Quote:
(from gg3): Allow the death rate to increase naturally, by canceling all campaigns against risky lifestyle behaviors. Over-eating, smoking, drinking, not exercising, risky sports such as mountain climbing, etc. etc. Subtly encourage these behaviors via changes in age limits and through advertising. Most of these behaviors also have direct effects on reproduction: obesity is a sexual turn-off, nicotine lowers libido, drunkenness causes temporary impotence in males, etc., all contributing indirectly to reduced birth rates.
Legalize and promote marijuana, opium, and heroin, all of which are known to reduce ambition, striving, and competitive behavior (lengthy psychopharmacological explanation omitted to save space). This will have the effect of reducing consumption levels of other goods, and thereby reducing resource demand. It will also reduce competition for mates, causing some individuals to drop out of the running entirely.
Kylon wrote:Think of the pre-industrial period, women will end up being reduced to that.
WTF ? They pick up smoking for the express purpose of damaging their child ? Who the fuck.. why... jumping jesus on a pogo stick! Someone remove them from the gene pool!#2. To reduce the birth-weight of their first child (34%);
elroy wrote:Someone remove them from the gene pool!
Aaron wrote:Wow... If we are rolling back female rights, can we reinstitute smoking on airplanes please? I'm just sayin...
Jenab6 wrote:Aaron wrote:Wow... If we are rolling back female rights, can we reinstitute smoking on airplanes please? I'm just sayin...
"We" aren't going to roll back female rights. It's not going to be a legislative or policy sort of thing. The usual historical forces will return women to their traditional role, because it was the superabundance of extrasomatic energy that let them (temporarily) climb out of it.
Women will be wives because that's how they will acquire an economic niche for motherhood. Women will be mothers because every race that stubbornly persists in having a low birthrate will be wiped off the Earth by those who maintain a high birthrate.
The fact that the side having the biggest army usually wins the battle
translates into a requirement for women being frequently mothers to warriors and to the next generation's mothers.
Overpopulation cannot be controlled by limiting births. An attempt to do so naturally fizzles for either of two reasons. As "responsible" people limit their family size and "irresponsible" people do not, the capacity for civic responsibility gets culled out of the population. Each generation is less inclined than its predecessor to obey calls for birth control. That's the piecemeal type of failure.
There's also a catastrophic failure mode in which a population that mostly heeds the call to limit family size finds itself, due to its smaller numbers, vulnerable to conquest by another population that did not try to limit its birthrate. The war is fought, the biggest army wins, and the losers are exterminated.
So the notion that birth control is a way to solve overpopulation is wrong.
And when a copious resource of extrasomatic energy isn't available, women can no longer be afforded careers at the expense of motherhood. If they insist on it, they will be as good as cutting the throat of their own nation. Eventually, the Earth will be the possession of those whose women "knew their places" and stayed there.
Jerry Abbott
elroy wrote:WTF ? They pick up smoking for the express purpose of damaging their child ?#2. To reduce the birth-weight of their first child (34%);
Who the fuck.. why... jumping jesus on a pogo stick! Someone remove them from the gene pool!
Jenab wrote:The fact that the side having the biggest army usually wins the battle
ubercynicmeister wrote:No, there are countless examples of "the little guy" winning, Vietnam being the most recent. Indeed, the reply to "God is on the side of the big battalions" was "God is on the side of the most accurate shooters". The modern version is "God is on the side of those with the simplest uniforms" (does this mean that soldiers will be required to go into battle stark naked, as they did in Ancient Greece?)
Jenab wrote:...translates into a requirement for women being frequently mothers to warriors and to the next generation's mothers.
Overpopulation cannot be controlled by limiting births. An attempt to do so naturally fizzles for either of two reasons. As "responsible" people limit their family size and "irresponsible" people do not, the capacity for civic responsibility gets culled out of the population. Each generation is less inclined than its predecessor to obey calls for birth control. That's the piecemeal type of failure.
There's also a catastrophic failure mode in which a population that mostly heeds the call to limit family size finds itself, due to its smaller numbers, vulnerable to conquest by another population that did not try to limit its birthrate. The war is fought, the biggest army wins, and the losers are exterminated.
So the notion that birth control is a way to solve overpopulation is wrong.
ubercynicmeister wrote:The best way to solve overpopulation is also one of the most surprising: give everyone an Old-Age pension. There is a 100% correlation between an old-age pension and population stability (ie: going up and little, then down a little). The only state in India that has an Old Age pension is also the only state in India with zero population growth, for example.
Kylon wrote: I have a condition which gives me superior logic abilities to the common man, however, I have emotionally stunted growth. It makes me a social outcast. It's a genetic condition. We make great engineers, researchers, and scientist however.
.
They tend to be overbearing zealots, capable of brainwashing people into doing things that they wouldn't usually do, as are many powerful groups.
annie wrote:Misogyny seems alive and well on this thread. I have to wonder if some of the men or boys as the case may be aren't projecting some of their frustrations in relationships with certain women onto all females. Most feminists I know don't hate men..just male privledge. Most women in the world don't enjoy the rights men do. Now if some of you guys think that a woman who stands up and says that she wants rights is not your cup of tea, does that mean that you are just willing to enjoy your own rights and not allow others to have theirs? Maybe you need a lifetime of living with a physically abusive man, trying to get away from him and find out that you can't. Are you also saying that all men are so overcome with testosterone that if push comes to shove as the oil starts to peak, all men are going to become ape men again? I would think that you should think better of yourselves.
Annie
Most feminists I know don't hate men..just male privledge.
Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests