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.

(CNN)   China: "Go forth and multiply"   (cnn.com) divider line 116
    More: Cool, Xinhua News Agency, labor camp  
•       •       •

9071 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2013 at 11:09 AM (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-15 01:47:22 PM
Woohoo! With the new influx of china girls, the price on them will plummet!
 
2013-11-15 01:53:40 PM
During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, LeMay clashed again with U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Defense Secretary McNamara, arguing that he should be allowed to bomb nuclear missile sites in Cuba. He opposed the naval blockade and, after the end of the crisis, suggested that Cuba be invaded anyway, even after the Russians agreed to withdraw. LeMay called the peaceful resolution of the crisis "the greatest defeat in our history". Unknown to the US, the Soviet field commanders in Cuba had been given authority to launch-the only time such authority was delegated by higher command. They had twenty nuclear warheads for medium-range R-12 Dvina (NATO Code SS-4 Sandal) ballistic missiles capable of reaching US cities (including Washington) and nine tactical nuclear missiles. If Soviet officers had launched them, many millions of US citizens could have been killed. The ensuing SAC retaliatory thermonuclear strike would have killed roughly one hundred million Soviet citizens. Kennedy refused LeMay's requests, however, and the naval blockade was successful.

Not all military commanders agree with their civilian leadership. Not all civilian leadership is sane or capable of reining in crazy military personnel. And finally a one-party system that controls virtually everything that occurs inside a country doesn't operate like a pluralistic republic.
 
2013-11-15 02:02:29 PM
Another nail in america's coffin.
 
2013-11-15 02:26:48 PM

kdawg7736: Soon after they realize they can't handle feeding all of these extra people they will want to go back to their original policy. Doesn't India have an overbreeding/overpopulation problem? China will become like them soon.


China  had an overpopulation problem.  At the moment, they are trending the opposite way. So this policy change makes sense.
 
2013-11-15 02:47:45 PM
Not cool. fark you subby.
 
2013-11-15 02:47:47 PM

Crewmannumber6: jxb465: They are now allowing 1.2 children per family. They will allow you to choose which 20% of the 2nd child to keep.

I'll take the top half


No, no, it's a fifth. Since you get to keep a fifth, then obviously you want the liver and kidneys, maybe a fresh pancreas too.
 
2013-11-15 02:51:19 PM
Perl, Python, and addition.
 
2013-11-15 03:19:07 PM

PsiChick: kdawg7736: Soon after they realize they can't handle feeding all of these extra people they will want to go back to their original policy. Doesn't India have an overbreeding/overpopulation problem? China will become like them soon.

China  had an overpopulation problem.  At the moment, they are trending the opposite way.


And this is bad why?
 
2013-11-15 03:22:36 PM

bdub77: PsiChick: kdawg7736: Soon after they realize they can't handle feeding all of these extra people they will want to go back to their original policy. Doesn't India have an overbreeding/overpopulation problem? China will become like them soon.

China  had an overpopulation problem.  At the moment, they are trending the opposite way.

And this is bad why?


Because they need to move from 'overpopulation' to 'sustainable population' slowly enough to avoid major catastrophe. (They could have just planned for it from the beginning, but apparently that was too much work or something.)
 
2013-11-15 03:35:17 PM

PsiChick: bdub77: PsiChick: kdawg7736: Soon after they realize they can't handle feeding all of these extra people they will want to go back to their original policy. Doesn't India have an overbreeding/overpopulation problem? China will become like them soon.

China  had an overpopulation problem.  At the moment, they are trending the opposite way.

And this is bad why?

Because they need to move from 'overpopulation' to 'sustainable population' slowly enough to avoid major catastrophe. (They could have just planned for it from the beginning, but apparently that was too much work or something.)


I'm sure this means nothing, but I like an answer that gets straight to the point. Well done.
 
2013-11-15 05:27:14 PM
Americans on one-child policy: Farkin' Chinese! Human rights!
Americans on two-child policy: Farkin' Chinese! Overpopulation!
 
2013-11-15 05:54:26 PM

PsiChick: bdub77: PsiChick: kdawg7736: Soon after they realize they can't handle feeding all of these extra people they will want to go back to their original policy. Doesn't India have an overbreeding/overpopulation problem? China will become like them soon.

China  had an overpopulation problem.  At the moment, they are trending the opposite way.

And this is bad why?

Because they need to move from 'overpopulation' to 'sustainable population' slowly enough to avoid major catastrophe. (They could have just planned for it from the beginning, but apparently that was too much work or something.)


There are two problems with the idea of a sustainable population that most people don't stop to consider. Long before this century is over, we very likely will have robotic devices sophisticated and inexpensive enough to replace many low-skill jobs. We also will very likely have ways to dramatically extend the human life span.

Which means we'll have a world with 7-10 billion people, many of whom won't be able to find work, even simple unskilled labor, because a robotic device will be doing it. And there will also be a great many people alive who will be able to expect to live not just decades but centuries.

So it really might be in our interest as a species to not just maintain the global population but lower it as well.
 
2013-11-15 06:05:30 PM

TastyEloi: PsiChick: bdub77: PsiChick: kdawg7736: Soon after they realize they can't handle feeding all of these extra people they will want to go back to their original policy. Doesn't India have an overbreeding/overpopulation problem? China will become like them soon.

China  had an overpopulation problem.  At the moment, they are trending the opposite way.

And this is bad why?

Because they need to move from 'overpopulation' to 'sustainable population' slowly enough to avoid major catastrophe. (They could have just planned for it from the beginning, but apparently that was too much work or something.)

There are two problems with the idea of a sustainable population that most people don't stop to consider. Long before this century is over, we very likely will have robotic devices sophisticated and inexpensive enough to replace many low-skill jobs. We also will very likely have ways to dramatically extend the human life span.

Which means we'll have a world with 7-10 billion people, many of whom won't be able to find work, even simple unskilled labor, because a robotic device will be doing it. And there will also be a great many people alive who will be able to expect to live not just decades but centuries.

So it really might be in our interest as a species to not just maintain the global population but lower it as well.


'Sustainable' indicates that you have enough people to not overwhelm or be unable to maintain your culture. If that culture includes robots, then you adjust. Its not 7-10 billion; it's whatever that culture and ecosystem can support.
 
2013-11-15 06:06:39 PM
Like wild animals in their natural habitat?
Then you should support human birth control.
Dislike war?
Then you should support human birth control.
 
2013-11-15 06:16:00 PM
"Come the year 1991, given the present rate of increase in the world's population, the Chinese will be three deep. Another thing... " - John Cleese (Monty Python's Flying Circus)
 
2013-11-15 06:24:00 PM

TastyEloi: There are two problems with the idea of a sustainable population that most people don't stop to consider. Long before this century is over, we very likely will have robotic devices sophisticated and inexpensive enough to replace many low-skill jobs. We also will very likely have ways to dramatically extend the human life span.

Which means we'll have a world with 7-10 billion people, many of whom won't be able to find work, even simple unskilled labor, because a robotic device will be doing it. And there will also be a great many people alive who will be able to expect to live not just decades but centuries.

So it really might be in our interest as a species to not just maintain the global population but lower it as well.


You're engaging in the Luddite fallacy. Productivity gains don't result in unemployment. They result in economic growth which generally supports job growth. For example, in the 90's productivity grew at unusually fast rates in the 90's and was paired with a drop in unemployment.
 
Displayed 16 of 116 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report