Tekforums
Chat => General Discussion => Topic started by: Pete on August 05, 2013, 22:13:41 PM
-
I would eat the hell out of a lab grown burger tbh.
Brilliant idea :thumbup:
If I see Jurassic Park become a reality in my lifetime I'll die a happy man.
-
It's the way of the future. The global population is already to big for the planet to support by normal means. GM has been creeping back in now, I suspect some of the anti-GM campaigners may have realised that without it we're screwed more than with it.
I wonder if we'll ever get to a point of enlightenment where the global population is limited to 1 or 2 children each couple to regulate any increase in demand on the limited resources.
-
You mean like in China where girls are aborted because families want their family name to be carried on so only want boys.
Sounds incredibly enlightening.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
There's a difference between discarding babies in the street and requiring some form of management of how often you can reproduce.
We neuter enough animals, there's plenty of halfwitted mouthbreathers in the world that it would be no loss to society to neuter/restrict from every breeding.
-
Agreed, I dont think I'd call child restrictions enlightenment.
We will 'just' need to find alternatives for the natural resources that are in short supply, and possibly make better use of the vast regions which are currently underpopulated, that is if this happens in a timescale in which we haven't managed to colonise space.
Synthesised meat is a great start. I can already see in 50 years time us looking back and thinking how barbaric eating animals and donating human blood was.
Via science.
-
the way population is growing I can see a point where the world will have to limit everyone to 2 children....
the real question is weather governments will have the balls to introduce it, or if they'll all be too scared of not being voted for again -o
-
You mean like in China where girls are aborted because families want their family name to be carried on so only want boys.
Sounds incredibly enlightening.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
The alternatives to just continuing to breed are worse IMHO. Various papers on sustainability suggest that if the global populace consumed resources at the rate the western world does, the "sustainable" limit would be around 2 billion.
If we looked to the future with rose tinted glasses, where aids, cancer etc are solved, do you think the population will stabilise? It'll boom even more, assuming that the treatments are extended to those in 3rd world countries. If those countries are allowed to develop to Western levels, will lab grown meats etc be enough to support an 8 billion population consuming resources at a rate that currently could only be supported by 1/4 that number?
Before anyone attacks me for advocating some sort of racist stance or anything, I'm in favour of a global end to world hunger, aids, cancers. I don't believe that any one person has more of a right to these things than any other. But with that view I can appreciate that if humanity goes down that path, it would need to be responsible for its growing drain on resources.
Yes the system is broken in china, but if we're hypothesising about the future, and solutions to problems, I'd like to think that if it came to restricting the global birth rate, along with it would come a shift in culture, on a global scale. You could argue that there may be a point in time where parents might feel it's better to pool resources into bringing up a single child, regardless of sex, as it would give them the best chance to succeed when everywhere is overpopulated. It just requires a change in thinking.
And of course, there's always the chance that the system will end up in equilibrium if left alone. Higher population = higher demand for resources = less resources per person higher death rate. Other papers suggest that by the middle of this century the global death rate will be higher than the birth rate. That sounds good doesn't it.
-
Equilibrium will be reached. I'm with tom and the whole synthetic meat thing, then again it may go the way of soylent green.
The human race has more to level the playing field than just food. Healthcare, education, housing, employment.
As scarcity of resources increases so does cost. The ones less fortunate will die. Much like 3rd world countries suffer now.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
Surely having a future where resources are depleted to the point that many die from starvation and illness, and then things "balance out", is much worse than just controlling breeding so that ultimately, over time, things balance out in a less polarised way? It'd have the added benefit of sorting the issue out before resources are otherwise depleted to the levels required to balance things out if left to its own.
I find this logic a bit like "maximum sustainable yield" used in fisheries management. The theory is that it's the maximum amount of fish stock you can harvest without the population declining, and that's how many fisheries are managed. To me that's treading a mighty fine line that could go over the brink, much like leaving things (population growth vs resource demand) to balance out.
-
What are these resources that we're in danger or depleting?
All conjecture but:
-Energy resources should become sustainable from one source or another in the next 50 years (well before we deplete the oil/gas/coal reserves)
- Meat / food /grain will be lab constructed and shouldn't have a problem sustaining vast numbers of people assuming they're developed enough to afford it (fair to assume it will become cheaper than genuinely grown meat given its production)
- Water is abundant and classifiable
- Air is abundant and classifiable
- Space is vastly under utilised globally
Admittedly without reading the sustainability reports that you are mentioning, I have a feeling they arent accounting for the rapid technological improvement or alternative sources. If I'm missing something obvious do let me know.
-
I'd be all for controlling the population growth its clearly heading towards overcrowding and unsupportable populations, I'd go further and actually vet would be parents so we as a species can start to breed out genetic defects and other issues (sloth and stupidity).
-
What are these resources that we're in danger or depleting?
All conjecture but:
-Energy resources should become sustainable from one source or another in the next 50 years (well before we deplete the oil/gas/coal reserves)
- Meat / food /grain will be lab constructed and shouldn't have a problem sustaining vast numbers of people assuming they're developed enough to afford it (fair to assume it will become cheaper than genuinely grown meat given its production)
- Water is abundant and classifiable
- Air is abundant and classifiable
- Space is vastly under utilised globally
Admittedly without reading the sustainability reports that you are mentioning, I have a feeling they arent accounting for the rapid technological improvement or alternative sources. If I'm missing something obvious do let me know.
I'm playing devils advocate here now. As mentioned at the start I love the idea of GM and lab grown meat, I'm just trying to get some thought and discussion on the subject ;)
Energy - Renewable energy sources still need actual physical materials. Many renewable energies, such as solar panels, utilise materials and methods that in themselves aren't so efficient/sustainable (at the moment. In the future I'm sure there will be a point where their requirements are less than other energy sources)
Food - Lab grown food is well and good, but I'd like to read exactly how it was produced, the amount of time it took, and the amount of space it needed. Will it be possible to produce enough meat to feed the population this way, given that it'll still need "feeding" itself, power, and space to be grown?
Water, air and space yes are in vast quantities, but each of those, in places, have been damaged/polluted due to misused or overpopulation. Yes it can be purified, but at what cost?
Oil is so important, not just for fuel, but for the creation of plastics and other chemicals. Yes we have "bio oil", but that in itself wouldn't support the global population. Solutions like "palm oil" are pretty bad, resulting in the loss of vast swathes of extremely biodiverse land.
As to the papers, sadly the first thing work did, was disable my accounts about 3 hours after I was officially redundant, so my ability to use Web of Knowledge etc to find examples is limited, but here we go:
Fairly old article:
http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/955
Abstract regarding phosphate supply, an interesting angle, as to grow foods in a lab you'd still need phosphates, so this would be one of those resources that are dwindling:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883292711001685
The reason I am interested in this is that it formed a part of my degree, with units covering human rights, sustainability, and environmental law. I hated those units, but it seems that some of it rubbed off on me.
-
The question with forcibly limiting population growth is who.
Who sets the guidelines? A countries ruler? A worldwide conglomeration? The farmers unions? Local authorities? World health organisation?
How do they enforce it and how vigorously, do we hunt down and murder all but the first born? Do we forcibly abort twins? What about Siamese twins? So now we're onto birth defects, do we abort those with a genetic disposition to obesity? Poor IQ?
A large issue with population growth is a growing aging population. Do we remove medical care for those over 65? Perhaps enforce euthanasia for vegetative or debilitative diseases?
The big benefit of doing nothing is that it will sort itself out, either by starvation and famine (as is currently going on in the third world) or by disease (as is predicted by Hollywood). We as humans don't have to make the tough decisions if we let nature sort it out.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
The question with forcibly limiting population growth is who.
Who sets the guidelines? A countries ruler? A worldwide conglomeration? The farmers unions? Local authorities? World health organisation?
How do they enforce it and how vigorously, do we hunt down and murder all but the first born? Do we forcibly abort twins? What about Siamese twins? So now we're onto birth defects, do we abort those with a genetic disposition to obesity? Poor IQ?
A large issue with population growth is a growing aging population. Do we remove medical care for those over 65? Perhaps enforce euthanasia for vegetative or debilitative diseases?
The big benefit of doing nothing is that it will sort itself out, either by starvation and famine (as is currently going on in the third world) or by disease (as is predicted by Hollywood). We as humans don't have to make the tough decisions if we let nature sort it out.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST & RICHEST.
breed out the bad stuff in our society. Stop giving government handouts so people cant actually decide to have a kid so they dont have to work.. or have 11 kids so they get a free mansion.
-
Tattoo cull.
-
The big benefit of doing nothing is that it will sort itself out, either by starvation and famine (as is currently going on in the third world) or by disease (as is predicted by Hollywood). We as humans don't have to make the tough decisions if we let nature sort it out.
I for one would rather have the tough decisions made and prevent uneccessary suffering. To favour famine and disease over not introducing new unsustainable lives into the world is a bit WTF to me, it's a kind of "I'm all right, Jack" mentality :-\
-
The big benefit of doing nothing is that it will sort itself out, either by starvation and famine (as is currently going on in the third world) or by disease (as is predicted by Hollywood). We as humans don't have to make the tough decisions if we let nature sort it out.
I for one would rather have the tough decisions made and prevent uneccessary suffering. To favour famine and disease over not introducing new unsustainable lives into the world is a bit WTF to me, it's a kind of "I'm all right, Jack" mentality :-\
You'd rather abort your children, deny your elderly relatives healthcare and live in a 1 room flat.
Despite the fact you can afford better treatment, than let nature sort it out.
To do the above is a bit wtf to me. I work hard to earn money and pay for food, space, shelter. I could easily raise a two child family but I cant because some "god" has decreed that to do so would be a crime against humanity.
Because communism works so well.
-
You're completely missing the point, someone like yourself who is successful, has a stable home life, contributes to society etc would probably be decreed an ideal person (unless they read your views on Tekforums. ;)) It's polar to communism.
There's enough education around about it that there shouldn't be such a high volume of accidental pregnancies. These things do happen, yes, but some jobless council estate mum churning out four or five sprogs is obviously not a shining beacon of hope for humanity. Unplug her ovaries and have done.
-
Anyone care to run a sweep on how many posts this thread gets to before someone triggers Godwins Law?
My bet is not going to be a large number.
-
There is a high probability given the state of it.
The other option here is always soylent green! ;D
-
Everybody is forgetting bugs when discussing food. Trillions of the bloody things around and much more efficient to grow as opposed to the traditional stuff, the macronutrient breakdown also means they are extremely healthy too.
I'd happily eat bugs that were raised in farms.
Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. When the crunch really begins to bite with regards to things like energy then we'll see the novel ideas roll off the production lines with startling efficiency.
Human kind, in its current state, is unsustainable going into the future because of the population size and resource management. Just like hunter gatherer tribes probably couldn't sustain big populations, hence the tendency to animal husbandry and agriculture. Being the most adaptable species is what has made humanity successful, so with that in mind I'm confident a solution to our current predicaments will come.
-
To do the above is a bit wtf to me. I work hard to earn money and pay for food, space, shelter. I could easily raise a two child family but I cant because some "god" has decreed that to do so would be a crime against humanity.
Thing is though, how far will your (Not you personally, but anyone currently "comfy" in their earnings) well paid job get you when it really comes to the crunch. Will it keep up with the rising costs of everything, or are you hoping that nature sorts the problem before you are caught out by the rising costs. Assuming things do go the way of nature sorting things out through famine and disease, the people most secure in their future probably won't be the people currently in well paid jobs, but rather, the producers of said resources.
I think the bible has it right regarding the four horsemen, said "natural" solution will probably be war, famine and pestilence, not sure about what "death" would be. To me if it comes to the crunch, billions suffering and dying through war, disease and famine, is far worse than just saying "every one person can have 1 child" (Eg a couple = 2 children) to limit population to current levels, especially if said method could avoid those billions dying. This is all hypothetical of course as you'd never get a true global consensus on the topic.
-
It won't happen overnight. It would be a gradual encroachment on livelihoods.
I'd have to sacrifice holidays, eating takeaways, air conditioning, gym membership etc... But I'd still support a family, long enough for them to support themselves.
Rather than a sudden "Shut Down Everything" add in the need and advancement of science it is likely that we are indeed able to sustain an ever growing population.
The solution you pose is also trimming from the wrong end. We should stop free healthcare for retired people, remove state pensions and get rid of heating allowances, etc... Our population is top heavy, not bottom heavy and pensioners aren't doing anything useful, they are simply taking up space and resources. Lower the average life expectancy, solve the population issues in one easy go.
/controversial
-
So a gradual "carousel" from Logans run then? Instead of instant annihilation to people over a certain age, it's a gradual decline:D
I do find the amount of futuristic sci-fi film analogies in this thread quite entertaining :)
-
ok... so there's ~7 billion of people on earth right now .... what happens when there's 14 billion ? or 21 billion ? or 100billion ?
there's a point where everyone on the planet would be so much better off if there was a child limit, that it would be stupid not to introduce one
thinking we're ok because we're in the west, and it's the 3rd world which will suffer, or I'll be ok as long as I work hard is too short sighted
in 100 years time, there will be no 3rd world, look at the way technology is advancing, and look how quickly (most of) the 3rd world is developing... 50 years ago China was a dump, it was normal for people to starve to death, it was a county of small villages and farmers, the rest of the world didn't gave China a second though.... but now they're an economic giant and a world player... (ok not perfect yet, but they're improving fast)
when we run out of oil, presuming we have decent electric generation and transport by then... the big problem will be all the other things that come from oil, all the other chemicals, to make plastic etc.... ok we have other options... and will have more options by then.... but we'd still need the ingredients to make them etc...
-
http://www.projectprevention.org/united-kingdom/
I imagine we will see more of this as time goes on.
-
It won't happen overnight. It would be a gradual encroachment on livelihoods.
I'd have to sacrifice holidays, eating takeaways, air conditioning, gym membership etc... But I'd still support a family, long enough for them to support themselves.
Rather than a sudden "Shut Down Everything" add in the need and advancement of science it is likely that we are indeed able to sustain an ever growing population.
The solution you pose is also trimming from the wrong end. We should stop free healthcare for retired people, remove state pensions and get rid of heating allowances, etc... Our population is top heavy, not bottom heavy and pensioners aren't doing anything useful, they are simply taking up space and resources. Lower the average life expectancy, solve the population issues in one easy go.
/controversial
you could argue that as well, however there are plenty of active, healthy and contributing people over 60. Not everyone turns senile, immobile or gives up on living. If you want to be controversial suggest that we test these people too instead of blanket removal of social support. :)
-
http://www.projectprevention.org/united-kingdom/
I imagine we will see more of this as time goes on.
I'd fully support schemes like that too. prevention is always better than cure.
-
One statistic I find very funky is that for those people in their 50s, in their lifetime they have experienced a doubling of the world population. That's quite staggering.
Sent from my GT-N8010 using Tapatalk HD
-
It won't happen overnight. It would be a gradual encroachment on livelihoods.
I'd have to sacrifice holidays, eating takeaways, air conditioning, gym membership etc... But I'd still support a family, long enough for them to support themselves.
Rather than a sudden "Shut Down Everything" add in the need and advancement of science it is likely that we are indeed able to sustain an ever growing population.
The solution you pose is also trimming from the wrong end. We should stop free healthcare for retired people, remove state pensions and get rid of heating allowances, etc... Our population is top heavy, not bottom heavy and pensioners aren't doing anything useful, they are simply taking up space and resources. Lower the average life expectancy, solve the population issues in one easy go.
/controversial
you could argue that as well, however there are plenty of active, healthy and contributing people over 60. Not everyone turns senile, immobile or gives up on living. If you want to be controversial suggest that we test these people too instead of blanket removal of social support. :)
If people work and contribute to society then healthcare remains free. If people want to pay for their healthcare, so be it.
That is the test. Those who prepared for their future succeed, those who don't, aren't supported by the state any longer and essentially die younger.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
http://www.projectprevention.org/united-kingdom/
I imagine we will see more of this as time goes on.
I'd fully support schemes like that too. prevention is always better than cure.
That's quite a novel scheme there. The testimonials from people she's helped are obviously from the heart.
They're happier for it and there are no more drug addicted children coming into the world from them.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
Was hoping for three pages of burger pics and recipes :(
The way I see it all we need to do now is industrialize the process, build a burger factory in every country, then build factories to make the raw materials for burgers. That way all the 3rd world charities would have to do is supply buns and ketchup.
Scale it down, everyone gets a burger maker and a burger ingredient maker in their kitchen. The bun and ketchup factories will come later.
Seriously, this is a good thing. Swap the words burgers, buns and ketchup for rice, fruit and meat - bye bye world hunger. We can all chill and breed like bunnies.
-
The solution you pose is also trimming from the wrong end. We should stop free healthcare for retired people, remove state pensions and get rid of heating allowances, etc... Our population is top heavy, not bottom heavy and pensioners aren't doing anything useful, they are simply taking up space and resources. Lower the average life expectancy, solve the population issues in one easy go.
/controversial
Yes, extremely controversial, and frankly just moronic. Why should pensioners bear the brunt of it purely because they're old? These people (for the most part, I can't speak for every individual obviously) have contributed more than their fair share and their entitlement to healthcare and support shouldn't be questioned. Let's take for example my grandfather. Since he was a child he has worked to support his family, he then joined the army, served his time, created his own business which he ran for thirty years then worked for another company till this year, coincidentally the year of his 80th birthday. Maybe I should also mention his profession was roofing. This is the same man who despite being 60 years older than me has probably used the NHS less times than I have, and has paid considerably more than most people. Why should he be denied the pension he worked extremely hard for? I doubt you'd be waking up at 3am every day for the vast majority of your life, yet when you reach retirement age you'd be screaming bloody murder if that money was refused.
Next time try and think more logically before posting any more of your ridiculous theories.
-
Didn't think I'd need to explain its not a case of "entitlement" but rather a case of utility, didn't think I'd need to explain the obvious but hey...
Your grandfather however in his twilight years starts to be a burden on the system instead of an asset. His usefulness to the human race diminishes. Where as a young child grows to become more useful in the majority of cases, sure there are edge cases such as the terminally unemployed but the solution posed of making pensionable age more difficult encourages people to work harder in earlier life to better support themselves without state assistance in later life.
If we say the average life goes as follows: 0-16 is fully system dependent, 16-65 is productive and 65-100 involves escalating dependency on the state, it doesn't take a genius (well might in your case as you clearly didn't get it the first time) to work out that removing the states involvement between 65-100 means the resources spent on a single person is cut. In addition the lowering of the average life expectancy that comes with less support in later life means that we do not have as serious an issue as we do currently with a top heavy population and more old dependent people than productive younger people.
What we need is more young people not fewer, and fewer old people, not more.
Oh and your granddad, stopped being productive at 80. His actual retirement age. He seems like someone who would have been proactive in ensuring he had his later years covered, so wouldn't be as harshly hit by a lack of state support.
Moronic? Lol, resorting to insults because you fail to understand basic logic. You win the Internet. Well done.
-
Beanissocoollike, he's trolling you, just ignore him ;)
-
Beanissocoollike, he's trolling you, just ignore him ;)
I said to Nige last night 'I'm just waiting for the 'he's just trolling' messages to arrive, but still I needed to say something because I was so angry at just how idiotic that post was. I know I should have left it but some people need to be called out when they're being stupid.
-
Beanissocoollike, he's trolling you, just ignore him ;)
I said to Nige last night 'I'm just waiting for the 'he's just trolling' messages to arrive, but still I needed to say something because I was so angry at just how idiotic that post was. I know I should have left it but some people need to be called out when they're being stupid.
You're being stupid.
What? Well you said you needed to be.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
Beanissocoollike, he's trolling you, just ignore him ;)
Not a troll, a genuine well thought out and better plan than enforced birth control is. :/
If beansissocoollike has grandaddy issues that's its problem.
I'd rather have a few million extra 20 something's than a few million 80 plus. In terms of utility and sustainability, its the only sensible way.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
get back under your bridge troll boy
-
get back under your bridge troll boy
Physician heal thyself.
Unless you have something at least somewhat related to the topic at hand, quit your pointless trolling and get back in your box.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
you're the troll
check some statistics
for your system to work, we'd have to kill everyone when they get to 54years 3months old, so there's you're idea screwed
better idea
free birth control
tax breaks if you have no kids
extra tax if you have more than 2
you're also forgetting quality of life, there's an optimum number of people for the planet, more than or less than that are quality of life starts to fall, I'm pretty sure we passed that number a while ago
also, you're forgetting this is a long term plan, planning ahead for hundreds of years.... in 100 years the world will be a totally different place... we'll have armies of robots doing stuff for us... in 200 years they'll be doing everything
no matter how many people the Earth can support... there's no reason to try and push it to the limit
and it's not like limiting people to 2 kids is a terrible thing to do... 99% of people won't be bothered
so like I said, get back under your bridge troll boy
-
Where are your sources for this arbitrary figure?
I too can make up numbers on the spot if I wished. I am also wondering how my way involves the mandatory execution of people, where as yours involves voluntary actions, can you clarify how you came to that reasoning please?
Fact is, people will pay if its only voluntary, so unless abortion, etc is mandatory then your way is ineffective and would at best result in a rapidly ageing population, becoming increasingly dependent on a dwindling number of younger "working age" people.
Your taxes would also make families more dependent on state benefit. They will pay the extra taxes for an extra kid, but they won't be able to afford to feed their family, what if they then become employed? Or those who don't pay taxes for example. Your idea falls flat on its face. There is free family planning already, so that clearly hasn't worked to deter population growth either.
A cut off at the mandatory retirement age of state given support allows the population to plan for the future, will mean we don't lose the "baby factory" bringing in fresh blood and our ageing population dwindles, rather than the less preferable outcome of it growing on into the future.
Beans got confused between entitlement and necessity. I agree with them and as a very well paid 20 something, I will likely have paid and contributed more than my fair share of taxes when I hit 70. Yes I would be pissed if someone turned around and said "yup... Now you have no free healthcare, no bus pass and no concessions", but the reality is that we're not debating whether I'd be pissed off as a granddad, but whether as a retired 86 year old I'm more preferable to have around in a "survival of the human race" context than a 16 year old just entering employment.
-
Here's an interesting article on China and the solutions that it currently has in place (e.g. What you are proposing as a solution here) with their effect on the country.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2012-07/10/content_15563350.htm
As I said, enforced birth control = population ageing. Which is a very bad thing.
-
and it's not like limiting people to 2 kids is a terrible thing to do... 99% of people won't be bothered
so like I said, get back under your bridge troll boy
So your idea by your own admission is 99% ineffective. Well done there... You're clearly another winner of the Internet.
-
troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll
troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll
troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll
sorry didn't quite get hear that, could you troll it again ?
-
troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll
troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll
troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll troll
sorry didn't quite get hear that, could you troll it again ?
As you appear to be somewhat retarded with a below average reading ability for a middle aged man and I take pity upon you, please see it quoted once again below.
Where are your sources for this arbitrary figure?
I too can make up numbers on the spot if I wished. I am also wondering how my way involves the mandatory execution of people, where as yours involves voluntary actions, can you clarify how you came to that reasoning please?
Fact is, people will pay if its only voluntary, so unless abortion, etc is mandatory then your way is ineffective and would at best result in a rapidly ageing population, becoming increasingly dependent on a dwindling number of younger "working age" people.
Your taxes would also make families more dependent on state benefit. They will pay the extra taxes for an extra kid, but they won't be able to afford to feed their family, what if they then become employed? Or those who don't pay taxes for example. Your idea falls flat on its face. There is free family planning already, so that clearly hasn't worked to deter population growth either.
A cut off at the mandatory retirement age of state given support allows the population to plan for the future, will mean we don't lose the "baby factory" bringing in fresh blood and our ageing population dwindles, rather than the less preferable outcome of it growing on into the future.
Beans got confused between entitlement and necessity. I agree with them and as a very well paid 20 something, I will likely have paid and contributed more than my fair share of taxes when I hit 70. Yes I would be pissed if someone turned around and said "yup... Now you have no free healthcare, no bus pass and no concessions", but the reality is that we're not debating whether I'd be pissed off as a granddad, but whether as a retired 86 year old I'm more preferable to have around in a "survival of the human race" context than a 16 year old just entering employment.
Here's an interesting article on China and the solutions that it currently has in place (e.g. What you are proposing as a solution here) with their effect on the country.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2012-07/10/content_15563350.htm
As I said, enforced birth control = population ageing. Which is a very bad thing.
and it's not like limiting people to 2 kids is a terrible thing to do... 99% of people won't be bothered
so like I said, get back under your bridge troll boy
So your idea by your own admission is 99% ineffective. Well done there... You're clearly another winner of the Internet.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
5 seconds on normal google and
percentage of population 20 and under = percentage of population 54 and 3 months or over
not sure if underbrigeoogle has the same resources ?
therefore, your idea is completely screwed, bla bla bla bla bla troll troll troll troll don't eat my baby troll troll troll troll
-
5 seconds on normal google and
percentage of population 20 and under = percentage of population 54 and 3 months or over
not sure if underbrigeoogle has the same resources ?
therefore, your idea is completely screwed, bla bla bla bla bla troll troll troll troll don't eat my baby troll troll troll troll
Still not getting why that means mandatory execution or how you can infer that 54 and over doesn't include the large proportion of retired people.
Start removing the large number of people 70 and over... Will lower the percentage of people 54 and over. That's the beauty of "and over" percentages.
So I don't understand where you're coming from at all with this. Clearly my idea does indeed work.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/12/129593/2576136-obvious_troll_wedding.jpg)
-
(http://www.dscn.umd.edu/DSCN/icon_images/popcorn-icon.jpg)
-
(http://www.dscn.umd.edu/DSCN/icon_images/popcorn-icon.jpg)
Toffee? Can I have some?
I had knighty all wrong, he's not a troll, just a silly little boy.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
(http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/files/2011/08/tshirt_baitsucks1.jpg)
-
Given your continued posts in this thread, I'd disagree once again.
My troll-bait brings all the trolls to the thread, and their like "why, you're trolling me" Damn right, I'm trolling you, I couldn't teach you because I don't teach retards.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
-
It's all getting a little silly now :lol: I'm not going to close the thread, but only so long as any more personal insults aren't posted.
-
TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/shovedownmythroat.png)
your troll logic is flawed