shifts in society that nobody living today is going to accurately be able to predict.

Are we going to have a dystopian future as depicted in Logan's Run where you surrender your life at some fixed point, say 250 years? Do we add a plutocracy twist where the rich can essentially live forever by purchasing life credits as depicted in In Time? Maybe wars regarding finite resources will lead to periodic cullings that keep the population in check.  Regardless, it will mean huge changes (or lack of change) in culture and work.


It would also encourage space exploration.
 
2013-01-09 07:30:00 PM
Start?
 
2013-01-09 07:30:52 PM
Enough!~
 
2013-01-09 07:31:58 PM
Good.
 
2013-01-09 07:32:46 PM

Indubitably: Enough!~


How about you figure out how to handle what you've currently got first, okay? Please? Thank you.
 
2013-01-09 07:33:18 PM

Girion47: It would also encourage space exploration.


And 3D printing.
 
2013-01-09 07:33:19 PM
Unlike Europe, the United States has long been the beneficiary of robust immigration.

Suck it, conservatives!

Though I thought Europe had plenty of immigrants?
 
2013-01-09 07:33:31 PM
www.capitalnewyork.com

"There will be much time and little to do!"
 
2013-01-09 07:33:55 PM
"World's population may soon start declining"

i1126.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-09 07:34:46 PM
As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gessellschaft, or "shrinking society."

SHRINCIETY!!
 
2013-01-09 07:35:08 PM
About farking time. Too bad this didn't happen about 3 billion snowflakes ago.
 
2013-01-09 07:35:45 PM
I'm doing my part! (everytime i fap!)
 
2013-01-09 07:35:59 PM

fusillade762: Unlike Europe, the United States has long been the beneficiary of robust immigration.

Suck it, conservatives!

Though I thought Europe had plenty of immigrants?


of cause, just ask Breivnik
 
2013-01-09 07:36:06 PM
We've never had a population explosion. We had a death implosion. Lifespans have increased from 50 years in the early 1900s to 78 or higher at the end of that century. We didn't have more babies than previous generations. We just didn't die as quickly as previous generations.

And with the draconian birth control methods of China, we will see a government inducement for citizens of other countries to set up shop in China in about 20 years. That 1.6 billion people will drop precipitously in the next 20 years. It will be smaller than India's population in about 30 years.
 
2013-01-09 07:36:17 PM

LewDux: As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gessellschaft, or "shrinking society."

SHRINCIETY!!


I think you need the "k."

"SHRINKCIETY!!"

Yes, much better; you're welcome.
 
2013-01-09 07:36:36 PM
You realize, if productivity goes up, fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work, so the population can shrink for quite some time without adversely affecting anyone's quality of life. Also, with fewer people chasing after the same resources, prices will go down.
 
2013-01-09 07:37:28 PM

Indubitably: LewDux: As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gessellschaft, or "shrinking society."

SHRINCIETY!!

I think you need the "k."

"SHRINKCIETY!!"

Yes, much better; you're welcome.


P.S. Especially in America.
 
2013-01-09 07:38:33 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: LewDux: As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gessellschaft, or "shrinking society."

SHRINCIETY!!

I think you need the "k."

"SHRINKCIETY!!"

Yes, much better; you're welcome.

P.S. Especially in America.


Than you
 
2013-01-09 07:38:34 PM

dericwater: That 1.6 billion people will drop precipitously in the next 20 years. It will be smaller than India's population in about 30 years.


They'd better hope so, in order to keep their environment halfway stable. Thing is, they're gonna be in for a wild ride when the 100 million surplus boys become bachelors. If there's not a bloody revolution in China in 20 years I'll be very surprised.
 
2013-01-09 07:38:38 PM

theorellior: You realize, if productivity goes up, fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work, so the population can shrink for quite some time without adversely affecting anyone's quality of life. Also, with fewer people chasing after the same resources, prices will go down.


Productivity can't go up, and you know it.

We were maxed out long ago.

Good luck with that.

*)
 
2013-01-09 07:39:30 PM

LewDux: Indubitably: Indubitably: LewDux: As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gessellschaft, or "shrinking society."

SHRINCIETY!!

I think you need the "k."

"SHRINKCIETY!!"

Yes, much better; you're welcome.

P.S. Especially in America.

Than you


Good luck with that.
 
2013-01-09 07:39:41 PM
More of a white thing, isn't it?
It's like we've just given up and want to make it end quickly.

I'm doing my part!
 
2013-01-09 07:40:37 PM

fusillade762: Though I thought Europe had plenty of immigrants?


Intra-European migration, yeah. Extra-European migration, less thereof.

You see a lot of Eastern Bloc immigrants moving to the west. There is also some legal migration from former African and Caribbean colonies. They also have illegal immigration issues with people from North Africa and the Middle East crossing into Greece, Italy and Spain. But the last I read, the former was the biggest movement of people, not the latter two.
 
2013-01-09 07:40:45 PM
if all goes well baby number 6 by December! ( and hopefully not too many more at the same time )
 
2013-01-09 07:40:53 PM
Im ready, but I can't find anyone else willing


/relax it's just chloroform.
 
2013-01-09 07:41:19 PM
I would bet that we'll have a worldwide pandemic of something seriously antibiotic resistant within 20 years or so.  It'll knock off around 1-2 billion of the world's population, mostly clustered in the areas like Mumbai, or Bayonne, or anywhere else they routinely chuck corpses into the river to dispose of 'em.  Panic and social disorder will account for a few tens of millions of those deaths.
That should relieve population pressures for a while.  Of course, it will be used as a vehicle to enact stupid, evil, or religiously-based laws.  But I repeat myself.  Anyway, it will entirely be the fault of Westerners insistence on a cheap-all-meat diet, combined with helicoptery parents who demand an antibiotic every time their child gets a sniffle or an owie.  Oh, and the lawyers.  Yes, it'll be their fault, too.  Hopefully the bacteria will be selectively lethal towards members of bar associations.  One can dream.

What were we talking about again?  Schtupping?  Good Lord, I hope when the pandemic comes, it isn't an STD.  Countries be bannin' sex if that happens.
 
2013-01-09 07:42:04 PM
Dear China and india: not so fast
 
2013-01-09 07:42:04 PM

theorellior: Girion47: It would also encourage space exploration.

And 3D printing.


space 3d printing life extension immortality medical science NASA mars moon apollo nanomachines nanoscience

I SUMMON THE MISERABLE ONE!
 
2013-01-09 07:44:10 PM
World's population may soon start declining

They touched on India, but didn't really address the rapid birthrates in SE Asia or most of Africa.

Kind of a WTF attempt at touchy-feeling goodness I guess. I don't get it.
 
2013-01-09 07:44:20 PM

dericwater: We've never had a population explosion. We had a death implosion. Lifespans have increased from 50 years in the early 1900s to 78 or higher at the end of that century. We didn't have more babies than previous generations. We just didn't die as quickly as previous generations.

And with the draconian birth control methods of China, we will see a government inducement for citizens of other countries to set up shop in China in about 20 years. That 1.6 billion people will drop precipitously in the next 20 years. It will be smaller than India's population in about 30 years.


I don't think you understand how geometric progressions work. Yeah, modern medicine increased survival rates, but of CHILDREN. Life expectancy didn't go up so much because adults live longer; it went up because children don't die like flies any more. And regardless, when you start with 2 billion people, it's really easy to get to 7 billion.
 
2013-01-09 07:45:09 PM

Indubitably: LewDux: Indubitably: Indubitably: LewDux: As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gessellschaft, or "shrinking society."

SHRINCIETY!!

I think you need the "k."

"SHRINKCIETY!!"

Yes, much better; you're welcome.

P.S. Especially in America.

Than you

Good luck with that.


P.P.S. I've heard and read many people ascribe/ascribble a sense of superiority to my posts, as though I think I am better than you. You misread me. I am my own worst critic, and I can stand only briefly, at times. But never here. I am much better in person. Here, you ascribe. There, you read. Word. *)
 
2013-01-09 07:45:32 PM
I'm surprised there are still kittens left...
 
2013-01-09 07:45:36 PM

theorellior: You realize, if productivity goes up, fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work, so the population can shrink for quite some time without adversely affecting anyone's quality of life. Also, with fewer people chasing after the same resources, prices will go down.


But we need people as consumers to buy the stuff we make. We now have many more opportunities for people to do things. We don't need 100s of people to make a widget, true, but we have 1000s of different widget like products to make or could make. Each may only require 10s of people to operate. On the whole, we need more people, not less.
 
2013-01-09 07:45:51 PM

GAT_00: This is a pretty easy fix, so how about we don't do anything to encourage the decline to stop.  Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.  The world's population is too high given our current rates of resource usage.


Our current rate of resource usage may be the reason the birth rates are declining. Lower birth rates are directly related to increases in wealth. Increases in wealth are directly related to industrialization/energy usage. Kind of counter-intuitive, but continuing to use energy to move the world's population from agrarian to industrial, may be the only way to eventually lower resource usage.

/not an argument against using resources intelligently and efficiently
 
2013-01-09 07:45:54 PM
I prefer muskrat love.
 
2013-01-09 07:45:57 PM
Cue the fundies bemoaning the use of contraception as the potential downfall of humanity.
 
2013-01-09 07:45:59 PM
No one?

www.blogcdn.com
 
2013-01-09 07:46:26 PM

theorellior: You realize, if productivity goes up, fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work, so the population can shrink for quite some time without adversely affecting anyone's quality of life. Also, with fewer people chasing after the same resources, prices will go down.


Yup. And it's not the total number of humans that are stressing the planet's resources, it's the few hundred million wealthy ones consuming the vast majority of resources. If every human consumed like the average American, well, it just wouldn't be possible, but if they did there'd be massive ecological destruction. But good luck asking Americans to do with less, since our definition of wealth is tied closely with the amount you consume. And good luck asking the Chinese or Indians to do without, as they become wealthy and want to live like the rest of the modern world.
 
2013-01-09 07:47:01 PM

Indubitably: LewDux: As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gessellschaft, or "shrinking society."

SHRINCIETY!!

I think you need the "k."

"SHRINKCIETY!!"

Yes, much better; you're welcome.


I think you need Shrim.

/obscure?
 
2013-01-09 07:47:53 PM

theorellior: dericwater: That 1.6 billion people will drop precipitously in the next 20 years. It will be smaller than India's population in about 30 years.

They'd better hope so, in order to keep their environment halfway stable. Thing is, they're gonna be in for a wild ride when the 100 million surplus boys become bachelors. If there's not a bloody revolution in China in 20 years I'll be very surprised.


Those boys being permanent bachelors have already happened 10 years or longer ago. Remember, it was Mao's 1 child per family policy of the 60s and 70s. The first group of them are now in the 40s and 50s. I expect to see China changing its family planning policy in the next 10 years.
 
2013-01-09 07:48:38 PM

Arachnophobe: "World's population may soon start declining"

[i1126.photobucket.com image 549x411]
i1126.photobucket.com


I agree. We'll see what the next flu epidemic brings.
 
2013-01-09 07:48:52 PM

Anal Tobacco Furnace: Indubitably: LewDux: As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gessellschaft, or "shrinking society."

SHRINCIETY!!

I think you need the "k."

"SHRINKCIETY!!"

Yes, much better; you're welcome.

I think you need Shrim.

/obscure?


//Nothing is obscure on FARK.
 
2013-01-09 07:49:50 PM

dahmers love zombie: I would bet that we'll have a worldwide pandemic of something seriously antibiotic resistant within 20 years or so.  It'll knock off around 1-2 billion of the world's population, mostly clustered in the areas like Mumbai, or Bayonne, or anywhere else they routinely chuck corpses into the river to dispose of 'em.  Panic and social disorder will account for a few tens of millions of those deaths.
That should relieve population pressures for a while.  Of course, it will be used as a vehicle to enact stupid, evil, or religiously-based laws.  But I repeat myself.  Anyway, it will entirely be the fault of Westerners insistence on a cheap-all-meat diet, combined with helicoptery parents who demand an antibiotic every time their child gets a sniffle or an owie.  Oh, and the lawyers.  Yes, it'll be their fault, too.  Hopefully the bacteria will be selectively lethal towards members of bar associations.  One can dream.

What were we talking about again?  Schtupping?  Good Lord, I hope when the pandemic comes, it isn't an STD.  Countries be bannin' sex if that happens.


While it seems alarmist, I think a total civilizational collapse is more likely than a minor drop in population. Once the population starts to fall, you get in a negative feedback loop -- fewer people equals less technology, plus environmental degradation equals less easily arable land and fertile fishing grounds equals fewer people, etc.

See "Collapse" by Jared Diamond for any number of historical precedents.

I don't think we'd ever come back, either. All the low-hanging resource fruit is gone. It's gonna be hunting and gathering for you, homo sapiens, until the star goes dim.
 
2013-01-09 07:50:05 PM

dericwater: We've never had a population explosion. We had a death implosion. Lifespans have increased from 50 years in the early 1900s to 78 or higher at the end of that century. We didn't have more babies than previous generations. We just didn't die as quickly as previous generations.


Obesity has reversed that trend, however.
 
2013-01-09 07:50:30 PM

whidbey: World's population may soon start declining

They touched on India, but didn't really address the rapid birthrates in SE Asia or most of Africa.

Kind of a WTF attempt at touchy-feeling goodness I guess. I don't get it.


Birth rates in Africa have been declining for the past 50+ years. It used to be around 7 kids per family, and now it's down to around 3. Yes, 3 is greater than the 2.2 replacement rate, but it's much smaller. That's balanced with lower child mortality and longevity.
 
2013-01-09 07:51:59 PM
dericwater: "We've never had a population explosion. We had a death implosion. Lifespans have increased from 50 years in the early 1900s to 78 or higher at the end of that century. We didn't have more babies than previous generations. We just didn't die as quickly as previous generations."

Um, the Nobel Prize laureates and PhDs right here on Fark have told me (when they took a break from 3D printing trinkets and masturbating over pictures of Mars) that we don't live longer than before.
 
2013-01-09 07:52:08 PM
If it wasn't for Latin America, Catholicism and immigration would be non-existent in the United States

/a quote from my very Catholic grandmother
 
2013-01-09 07:52:15 PM
it's cause fo the gays they're not eating enough chick fil a
 
2013-01-09 07:52:28 PM

Godscrack:


Um ya, this sky does not look right!!
/and don't try to tell me, that's the way it's always been.
 
2013-01-09 07:52:58 PM

Dinjiin: GAT_00: Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.

Figuring out how to extend lifespans to 150+ years or more while keeping our bodies young is going to be one of those paradigm shifts in society that nobody living today is going to accurately be able to predict.


It's an aweful idea that I guess is inevitable. People need to dye so that new ways of thinking can emerge. What if the generation of the Salem witch trials just kept on living? Or the slave masters? Or if we were stuck with the Baby Boomers FOREVER.
 
2013-01-09 07:53:02 PM
Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.
 
2013-01-09 07:53:08 PM

macadamnut: [www.capitalnewyork.com image 400x300]

"There will be much time and little to do!"


Pretty much hit the big one here. I'm done.
 
2013-01-09 07:53:33 PM
So I can stop growing anthrax in the bathtub?
 
2013-01-09 07:53:40 PM
World's population may soon start declining; feel free to start screwing, like, rabbits...opossums, sheep, horses...whatever you can find to help this trend along.
 
2013-01-09 07:53:59 PM

EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

How You Doin'?

 
2013-01-09 07:55:06 PM
Good. More people isn't always a higher quality of life, especially with 7 billion and finite resources.
 
2013-01-09 07:55:13 PM

mbillips: dericwater: We've never had a population explosion. We had a death implosion. Lifespans have increased from 50 years in the early 1900s to 78 or higher at the end of that century. We didn't have more babies than previous generations. We just didn't die as quickly as previous generations.

And with the draconian birth control methods of China, we will see a government inducement for citizens of other countries to set up shop in China in about 20 years. That 1.6 billion people will drop precipitously in the next 20 years. It will be smaller than India's population in about 30 years.

I don't think you understand how geometric progressions work. Yeah, modern medicine increased survival rates, but of CHILDREN. Life expectancy didn't go up so much because adults live longer; it went up because children don't die like flies any more. And regardless, when you start with 2 billion people, it's really easy to get to 7 billion.


I believe life expectancy factors in child mortality. Remember, it wasn't unusual back in the early 1900s for families to have 5 to 10 kids (all passed the infant mortality portion of life), each living to about 50 years of age or so, and also having 5-10 kids (fewer numbers in subsequent generations, of course). Now, people have 2 - 3 kids and they live to 70+ years of age.

Bottom line, there has not been a population explosion. The number of children (survived past infant mortality periods) per family has been steadily decreasing for much of the past century. As noted in the article, some countries are seeing a direct shrinking of their population as the number of children per family is hovering at around 1.4. 1.4 kids per family does not even replace the previous generation.
 
2013-01-09 07:55:52 PM

Xythero: Dinjiin: GAT_00: Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.

Figuring out how to extend lifespans to 150+ years or more while keeping our bodies young is going to be one of those paradigm shifts in society that nobody living today is going to accurately be able to predict.


It's an aweful idea that I guess is inevitable. People need to dye so that new ways of thinking can emerge. What if the generation of the Salem witch trials just kept on living? Or the slave masters? Or if we were stuck with the Baby Boomers FOREVER.


I have this really bizarre feeling that if death wasn't an advantage to the overall survival of our species, we probably already wouldn't die.
 
2013-01-09 07:55:53 PM

Girion47: Dinjiin: GAT_00: Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.

Figuring out how to extend lifespans to 150+ years or more while keeping our bodies young is going to be one of those paradigm shifts in society that nobody living today is going to accurately be able to predict.

Are we going to have a dystopian future as depicted in Logan's Run where you surrender your life at some fixed point, say 250 years? Do we add a plutocracy twist where the rich can essentially live forever by purchasing life credits as depicted in In Time? Maybe wars regarding finite resources will lead to periodic cullings that keep the population in check.  Regardless, it will mean huge changes (or lack of change) in culture and work.

It would also encourage space exploration.


Peter Hamilton strongly agrees with you.
 
2013-01-09 07:56:10 PM
I already do. I already do.
 
2013-01-09 07:56:22 PM
Thomas Malthus chuckles somewhere
 
2013-01-09 07:56:58 PM
I regret to inform Fark that the phrase screwing like rabbis produces zero hits on either Google Search or Google Images.
images.clipartof.com
 
2013-01-09 07:57:05 PM

dericwater: But we need people as consumers to buy the stuff we make.


In the present consumer-oriented, planned-obsolescence, marketing-driven economy, sure. There's no reason it has to stay that way, though.
 
2013-01-09 07:57:17 PM

EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.


How "middle"? Like upper middle? Lower middle? Middle lower? Middle upper? Middle middle? Do you have herpes?
 
2013-01-09 07:57:53 PM
From 1960 to 2009, Mexico's fertility rate tumbled from 7.3 live births per woman to 2.4, India's dropped from six to 2.5, and Brazil's fell from 6.15 to 1.9.

Wow those are some huge drops.

Overall long term it's probably but it will still bring problems. Governments and people have to look about solving these problems. One thing it will mean that the population of countries will be more older.
 
2013-01-09 07:57:59 PM

God-is-a-Taco: dericwater: We've never had a population explosion. We had a death implosion. Lifespans have increased from 50 years in the early 1900s to 78 or higher at the end of that century. We didn't have more babies than previous generations. We just didn't die as quickly as previous generations.


Obesity has reversed that trend, however.


That may very well be true. I believe there are experts claiming that my generation (baby boomers and beyond) may live shorter life spans than their parents'.
 
2013-01-09 07:59:09 PM

Xythero: Dinjiin: GAT_00: Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.

Figuring out how to extend lifespans to 150+ years or more while keeping our bodies young is going to be one of those paradigm shifts in society that nobody living today is going to accurately be able to predict.


It's an aweful idea that I guess is inevitable. People need to dye so that new ways of thinking can emerge. What if the generation of the Salem witch trials just kept on living? Or the slave masters? Or if we were stuck with the Baby Boomers FOREVER.


I think this is a job for John Boehner.
 
2013-01-09 07:59:43 PM

mbillips: All the low-hanging resource fruit is gone.


People say that, and it's true, we don't have easy deposits of naturally-occurring primary ores any more. However, we have something even better than that: landfill. Thousands and thousands of cubic meters of landfill.

If this world system collapses, the next renaissance will be built on our garbage.
 
2013-01-09 07:59:57 PM
I've had a vasectomy so I'm getting a kick out of this.
 
2013-01-09 08:00:09 PM

birdboy2000: Good. More people isn't always a higher quality of life, especially with 7 billion and finite resources.


How do you know resources are finite, or even effectively finite?
 
2013-01-09 08:00:27 PM

StopLurkListen: theorellior: You realize, if productivity goes up, fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work, so the population can shrink for quite some time without adversely affecting anyone's quality of life. Also, with fewer people chasing after the same resources, prices will go down.

Yup. And it's not the total number of humans that are stressing the planet's resources, it's the few hundred million wealthy ones consuming the vast majority of resources. If every human consumed like the average American, well, it just wouldn't be possible, but if they did there'd be massive ecological destruction. But good luck asking Americans to do with less, since our definition of wealth is tied closely with the amount you consume. And good luck asking the Chinese or Indians to do without, as they become wealthy and want to live like the rest of the modern world.


That's not completely true. Bangladesh is an ecological hellhole, because WAY too many people live there. They've cut down most of the forest for farking FIREWOOD. This is a problem in China, India and much of Africa, too. People living a subsistance lifestyle become a plague when they get modern medicine combined with their high birth rates.
 
2013-01-09 08:02:17 PM

mbillips: Once the population starts to fall, you get in a negative feedback loop -- fewer people equals less technology, plus environmental degradation equals less easily arable land and fertile fishing grounds equals fewer people, etc.


Sure, if your population numbers in the thousands, a loss in population will mean a high probability of losing knowledge and culture. With 300 million people and thousands of libraries, the US alone could lose 70% of its population and still have more people and knowledge than the Roman Empire had at its height.
 
2013-01-09 08:02:47 PM

dericwater: birdboy2000: Good. More people isn't always a higher quality of life, especially with 7 billion and finite resources.

How do you know resources are finite, or even effectively finite?


Well, because the universe began with an absolute amount of energy, and eventually it will all be evenly distributed as useless, low grade background radiation, sterile rocks, and lukewarm heat. All the resources will still, you know, technically, kinda be there. They'll just be in a worthless form.
 
2013-01-09 08:02:50 PM
I'd say let it decline. It might be rough for a generation or two on the way down, but a world population of 1-2 billion could likely exist on Earth with minimal conflict almost indefinitely, especially when you consider widespread use of modern and very foreseeable technologies. We would be talking about a golden age of unprecedented length and scale.


Then just let the people of the 23rd century worry about how to get birth rates back up to a more stable level.
 
2013-01-09 08:02:55 PM

Skarekrough: I've had a vasectomy so I'm getting a kick out of this.


She'd get better, if you hadn't...
 
2013-01-09 08:03:00 PM

dericwater: How do you know resources are finite, or even effectively finite?


Because we're not mining asteroids yet.
 
2013-01-09 08:03:01 PM
Ok, but I'll be needing a volunteer or five.
 
2013-01-09 08:03:42 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Um, the Nobel Prize laureates and PhDs right here on Fark have told me (when they took a break from 3D printing trinkets and masturbating over pictures of Mars) that we don't live longer than before.


DRINK!
 
2013-01-09 08:04:17 PM
Suddenly we need more gay sex. Who'd a thunk it?
 
2013-01-09 08:04:48 PM

MrHappyRotter: I already do. I already do.


"like rabbits" not "like, rabbits"

/So sorry
 
2013-01-09 08:05:47 PM

cold_war_relic: No one?

<scene from Children of Men>


While there are some fertility issues going on in some countries due to pollution (mostly estrogen mimicking chemicals), it hasn't reached CoM levels. At worst at the moment, you have to go through expensive IVF treatment. But you still end up with a kid.
 
2013-01-09 08:06:24 PM

dahmers love zombie: I would bet that we'll have a worldwide pandemic of something seriously antibiotic resistant within 20 years or so.  It'll knock off around 1-2 billion of the world's population, mostly clustered in the areas like Mumbai, or Bayonne, or anywhere else they routinely chuck corpses into the river to dispose of 'em.


20 bucks says it's man made/engineered. Monsanto, Pfizer, any number of these bastards will be our downfall.
 
2013-01-09 08:06:29 PM
Your blog sucks.
 
2013-01-09 08:07:55 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: dericwater: birdboy2000: Good. More people isn't always a higher quality of life, especially with 7 billion and finite resources.

How do you know resources are finite, or even effectively finite?

Well, because the universe began with an absolute amount of energy, and eventually it will all be evenly distributed as useless, low grade background radiation, sterile rocks, and lukewarm heat. All the resources will still, you know, technically, kinda be there. They'll just be in a worthless form.


That's my "effectively finite" clause. Yeah, in 15 billion years, we're all going to be nothing but inert blobs of solid rock at 0K (or, we're plasma stuck inside a black hole).

But between now and the death of the sun, how are you claiming we have finite or effectively finite resources?
 
2013-01-09 08:09:12 PM

bearded clamorer: MrHappyRotter: I already do. I already do.

"like rabbits" not "like, rabbits"

/So sorry


/Don't apologize anymore. Grammar works.
 
2013-01-09 08:09:30 PM

cold_war_relic: No one?


I think that Alfonso Cuarón did an excellent job of filming that scene and the scenes prior to it. His take on urban warfare was nasty, loud, confused and pointless. No war porn or soldier glamor shots. Just the basic depiction of organized bloodshed done with machines.
 
2013-01-09 08:09:36 PM
Yeah the drawing a straight line is pretty stupid, but I think it's a trend. I think thought the rate will be more asymptotic to about 1, or a little over 1.
 
2013-01-09 08:10:05 PM
It seriously annoys me how every time people talk about birthrates, they get stuck on irrelevant shorterm problems.

The real question is: What is the ideal population of Earth?

It shouldn't be to small, so that pandemics or inbreeding becomes a serious risk. On the other hand it should leave plenty of space for natural resourses like rainforrests. I think 100-500 millions would be a good number.
 
2013-01-09 08:11:04 PM

Non-evil Monkey: I'd say let it decline. It might be rough for a generation or two on the way down, but a world population of 1-2 billion could likely exist on Earth with minimal conflict almost indefinitely, especially when you consider widespread use of modern and very foreseeable technologies. We would be talking about a golden age of unprecedented length and scale.


Then just let the people of the 23rd century worry about how to get birth rates back up to a more stable level.


Right because wars often happen over battles for limited resources. Decreased population will make that less likely to occur. However it still would but at a lower rate.
 
2013-01-09 08:11:31 PM

Non-evil Monkey: I'd say let it decline. It might be rough for a generation or two on the way down, but a world population of 1-2 billion could likely exist on Earth with minimal conflict almost indefinitely, especially when you consider widespread use of modern and very foreseeable technologies. We would be talking about a golden age of unprecedented length and scale.


Then just let the people of the 23rd century worry about how to get birth rates back up to a more stable level.


I have a hypothesis, completely untested, that the optimal population size for humans is somewhere around 9 billion. At that number, it's possible to achieve economic stability while not worrying too much about overall carbon footprint (or any other environmental footprint) of the whole population. I have no computed basis for that number, but am dabbling at making that claim work. It may come out that a more accurate number would arise.
 
2013-01-09 08:12:07 PM

ultramarinblaa: It seriously annoys me how every time people talk about birthrates, they get stuck on irrelevant shorterm problems.

The real question is: What is the ideal population of Earth?

It shouldn't be to small, so that pandemics or inbreeding becomes a serious risk. On the other hand it should leave plenty of space for natural resourses like rainforrests. I think 100-500 millions would be a good number.


But that number also changes with technology. The world now can probably support more people then it could with technology of 100 years ago. Productivity is much much higher.
 
2013-01-09 08:13:09 PM

LewDux: As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gessellschaft, or "shrinking society."

SHRINCIETY!!


Schtroumpf -Gessellschaft: The population not only gets smaller, but bluer. Finally, there is only one female for every 150 males.

www.washingtoncitypaper.com
Welcome to the Gay Paradise
 
2013-01-09 08:13:34 PM

dericwater: But between now and the death of the sun, how are you claiming we have finite or effectively finite resources?


Well, because the earth only has so much stuff in it and on it. There's a measurable amount of things. The point of the "vast universe is still finite" thought exercise is to demonstrate that, since all things scale, you can assume the Earth is also effectively finite in terms of stuff.

Will it matter in our lifetimes? That's the question I can't answer (and the question you're asking - but this is Fark, I don't like to answer the questions people are actually asking, that's no fun)
 
2013-01-09 08:13:52 PM

ultramarinblaa: It seriously annoys me how every time people talk about birthrates, they get stuck on irrelevant shorterm problems.

The real question is: What is the ideal population of Earth?

It shouldn't be to small, so that pandemics or inbreeding becomes a serious risk. On the other hand it should leave plenty of space for natural resourses like rainforrests. I think 100-500 millions would be a good number.


That would be a terrible number for the ideal population of earth. I peg it at 9 billion.
 
2013-01-09 08:15:08 PM

dericwater: ultramarinblaa: It seriously annoys me how every time people talk about birthrates, they get stuck on irrelevant shorterm problems.

The real question is: What is the ideal population of Earth?

It shouldn't be to small, so that pandemics or inbreeding becomes a serious risk. On the other hand it should leave plenty of space for natural resourses like rainforrests. I think 100-500 millions would be a good number.

That would be a terrible number for the ideal population of earth. I peg it at 9 billion.


Try five. 5.
 
2013-01-09 08:15:10 PM
As many people die each day as are being born so it all equals out. People just need to get out of these major population areas that can't sustain them.
 
2013-01-09 08:16:06 PM

Quantum Apostrophe:
Um, the Nobel Prize laureates and PhDs right here on Fark have told me (when they took a break from 3D printing trinkets and masturbating over pictures of Mars) that we don't live longer than before.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-09 08:16:22 PM

Indubitably: dericwater: ultramarinblaa: It seriously annoys me how every time people talk about birthrates, they get stuck on irrelevant shorterm problems.

The real question is: What is the ideal population of Earth?

It shouldn't be to small, so that pandemics or inbreeding becomes a serious risk. On the other hand it should leave plenty of space for natural resourses like rainforrests. I think 100-500 millions would be a good number.

That would be a terrible number for the ideal population of earth. I peg it at 9 billion.

Try five. 5.


The amount of fingers you have on yer hand, son.
 
2013-01-09 08:16:28 PM

EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.


cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya
 
2013-01-09 08:17:05 PM

EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.


Middle-aged Masshole, vasectomy in 1996.

Err... I want you to NOT have my baby?

/hello?
//hello....?
 
2013-01-09 08:18:24 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: dericwater: But between now and the death of the sun, how are you claiming we have finite or effectively finite resources?

Well, because the earth only has so much stuff in it and on it. There's a measurable amount of things. The point of the "vast universe is still finite" thought exercise is to demonstrate that, since all things scale, you can assume the Earth is also effectively finite in terms of stuff.

Will it matter in our lifetimes? That's the question I can't answer (and the question you're asking - but this is Fark, I don't like to answer the questions people are actually asking, that's no fun)


Just because we have a finite amount of things on this planet (say 10^200 atoms or something like that), doesn't mean we have a finite amount of resources. The amount of water on earth, potable or not, is a finite quantity, true, but as far as it is a resource, it's infinite. Water comes down as rain, we clean it up, drink it, piss it out, let it go into the sewers into another cleaning place (or just down the river) and into the ocean, and then the sun evaporates it into the clouds and then it rains back on us. We don't lose any water. It's still two H's and an O. You can add poison to it, freeze it, boil it away and eventually, it comes back as water.
 
2013-01-09 08:18:26 PM

kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya


Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...
 
2013-01-09 08:18:56 PM
any farkettes want a cute, smart, slightly crazy and stubborn offspring just hit me up

i got gold in dem genes. and jeans. giggity.
 
2013-01-09 08:19:49 PM

DeathRaySanta: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

Middle-aged Masshole, vasectomy in 1996.

Err... I want you to NOT have my baby?

/hello?
//hello....?


*cue "It's a Man, Babby." pix*
 
2013-01-09 08:20:36 PM

Omahawg: any farkettes want a cute, smart, slightly crazy and stubborn offspring just hit me up

i got gold in dem genes. and jeans. giggity.


*ewww*
 
2013-01-09 08:20:38 PM

Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...


er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!
 
2013-01-09 08:22:31 PM

kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!


*whatevs*
 
2013-01-09 08:23:13 PM

dericwater: I believe life expectancy factors in child mortality.


Most of the time it doesn't. From Wiki

Life expectancy is often confused with life span to the point that they are nearly synonyms; when people hear 'life expectancy was 35 years' they often interpret this as meaning that people of that time or place had short life spans.[71] One such example can be seen in the In Search of... episode "The Man Who Would Not Die" (About Count of St. Germain) where it is stated "Evidence recently discovered in the British Museum indicates that St. Germain may have well been the long lost third son of Rákóczi born in Transylvania in 1694. If he died in Germany in 1784, he lived 90 years. The average life expectancy in the 18th century was 35 years. Fifty was a ripe old age. Ninety... was forever."

This ignores the fact that the life expectancy generally quoted is the at birth number which is an average that includes all the babies that die before their first year of life as well as people that die from disease and war. The genetics of humans and rate of aging were no different in preindustrial societies than today, but people frequently died young because of untreatable diseases, accidents, and malnutrition. Many women did not survive childbirth, and individuals who reached old age were likely to succumb quickly to health problems.

It can be argued that it is better to compare life expectancies of the period after adulthood to get a better handle on life span.[72] Even during childhood, life expectancy can take a huge jump as seen in the Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas where at birth the life expectancy was 25 but at the age of 5 it jumped to 48. Studies like Plymouth Plantation; "Dead at Forty" and Life Expectancy by Age, 1850-2004 similarly show a dramatic increase in life expectancy once adulthood was reached.
 
2013-01-09 08:23:25 PM

kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!


You know I love you, right, amirite?
 
2013-01-09 08:23:35 PM
Some good news for a change. The world needs less people. A lot less people.
 
2013-01-09 08:23:43 PM
If we are lucky, we'll top out before we exhaust all the non-renewable resources. If we are really lucky, we'll still have enough resources to allow us to protect the environment, continue to increase our life expectancy, continue to grow our per capita GDP, and fix some of the damage we have done, not to mention get off of the planet, first to space and the Moon, then to Mars and other planets and Moons.

My guess is that politics, economics and psychology can all be brought to bear on the problem of a declining population more easily than a never-ending population explosion. Women have to want to have children more. If they can post-pone child bearing indefinitely or start their careers after their children are fully-grown without penalty, then the extension of lifespans might mean a woman's child-bearing years could be extended well past today's utmost limit, say past 65 or 70. Give a woman thirty years of education, 30 years of work and 30 years of child-rearing, then thirty years of retirement and me time, she might be willing to have four or five children instead of two or three. After all, with average child spacing of three years, you can have six children in 18 years--by the time the last one is born, the older children are qualified babysitters or Nannies.

Humans who live a couple of hundred years might find, like the only genuine social mammal, the naked mole rat, that it is worth their while to tend their siblings rather than immediately have children of their own. More mature, richer, better educated and child-care experienced parents would be a great boost to quality child-rearing, and possibly also to quantity.

In short, the way we raise children and the timing can shift to encourage not only more children, but longer breeding and longer lives. After all, grandmothers made long childhoods possible for our ancestors. Multiple generation families could make the evolution of longer lived, healthier and cheaper humans a self-reinforcing proposition. A ninety year old Mother is more likely to have children and grandchildren who also live long and healthy lives. That's how evolution works: good breeders breed better breeders, poor breeders go extinct.
 
2013-01-09 08:24:11 PM

whidbey: World's population may soon start declining

They touched on India, but didn't really address the rapid birthrates in SE Asia or most of Africa.

Kind of a WTF attempt at touchy-feeling goodness I guess. I don't get it.


Yes, they did. Read it again. Africa is expected to start declining in the 2070's, and a few places like Singapore already has a hellishly low birthrate of 1.2.
 
2013-01-09 08:24:25 PM
dericwater

The universe is certainly vast. But space exploration is still in its infancy, and Earth is filling up.
 
2013-01-09 08:24:35 PM

12349876: dericwater: I believe life expectancy factors in child mortality.

Most of the time it doesn't. From Wiki

Life expectancy is often confused with life span to the point that they are nearly synonyms; when people hear 'life expectancy was 35 years' they often interpret this as meaning that people of that time or place had short life spans.[71] One such example can be seen in the In Search of... episode "The Man Who Would Not Die" (About Count of St. Germain) where it is stated "Evidence recently discovered in the British Museum indicates that St. Germain may have well been the long lost third son of Rákóczi born in Transylvania in 1694. If he died in Germany in 1784, he lived 90 years. The average life expectancy in the 18th century was 35 years. Fifty was a ripe old age. Ninety... was forever."

This ignores the fact that the life expectancy generally quoted is the at birth number which is an average that includes all the babies that die before their first year of life as well as people that die from disease and war. The genetics of humans and rate of aging were no different in preindustrial societies than today, but people frequently died young because of untreatable diseases, accidents, and malnutrition. Many women did not survive childbirth, and individuals who reached old age were likely to succumb quickly to health problems.

It can be argued that it is better to compare life expectancies of the period after adulthood to get a better handle on life span.[72] Even during childhood, life expectancy can take a huge jump as seen in the Roman Life Expectancy table at the University of Texas where at birth the life expectancy was 25 but at the age of 5 it jumped to 48. Studies like Plymouth Plantation; "Dead at Forty" and Life Expectancy by Age, 1850-2004 similarly show a dramatic increase in life expectancy once adulthood was reached.


You are functionally retarded.

*)

*giggle*
 
2013-01-09 08:25:59 PM

Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?


I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes
 
2013-01-09 08:27:38 PM
I don't get it.  Why just rabbits?  No dogs, or donkeys or sheep or. . .

Oh, LIKE rabbits. Uh, my mistake.
 
2013-01-09 08:28:09 PM

Potter82: Some good news for a change. The world needs less people. A lot less people.


War, then?

I suggest Africa first, build a strong fort at the Canal, and then spread East, hoping for high rolls. If you can take Australia bloodlessly, then you have a deserted base for flight operations into the mainland East.

It will be bloody and violent and the human race will become extinct.
 
2013-01-09 08:28:35 PM

brantgoose: If we are lucky, we'll top out before we exhaust all the non-renewable resources. If we are really lucky, we'll still have enough resources to allow us to protect the environment, continue to increase our life expectancy, continue to grow our per capita GDP, and fix some of the damage we have done, not to mention get off of the planet, first to space and the Moon, then to Mars and other planets and Moons.


There are few non-renewable resources. Which ones are you referring to?

Almost all resources that I know of are completely renewable. It's an financial and political issue, not a resource issue.
 
2013-01-09 08:31:12 PM

kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?

I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes


Commas are your friends, darlin'.
 
2013-01-09 08:31:51 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: dericwater: "We've never had a population explosion. We had a death implosion. Lifespans have increased from 50 years in the early 1900s to 78 or higher at the end of that century. We didn't have more babies than previous generations. We just didn't die as quickly as previous generations."

Um, the Nobel Prize laureates and PhDs right here on Fark have told me (when they took a break from 3D printing trinkets and masturbating over pictures of Mars) that we don't live longer than before.


Well, I think I found the problem...
 
2013-01-09 08:33:38 PM
Another factor which will come into play very soon is technology. Robots are already multiplying in jobs which they can do without too much intelligence or training. They are also doing jobs humans can not do safely. There is no reason why the can not do everything eventually. We have expert software that can do a lot of the work of lawyers, doctors, accountants, designers, architects and artists or musicians. There is nothing an android can not do if it approximates to a human being.

Three-dimensional printing is also dropping in cost and learning-curve time. The Santa Clause machine, capable of making anything from cheap materials, is fast approaching. With these, getting into space would be a snap. You can make droids, computers, space-craft and possibly even food, air and water, out of raw materials without large industry or agriculture. You can also make guns. Gun parts have already been made and the guns have been fired. They tend to explode because the firing chamber and cylinder can't be made of strong enough materials, but various options will soon exist, including 3-d printers that work in plastics, metal or ceramics as strong and heat-resistant as steel.

This could lead to anarchy and massive populaton loss (if we are lucky, oldsters without jobs or talent or experience) and the problem of a an aging population would solve itself as easily as the Malthusian population problem solves itself--and by the same means--death, famine, war, pestilence and man's inhumanity to man and everything else.

Because there are two basic ways to solve problems:  the wrong way and the right way. Wrong ways are many and easy. Right ways are few and hard.
 
2013-01-09 08:34:04 PM

EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.


Pictures or GTFO.
 
2013-01-09 08:34:18 PM

dericwater: brantgoose: If we are lucky, we'll top out before we exhaust all the non-renewable resources. If we are really lucky, we'll still have enough resources to allow us to protect the environment, continue to increase our life expectancy, continue to grow our per capita GDP, and fix some of the damage we have done, not to mention get off of the planet, first to space and the Moon, then to Mars and other planets and Moons.


There are few non-renewable resources. Which ones are you referring to?

Almost all resources that I know of are completely renewable. It's an financial and political issue, not a resource issue.


"An financial?"

Wrong.

Resources were human first, "an financial an political second an you know it..."

Quit fuking with humanity.

There is a record.

It's cosmic.

Good luck.

*)
 
2013-01-09 08:35:19 PM
Nature generally finds a way to re-balance. On a geologic time scale, humans are a recent arrival. Though we're clever, we still can't cure a single virus. Everntually, time and mutation will create one that we won't be able to deal with. The Spanish Flu wiped out more people after WWI than the war did. Preview of coming attractions?
 
2013-01-09 08:37:35 PM

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: The problem with this analysis, however, is that the author is making the same mistake he accuses Malthus of making: namely, making straight-line projections hundreds of years into the future regarding population growth.  At least the suggestion that human population could go to zero.  That part was pretty unbelievable.


What if his hobby is extrapolating?
 
2013-01-09 08:38:03 PM

dericwater: The amount of water on earth, potable or not, is a finite quantity, true, but as far as it is a resource, it's infinite.


But if it's not potable, you have to find the energy to make it potable.
 
2013-01-09 08:38:57 PM

Mister Peejay: Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: The problem with this analysis, however, is that the author is making the same mistake he accuses Malthus of making: namely, making straight-line projections hundreds of years into the future regarding population growth.  At least the suggestion that human population could go to zero.  That part was pretty unbelievable.

What if his hobby is extrapolating?


He explicated extrapolatingly...
 
2013-01-09 08:39:43 PM

12349876: dericwater: The amount of water on earth, potable or not, is a finite quantity, true, but as far as it is a resource, it's infinite.

But if it's not potable, you have to find the energy to make it potable.


Good luck with that...
 
2013-01-09 08:40:22 PM
Nah, I'm opting out.

/never was satisfied with the human condition
//or maybe I'm confused by living in 'Murica
///wouldn't want a wife and kids I couldn't afford either
 
2013-01-09 08:41:48 PM
Just send all the girls to school, keep up with microfinancing small businesses for them, and not only will the population go down, but so will child mortality.

As for the surplus Chinese men, that can be offset by a combination of the fact that women outnumber men worldwide and young men, with encouragement from other young men, do stupid things that get themselves killed.

As for blue state rabbits, I have one. He's an English Spot and I have to keep him away from wires and shoes.
 
2013-01-09 08:41:51 PM

Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?

I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes

Commas are your friends, darlin'.


fark those communists down the road they never let me cum in their faces
 
2013-01-09 08:42:07 PM

Indubitably: 12349876: dericwater: The amount of water on earth, potable or not, is a finite quantity, true, but as far as it is a resource, it's infinite.

But if it's not potable, you have to find the energy to make it potable.

Good luck with that...


"In the Age of Economy, things got made. People made things all the time with the energies they wielded. However, their hubris was tragic. People died. Little did they know what the future would bring:
 
2013-01-09 08:42:41 PM
here's your fat future, fatties

www.killertofu.com
 
2013-01-09 08:43:15 PM

kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?

I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes

Commas are your friends, darlin'.

fark those communists down the road they never let me cum in their faces


Fear of Communists was a 50's meme: Grow Up.
 
2013-01-09 08:44:38 PM

Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?

I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes

Commas are your friends, darlin'.

fark those communists down the road they never let me cum in their faces

Fear of Communists was a 50's meme: Grow Up.


P.S. The recent splay re: Marilyn was Fascist Garbage. FO. *)(
 
2013-01-09 08:45:52 PM

LewDux: fusillade762: Unlike Europe, the United States has long been the beneficiary of robust immigration.

Suck it, conservatives!

Though I thought Europe had plenty of immigrants?

of cause, just ask Breivnik


Europe has lots of immigrants but is nowhere near as open to immigration as the more successful colonies. Canada, for example, has a population which is nearly 20% immigrants. France is more like half this. European countries tend to assimilate immigrants worse than the USA, Canada, etc. Conservatism (even fascism) and left wing as well as right wing barriers to economic equality and fairness mean that many immigrants are stuck in ghettos such as the Banlieux of Paris--giant high rise ghettos. This is one reason they burn a lot of cars in French riots. Not the only reason, of course, and not exclusively immigrants or leftists to blame--a lot of residents of France like to riot and demonstrate more than we North Americans do.

All in all, most of Continental Europe is not an immigrant's first choice, although Africans can hop the Mediterranean in large numbers if they are willing to risk dying, and some are even stupid or desperate enough to try to get in the wheel wells of airplanes, where they often die of exposure and lack of oxygen.

Europe has a fair amount of "internal" migration. Old Europe receives skilled workers and other immigrants from New Europe or even Turkey. Some of these may be easier to assimilate, but they don't really count as immigrants if they are from countries that are part of the Eurozone. There is guaranteed freedom of movement, at least for certain categories of immigrants who are needed because of skills in short supply.

Britain is full of Polish plumbers.

But Europe also has laws that make it easier to expel "guest workers", while some are only still in Europe because they have lost their passports. In the Middle East, there are many unemployed workers trapped because passports are taken away by employers and not returned when the workers are "let go" from construction or other projects. They are trapped like that guy who lived in an airport for 15 years, although he eventually was allowed to move on, only to decide that he didn't like that much either. They made a movie with whatzit, Bill Murray, IIRC.
 
2013-01-09 08:56:25 PM

dericwater: theorellior: dericwater: That 1.6 billion people will drop precipitously in the next 20 years. It will be smaller than India's population in about 30 years.

They'd better hope so, in order to keep their environment halfway stable. Thing is, they're gonna be in for a wild ride when the 100 million surplus boys become bachelors. If there's not a bloody revolution in China in 20 years I'll be very surprised.

Those boys being permanent bachelors have already happened 10 years or longer ago. Remember, it was Mao's 1 child per family policy of the 60s and 70s. The first group of them are now in the 40s and 50s. I expect to see China changing its family planning policy in the next 10 years.


I don't think you got all your facts in order. Unbeknownst to most, China's 1 child policy only applies to population in bigger cities. In rural areas they can have 2 kids.
 
2013-01-09 09:02:46 PM

mbillips: dahmers love zombie: I would bet that we'll have a worldwide pandemic of something seriously antibiotic resistant within 20 years or so.  It'll knock off around 1-2 billion of the world's population, mostly clustered in the areas like Mumbai, or Bayonne, or anywhere else they routinely chuck corpses into the river to dispose of 'em.  Panic and social disorder will account for a few tens of millions of those deaths.
That should relieve population pressures for a while.  Of course, it will be used as a vehicle to enact stupid, evil, or religiously-based laws.  But I repeat myself.  Anyway, it will entirely be the fault of Westerners insistence on a cheap-all-meat diet, combined with helicoptery parents who demand an antibiotic every time their child gets a sniffle or an owie.  Oh, and the lawyers.  Yes, it'll be their fault, too.  Hopefully the bacteria will be selectively lethal towards members of bar associations.  One can dream.

What were we talking about again?  Schtupping?  Good Lord, I hope when the pandemic comes, it isn't an STD.  Countries be bannin' sex if that happens.

While it seems alarmist, I think a total civilizational collapse is more likely than a minor drop in population. Once the population starts to fall, you get in a negative feedback loop -- fewer people equals less technology, plus environmental degradation equals less easily arable land and fertile fishing grounds equals fewer people, etc.

See "Collapse" by Jared Diamond for any number of historical precedents.

I don't think we'd ever come back, either. All the low-hanging resource fruit is gone. It's gonna be hunting and gathering for you, homo sapiens, until the star goes dim.


"Til the night closes in...."

I'll hunt and gather to that. Link
 
2013-01-09 09:03:08 PM
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many
There's so many
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many
There's so many
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many

/Lee Ving knows
 
2013-01-09 09:03:18 PM

dericwater: ultramarinblaa: It seriously annoys me how every time people talk about birthrates, they get stuck on irrelevant shorterm problems.

The real question is: What is the ideal population of Earth?

It shouldn't be to small, so that pandemics or inbreeding becomes a serious risk. On the other hand it should leave plenty of space for natural resourses like rainforrests. I think 100-500 millions would be a good number.

That would be a terrible number for the ideal population of earth. I peg it at 9 billion.


People who actually study these things, as opposed to randomly speculating, peg the carrying capacity if Earth right about 500 million.
 
2013-01-09 09:06:01 PM
The author notes the desire of women seeking a career as the determining factor causing the population decline in West but he misses the another important reason: Lack of jobs that pay a living wage. In the 50s and 60 it was possible for a single, male, high school grad to support a stay at home wife and at least a couple of kids. Try that today.
 
2013-01-09 09:15:31 PM
Take a look around you, morons. We're never going to get off this rock. Enjoy the twilight years of the human race while you can.
 
2013-01-09 09:16:17 PM
Not surprising that worldwide population may decline....as the only countries with large population growth is Islamic nations.

Even the Catholic nations in South America are having population slowdowns. And southern Africa is shrinking poulation massively due to HIV/AIDS, and their nations refusal to fight it realistically
 
2013-01-09 09:25:29 PM
self correcting problem. Fewer people = Remaining people are richer = Can afford to raise more kids. Works in reverse too. Population will always hover around an equilibrium level as determined by the food supply.
 
2013-01-09 09:33:10 PM

theorellior: mbillips: All the low-hanging resource fruit is gone.

People say that, and it's true, we don't have easy deposits of naturally-occurring primary ores any more. However, we have something even better than that: landfill. Thousands and thousands of cubic meters of landfill.

If this world system collapses, the next renaissance will be built on our garbage.


farm6.static.flickr.com
 
2013-01-09 09:33:21 PM

BKITU: World's population may soon start declining

[i3.kym-cdn.com image 141x163]


Well you're a moron
 
2013-01-09 09:36:12 PM

Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?

I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes

Commas are your friends, darlin'.

fark those communists down the road they never let me cum in their faces

Fear of Communists was a 50's meme: Grow Up.


you know honey if you are going to treat me like a baby you better be prepared to change my diaper tonight
 
2013-01-09 09:39:54 PM

kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?

I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes

Commas are your friends, darlin'.

fark those communists down the road they never let me cum in their faces

Fear of Communists was a 50's meme: Grow Up.

you know honey if you are going to treat me like a baby you better be prepared to change my diaper tonight


First things first: are you male or female, genderly?
 
2013-01-09 09:40:49 PM

Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?

I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes

Commas are your friends, darlin'.

fark those communists down the road they never let me cum in their faces

Fear of Communists was a 50's meme: Grow Up.

you know honey if you are going to treat me like a baby you better be prepared to change my diaper tonight

First things first: are you male or female, genderly?


Sweetie, I'm hetero through and through...
 
2013-01-09 09:41:59 PM
Agenda 22.
 
2013-01-09 09:42:34 PM

theorellior: mbillips: Once the population starts to fall, you get in a negative feedback loop -- fewer people equals less technology, plus environmental degradation equals less easily arable land and fertile fishing grounds equals fewer people, etc.

Sure, if your population numbers in the thousands, a loss in population will mean a high probability of losing knowledge and culture. With 300 million people and thousands of libraries, the US alone could lose 70% of its population and still have more people and knowledge than the Roman Empire had at its height.


All you'd need to counter the loss of knowledge is to be more active in making people choose for marketable skills. From a practical standpoint there isn't really much of value lost if we lost 90% of our knowledge of insects (like the fact that ants always fall the same direction when poisoned), literature (who cares what someone thought of The Once and Future King, there have always been and will always be new stories to be told), languages and so forth. Most knowledge is trivia which is only known because we need something to keep millions of people busy so that they won't revolt or commit crimes out of boredom.

back to the topic:

I think that the reducing birthrate might have something to do with the stress of modern society. We might not experience it that way but we always have something to do, somewhere to be and wherever we are we'll have hundreds of strangers on every single street pushing around because they need to go somewhere else. I can see this causing the subconscious to form a picture that there are too many people who will be competing for the same resources. Sure, we have resources but the subconscious has evolved over millions of years to assume that shiat will presently hit the fan. It isn't so much reading the signs as seeing a lot of signs and assuming that they must mean something. What happens during stressful/scarcity periods? Fertility goes down.
 
2013-01-09 09:42:38 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?

I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes

Commas are your friends, darlin'.

fark those communists down the road they never let me cum in their faces

Fear of Communists was a 50's meme: Grow Up.

you know honey if you are going to treat me like a baby you better be prepared to change my diaper tonight

First things first: are you male or female, genderly?

Sweetie, I'm hetero through and through...


Yet turned on by human sexuality minus violence and children...

We Fark.

*)
 
2013-01-09 09:48:46 PM
It's the GM food causing impotence.
 
2013-01-09 09:51:31 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?

I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes

Commas are your friends, darlin'.

fark those communists down the road they never let me cum in their faces

Fear of Communists was a 50's meme: Grow Up.

you know honey if you are going to treat me like a baby you better be prepared to change my diaper tonight

First things first: are you male or female, genderly?

Sweetie, I'm hetero through and through...


did you just reply to yourself?
 
2013-01-09 09:53:00 PM

Godscrack: [www.truehealthfacts.com image 350x231]


Thanks, Godscrack. I'm glad someone understands. Totally ruins the desert scenery of formerly clear blue skies to have to see that intentional pollution.
 
2013-01-09 09:55:15 PM

12349876: dericwater: The amount of water on earth, potable or not, is a finite quantity, true, but as far as it is a resource, it's infinite.

But if it's not potable, you have to find the energy to make it potable.


All resource problems can be solved with energy. It just depends on how much energy you have to play with. A breakthrough on nuclear fusion is all that is pretty much needed to create a paradigm shift in our civilization, bigger than what happened when we harnessed fossil fuels. Figure out how to create a relatively cheap fusion reactor, and you've basically solved resource issues for a long, long time. We've been chasing that dream for decades without much to show for it, but it is not unreasonable to think that a breakthrough could come sometime this century.
 
2013-01-09 09:57:26 PM
I would die a relieved and happy man if I could see the world's population decline to levels equal to when I was born.
 
2013-01-09 09:58:42 PM

nucular bum: I would die a relieved and happy man if I could see the world's population decline to levels equal to when I was born.


You realize what hell the world was before antibiotics and sterile hospitals, right?
 
2013-01-09 10:03:19 PM
So does this mean the Illuminati/Masonic/UN world take-over and mass extermination of "undesirables" is off? I was promised a New World Order and Illuminati death-squads...
 
2013-01-09 10:08:55 PM

another cultural observer: nucular bum: I would die a relieved and happy man if I could see the world's population decline to levels equal to when I was born.

You realize what hell the world was before antibiotics and sterile hospitals, right?


FTFAAU
 
2013-01-09 10:12:22 PM

fusillade762: Unlike Europe, the United States has long been the beneficiary of robust immigration.

Suck it, conservatives!

Though I thought Europe had plenty of immigrants?


Conservatives don't have a problem with immigration. It's illegal immigration that's the issue.
 
2013-01-09 10:15:03 PM

Fark Rye For Many Whores: another cultural observer: nucular bum: I would die a relieved and happy man if I could see the world's population decline to levels equal to when I was born.

You realize what hell the world was before antibiotics and sterile hospitals, right?

FTFAAU


I don't know what AAU is, but here's a picture of a civil war hospital!!!!!

antiquescientifica.com
See...it's clean because he's got his sleeves rolled up and the horse water bucket is near at hand.
 
2013-01-09 10:17:20 PM

kvinesknows: Indubitably: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?

I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes

Commas are your friends, darlin'.

fark those communists down the road they never let me cum in their faces

Fear of Communists was a 50's meme: Grow Up.

you know honey if you are going to treat me like a baby you better be prepared to change my diaper tonight

First things first: are you male or female, genderly?

Sweetie, I'm hetero through and through...

did you just reply to yourself?


I dunno, do you masturbate?
 
2013-01-09 10:17:51 PM
In Germany, the birthrate has sunk to just 1.36, worse even than its low-fertility neighbors Spain (1.48) and Italy (1.4). The way things are going, Western Europe as a whole will most likely shrink from 460 million to just 350 million by the end of the century. That's not so bad compared with Russia and China, each of whose populations could fall by half. As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gessellschaft, or "shrinking society"

Meanwhile, Muslims continue to breed like vermin, refuse to assimilate, and import their barbarity and illiberalism. It's the Muslim Conquests V. 2.0, what they couldn't take through war they'll take through demographics.

This will be a fun century...
 
2013-01-09 10:18:21 PM

Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?

I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes

Commas are your friends, darlin'.

fark those communists down the road they never let me cum in their faces

Fear of Communists was a 50's meme: Grow Up.

you know honey if you are going to treat me like a baby you better be prepared to change my diaper tonight

First things first: are you male or female, genderly?

Sweetie, I'm hetero through and through...

did you just reply to yourself?

I dunno, do you masturbate?


I love me.
 
2013-01-09 10:22:18 PM

OdradekRex: Nature generally finds a way to re-balance. On a geologic time scale, humans are a recent arrival. Though we're clever, we still can't cure a single virus. Everntually, time and mutation will create one that we won't be able to deal with. The Spanish Flu wiped out more people after WWI than the war did. Preview of coming attractions?


Smallpox and polio got cured pretty effectively, as have a whole host of childhood illnesses. We've just started unlocking a lot of secrets of genetics and the immune system. Eventually, we're going to figure out some nice magic bullets for the more complicated viruses. We were a little spoiled by the low hanging fruit of the first few viruses we created effective vaccines for, but the next couple of decades could result in some really nice medical advances as we figure out more key things about the human body. Biology is complicated, sure, but I don't think it is an ineffable mystery.
 
2013-01-09 10:26:03 PM

Mad_Radhu: OdradekRex: Nature generally finds a way to re-balance. On a geologic time scale, humans are a recent arrival. Though we're clever, we still can't cure a single virus. Everntually, time and mutation will create one that we won't be able to deal with. The Spanish Flu wiped out more people after WWI than the war did. Preview of coming attractions?

Smallpox and polio got cured pretty effectively, as have a whole host of childhood illnesses. We've just started unlocking a lot of secrets of genetics and the immune system. Eventually, we're going to figure out some nice magic bullets for the more complicated viruses. We were a little spoiled by the low hanging fruit of the first few viruses we created effective vaccines for, but the next couple of decades could result in some really nice medical advances as we figure out more key things about the human body. Biology is complicated, sure, but I don't think it is an ineffable mystery.


And once we get past Robotics and Fusion, it's just Future Technology 1, Future Technology 2, etc, from here on out!
 
2013-01-09 10:37:23 PM
1. The number of children required to tend to the parents in old age is going down.
2. The availability of birth control is going up.
 
2013-01-09 10:53:06 PM

Xythero: Dinjiin: GAT_00: Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.

Figuring out how to extend lifespans to 150+ years or more while keeping our bodies young is going to be one of those paradigm shifts in society that nobody living today is going to accurately be able to predict.


It's an aweful idea that I guess is inevitable. People need to dye so that new ways of thinking can emerge. What if the generation of the Salem witch trials just kept on living? Or the slave masters? Or if we were stuck with the Baby Boomers FOREVER.


It's my theory that someone out there has already discovered an immortality serum. They're just waiting for the bulk of the Baby Boomer generation to die off before making it public because they don't want THAT rapacious generation in charge of the planet forever...
 
2013-01-09 10:53:44 PM

another cultural observer: nucular bum: I would die a relieved and happy man if I could see the world's population decline to levels equal to when I was born.
You realize what hell the world was before antibiotics and sterile hospitals, right?


Do you think he's 200 years old or something?
The population when I was born was 3 billion It would be a much nicer planet if we still had that many. And I'm not 200 years old either.

/exponential growth is scary
 
2013-01-09 10:57:09 PM

cryinoutloud: another cultural observer: nucular bum: I would die a relieved and happy man if I could see the world's population decline to levels equal to when I was born.
You realize what hell the world was before antibiotics and sterile hospitals, right?

Do you think he's 200 years old or something?
The population when I was born was 3 billion It would be a much nicer planet if we still had that many. And I'm not 200 years old either.

/exponential growth is scary


Of course I don't think he's 200 years old, don't be ridiculous...

mcclungmuseum.utk.edu
 
2013-01-09 11:09:30 PM
Sustain. It needs to be the primary goal of the future.
 
2013-01-09 11:13:24 PM

toraque: I don't get it.  Why just rabbits?  No dogs, or donkeys or sheep or. . .

Oh, LIKE rabbits. Uh, my mistake.


Hey, some people like rabbits, and some people, like, like-like rabbits! NTTAWWT.

i.imgur.com

/one more glass should do it for me.
 
2013-01-09 11:17:07 PM
I think farkers will become the "beautiful ones".

lol
 
2013-01-09 11:18:18 PM

Indubitably: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: Indubitably: kvinesknows: EnglishMajor: Ok, single professional, middle-aged woman seeks blue state rabbit.

cant get much more blue then Canada honey.. come on up.. Ill rabbit ya

Seriously?

If she takes you with that, she can have you...

er..hi honey? sorry.. I was just kidding!

You know I love you, right, amirite?

I sure hope so!.. please be gentle with the whip tonight I have a meeting at work tomorrow and really should not have blood forming on my clothes

Commas are your friends, darlin'.

fark those communists down the road they never let me cum in their faces

Fear of Communists was a 50's meme: Grow Up.

you know honey if you are going to treat me like a baby you better be prepared to change my diaper tonight

First things first: are you male or female, genderly?

Sweetie, I'm hetero through and through...

did you just reply to yourself?

I dunno, do you masturbate?

I love me.


twice
 
2013-01-09 11:21:16 PM

Potter82: Some good news for a change. The world needs less people. A lot less people.


Feel free to kill yourself, then.

Anyone who thinks the world is overpopulated should do more than just flap his gums.

Let's see some action. Show us your level of committment to your convictions about how many people get to live, in your view.
 
2013-01-09 11:35:26 PM

Betep: There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many
There's so many
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many
There's so many
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many

/Lee Ving knows


=================

Let's have a war.
 
2013-01-10 12:07:43 AM
massassi.hobby-site.com
What the end might have looked like...
 
2013-01-10 12:08:47 AM
Wrong thread. Time to sleep. What a waste.
 
2013-01-10 12:13:26 AM
On the one hand, historically populations who have a decline tend to go through a depression of sorts with famine, increased taxes, civil unrest, etc. On the other hand, sometimes after massive declines in population you get a great rebirth of society like the renaissance. Of course the reasons for the rebirth are quite complex and aren't merely due to a drop in population.

Overall though, I think in this day and age I'm not too concerned with a decline in population due to people choosing not to procreate considering how many people we have. It could potentially be a problem for a generation or two (maybe) with that whole argument about there not being enough young to take care of the old, but I don't think the solution is to just keep exponentially increasing our population at the rate we have in the past. Either way, this article seemed a little melodramatic.

I'm actually surprised this thread didn't devolve into a hate thread against women controlling their reproductive systems.
 
2013-01-10 12:30:15 AM

LazarusLong42: dericwater: ultramarinblaa: It seriously annoys me how every time people talk about birthrates, they get stuck on irrelevant shorterm problems.

The real question is: What is the ideal population of Earth?

It shouldn't be to small, so that pandemics or inbreeding becomes a serious risk. On the other hand it should leave plenty of space for natural resourses like rainforrests. I think 100-500 millions would be a good number.

That would be a terrible number for the ideal population of earth. I peg it at 9 billion.

People who actually study these things, as opposed to randomly speculating, peg the carrying capacity if Earth right about 500 million.


Citation needed. If you are going to pick a number outside the basic ranges that a google search is going to pick up you look stupid. UN WHO is suggesting a range from 4-16 Billion from the various studies they've aggregated, with most landing around 10 billion. Love 'em or hate 'em, the UN does do good work in this particular area. 500 million is the floor needed to sustain us, not the upper range of the planet. Of course, you could be a misanthropist, in which case having a conversation with you would be useless.
 
2013-01-10 12:46:11 AM

Girion47: Dinjiin: GAT_00: Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.

Figuring out how to extend lifespans to 150+ years or more while keeping our bodies young is going to be one of those paradigm shifts in society that nobody living today is going to accurately be able to predict.

Are we going to have a dystopian future as depicted in Logan's Run where you surrender your life at some fixed point, say 250 years? Do we add a plutocracy twist where the rich can essentially live forever by purchasing life credits as depicted in In Time? Maybe wars regarding finite resources will lead to periodic cullings that keep the population in check.  Regardless, it will mean huge changes (or lack of change) in culture and work.

It would also encourage space exploration.


You both just got favorited...
 
2013-01-10 01:18:19 AM

theorellior: You realize, if productivity goes up, fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work, so the population can shrink for quite some time without adversely affecting anyone's quality of life. Also, with fewer people chasing after the same resources, prices will go down.


Same argument why having few workers supporting retired people isn't the end of the world.

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: The problem with this analysis, however, is that the author is making the same mistake he accuses Malthus of making: namely, making straight-line projections hundreds of years into the future regarding population growth.  At least the suggestion that human population could go to zero.  That part was pretty unbelievable.


I don't where this 'Malthus was wrong' meme/propaganda comes from, but it's deeply stupid. The exponential growth once people gained access to fossil fuels is proof of the pudding.
 
2013-01-10 02:19:59 AM

12349876: dericwater: The amount of water on earth, potable or not, is a finite quantity, true, but as far as it is a resource, it's infinite.

But if it's not potable, you have to find the energy to make it potable.


We got a sun that beams down terawatts of power on a daily basis. I think we can make it potable.
 
2013-01-10 02:22:48 AM

LazarusLong42: dericwater: ultramarinblaa: It seriously annoys me how every time people talk about birthrates, they get stuck on irrelevant shorterm problems.

The real question is: What is the ideal population of Earth?

It shouldn't be to small, so that pandemics or inbreeding becomes a serious risk. On the other hand it should leave plenty of space for natural resourses like rainforrests. I think 100-500 millions would be a good number.

That would be a terrible number for the ideal population of earth. I peg it at 9 billion.

People who actually study these things, as opposed to randomly speculating, peg the carrying capacity if Earth right about 500 million.


Then they're farking stupid, as the earth hadn't had 500 million people on it since like the 1600s. And since then, we're much better off economically, health-wise, peace-wise, longevity, food availability, energy availability, mobility, habitability... By any metric, human lives are better off now than 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago or 1000 years ago, and all years in between.
 
2013-01-10 03:11:47 AM

cold_war_relic: No one?

[www.blogcdn.com image 450x342]


thank you!
 
2013-01-10 03:31:58 AM
When a population gets too large, something always occurs that knocks it back down. Humans will be no different.

/history shows again and again how nature points out the folly of man
 
2013-01-10 03:37:26 AM

Xythero: Dinjiin: GAT_00: Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.

Figuring out how to extend lifespans to 150+ years or more while keeping our bodies young is going to be one of those paradigm shifts in society that nobody living today is going to accurately be able to predict.


It's an aweful idea that I guess is inevitable. People need to dye so that new ways of thinking can emerge. What if the generation of the Salem witch trials just kept on living? Or the slave masters? Or if we were stuck with the Baby Boomers FOREVER.


Way to speak up for Death as though he needed any help.
 
2013-01-10 03:39:43 AM

birdboy2000: Good. More people isn't always a higher quality of life, especially with 7 billion and finite resources.


We've never had more people. We've never had a better standard of living. Yet minds still contrive to juxtapose these factors. What the hell?
 
2013-01-10 03:41:18 AM

Omahawg: Thomas Malthus chuckles somewhere


He'll finally be right one of these days! We'll see!
 
2013-01-10 09:00:22 AM

MadHatter500: LazarusLong42: dericwater: ultramarinblaa: It seriously annoys me how every time people talk about birthrates, they get stuck on irrelevant shorterm problems.

The real question is: What is the ideal population of Earth?

It shouldn't be to small, so that pandemics or inbreeding becomes a serious risk. On the other hand it should leave plenty of space for natural resourses like rainforrests. I think 100-500 millions would be a good number.

That would be a terrible number for the ideal population of earth. I peg it at 9 billion.

People who actually study these things, as opposed to randomly speculating, peg the carrying capacity if Earth right about 500 million.

Citation needed. If you are going to pick a number outside the basic ranges that a google search is going to pick up you look stupid. UN WHO is suggesting a range from 4-16 Billion from the various studies they've aggregated, with most landing around 10 billion. Love 'em or hate 'em, the UN does do good work in this particular area. 500 million is the floor needed to sustain us, not the upper range of the planet. Of course, you could be a misanthropist, in which case having a conversation with you would be useless.


I'm a slight misanthropist, but not on a large scale; I only generally dislike people I can interact with. (The Zero Population people are a bunch of total loonies.) I must have been reading a single study, because I cannot find a citation; a UN report I find also shows a single paper showing 500M, but most in the 4-8B range. I retract what I said.

dericwater: LazarusLong42:

People who actually study these things, as opposed to randomly speculating, peg the carrying capacity if Earth right about 500 million.

Then they're farking stupid, as the earth hadn't had 500 million people on it since like the 1600s. And since then, we're much better off economically, health-wise, peace-wise, longevity, food availability, energy availability, mobility, habitability... By any metric, human lives are better off now than 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago or 1000 years ago, and all years in between.


While as I said, I can't find a citation, I do find your argument about how we're better off specious at best; we're not better off because of a larger population. The reason we're better off is technology, which isn't a function of number of people at all. I think it's reasonable to suggest that, at the same level of technology, we'd be just as well off with 1B people.
 
2013-01-10 10:03:27 AM

LazarusLong42: MadHatter500: LazarusLong42: dericwater: ultramarinblaa: It seriously annoys me how every time people talk about birthrates, they get stuck on irrelevant shorterm problems.

The real question is: What is the ideal population of Earth?

It shouldn't be to small, so that pandemics or inbreeding becomes a serious risk. On the other hand it should leave plenty of space for natural resourses like rainforrests. I think 100-500 millions would be a good number.

That would be a terrible number for the ideal population of earth. I peg it at 9 billion.

People who actually study these things, as opposed to randomly speculating, peg the carrying capacity if Earth right about 500 million.

Citation needed. If you are going to pick a number outside the basic ranges that a google search is going to pick up you look stupid. UN WHO is suggesting a range from 4-16 Billion from the various studies they've aggregated, with most landing around 10 billion. Love 'em or hate 'em, the UN does do good work in this particular area. 500 million is the floor needed to sustain us, not the upper range of the planet. Of course, you could be a misanthropist, in which case having a conversation with you would be useless.

I'm a slight misanthropist, but not on a large scale; I only generally dislike people I can interact with. (The Zero Population people are a bunch of total loonies.) I must have been reading a single study, because I cannot find a citation; a UN report I find also shows a single paper showing 500M, but most in the 4-8B range. I retract what I said.

dericwater: LazarusLong42:

People who actually study these things, as opposed to randomly speculating, peg the carrying capacity if Earth right about 500 million.

Then they're farking stupid, as the earth hadn't had 500 million people on it since like the 1600s. And since then, we're much better off economically, health-wise, peace-wise, longevity, food availability, energy availability, mobility, habitability... By any metric, human lives are better off now than 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 500 years ago or 1000 years ago, and all years in between.

While as I said, I can't find a citation, I do find your argument about how we're better off specious at best; we're not better off because of a larger population. The reason we're better off is technology, which isn't a function of number of people at all. I think it's reasonable to suggest that, at the same level of technology, we'd be just as well off with 1B people.


So who is the mother of invention, then? We spend our time and energy on better tech for two reasons: (1) We have to manage scarce resources carefully because we have a lot of people, and (2) we have more free time because of division of labor because we have a lot of people.
I notice you didn't target your population even one degree of magnitude away from the present. Can you imagine the technology required to keep 60 billion people alive on Earth?
 
2013-01-10 10:19:30 AM
... Not to mention ten times the monetary investment in technology, which would be conservative; I wonder if anyone's graphed tech $ vs. pop.
 
2013-01-10 12:46:12 PM
The population is not declining. Growth is slowing down. We are still adding 1 billion every 13 years.
 
2013-01-10 12:50:54 PM
The "oh no, the earth will run out of people" claims are always amusing. There are 7 billion humans on earth. About the only species we currently don't outnumber are chickens and ants. And various one-celled organisms, I guess.

Our activities have already cost many species most of their natural habitats. I think it'd be pretty goddam selfish to assume we're entitled to the rest of it to feed, clothe and house an ever-increasing number of humans.

Declining population isn't a problem. We don't need more people to buy stuff or take care of old people.
 
2013-01-10 02:41:30 PM
"I think it'd be pretty goddam selfish to assume we're entitled to the rest of it"

I'm sure the more philosophical organisms of Earth will be delighted to give you a balanced perspective on the topic.
 
2013-01-10 08:02:27 PM
put lorazepam in the drinking water
 
2013-01-10 11:21:50 PM
Finally
www.halfsilk.com
 
Displayed 205 of 205 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report