Total Posts:92|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

World population

Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2011 11:48:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Not really...

If populations get too large nature, via natural calamity or natural selection, seems to keep species in check.

The world population hype is because lib-socalists, who want a global imperative to help the poor, want to stop the growth of lower classes (who as a percentage grow as a population gets larger). It just sound less "classist" to tell everyone stop breading then to simply just tell those who bread then can't support there young to stop.

If you can have kids and can affort them go ahead or have a sucky government willing to pay for them for you go ahead.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 1:05:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 11:48:55 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Not really...

If populations get too large nature, via natural calamity or natural selection, seems to keep species in check.

The world population hype is because lib-socalists, who want a global imperative to help the poor, want to stop the growth of lower classes (who as a percentage grow as a population gets larger). It just sound less "classist" to tell everyone stop breading then to simply just tell those who bread then can't support there young to stop.

If you can have kids and can affort them go ahead or have a sucky government willing to pay for them for you go ahead.
Spoken like a real tea party conservative.

/which I'm not.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 3:50:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 11:48:55 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Not really...

If populations get too large nature, via natural calamity or natural selection, seems to keep species in check.

The world population hype is because lib-socalists, who want a global imperative to help the poor, want to stop the growth of lower classes (who as a percentage grow as a population gets larger). It just sound less "classist" to tell everyone stop breading then to simply just tell those who bread then can't support there young to stop.

I think most lib-socialists are more concerned with raising standards of living for the poor than with population control, which is closer to right wing eugenics. Also I'm guessing you're talking about making babies not making bread so you might want to check your spelling.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 3:55:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 3:50:16 AM, feverish wrote:
At 4/12/2011 11:48:55 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Not really...

If populations get too large nature, via natural calamity or natural selection, seems to keep species in check.

The world population hype is because lib-socalists, who want a global imperative to help the poor, want to stop the growth of lower classes (who as a percentage grow as a population gets larger). It just sound less "classist" to tell everyone stop breading then to simply just tell those who bread then can't support there young to stop.

I think most lib-socialists are more concerned with raising standards of living for the poor than with population control, which is closer to right wing eugenics. Also I'm guessing you're talking about making babies not making bread so you might want to check your spelling.

Pretty sure that population control, or the Zero Population Group crowd are lib-socialists, but their reasoning is multifold; environmental and raising the standard of living as a result. Also eugenics was hardly a creation of the right - that's just bad history.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 3:56:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 3:50:16 AM, feverish wrote:
I'm guessing you're talking about making babies not making bread so you might want to check your spelling.

I dub thee, official bastard spelling nazi of DDO.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 5:10:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 3:55:08 AM, innomen wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:50:16 AM, feverish wrote:

right wing eugenics.

Also eugenics was hardly a creation of the right - that's just bad history.

Sir Francis Galton, the father of Eugenics (who was incidentally born and raised in the same part of Birmingham I live and grew up in) was far from left wing and strongly promoted elitism.

It is true that some fabian socialists such as Shaw and Wells, as well as some scandinavian socialist governments advocated a form of eugenics to control birth defects but when I talk about right wing eugenics, I am referring to eugenics based on notions of racial and class based inferiority such as advocated by Hitler and modern extremist groups.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 9:57:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 5:10:41 AM, feverish wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:55:08 AM, innomen wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:50:16 AM, feverish wrote:

right wing eugenics.

Also eugenics was hardly a creation of the right - that's just bad history.

Sir Francis Galton, the father of Eugenics (who was incidentally born and raised in the same part of Birmingham I live and grew up in) was far from left wing and strongly promoted elitism.

It is true that some fabian socialists such as Shaw and Wells, as well as some scandinavian socialist governments advocated a form of eugenics to control birth defects but when I talk about right wing eugenics, I am referring to eugenics based on notions of racial and class based inferiority such as advocated by Hitler and modern extremist groups.

Fascism is its own wing.
Heathen
Posts: 183
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 10:19:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
China has already started.
"Once an object has been seen, it is impossible to put the mind back to the same condition it was in before it saw it." - Thomas Paine
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:04:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's as long as an increase in population has been made possible by the growing productivity of the populations in the regions concerned, or by more effective utilisation of their resources, and not by deliberate artificial support of this growth from the outside, there is little cause for concern. -Hayek
I read about it...*In a book*
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 11:36:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 5:10:41 AM, feverish wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:55:08 AM, innomen wrote:
At 4/13/2011 3:50:16 AM, feverish wrote:

right wing eugenics.

Also eugenics was hardly a creation of the right - that's just bad history.

Sir Francis Galton, the father of Eugenics (who was incidentally born and raised in the same part of Birmingham I live and grew up in) was far from left wing and strongly promoted elitism.

It is true that some fabian socialists such as Shaw and Wells, as well as some scandinavian socialist governments advocated a form of eugenics to control birth defects but when I talk about right wing eugenics, I am referring to eugenics based on notions of racial and class based inferiority such as advocated by Hitler and modern extremist groups.

I know it's nice hyperbole to say that fascism is right wing, but it's kind of ridiculous. The National Socialists, i.e. Nazi's were all about socializing everything, and were not about individual freedom/responsibility. One of the first things they did was nationalize the banks. - Is that right wing?

Prior to the Nazi's in this country, eugenics became very attractive to the Wilson crowd who signed into law the sterilization act. Margaret Sanger, the mother of abortion was primarily motivated by Eugenics, particularly in the area of race.

The early thrust of eugenics was thought of as a way to better attain equality within society.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 2:17:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/12/2011 11:39:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
We are far from starving, and far from being the dominant oxygen breather.

Fact fail. Take down your American ignorant-of-the-world blinders, please.

About two-thirds of the global population (about 4.7 billion out of 7 billion people) are categorized by the World Health Organization as underfed or starving. Around 15 million people die per year as a result of starvation.
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 2:32:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Overpopulation is going to get very ugly before it actually provides the force necessary to squash our abilities to procreate. Very ugly. But don't worry, we'll just ignore it because we're close to some miracle technology that allows us all to be selfish as5holes and everything just works out.
kfc
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 2:34:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 2:32:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Overpopulation is going to get very ugly before it actually provides the force necessary to squash our abilities to procreate. Very ugly. But don't worry, we'll just ignore it because we're close to some miracle technology that allows us all to be selfish as5holes and everything just works out.

thank god for technology! what was the name of that pleasure machine j.kenyon was talking about before?
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 2:39:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i think we need a good war anyway.. followed by communal life for a while after.. then cities again.. then war again.. and i figure it'll probably repeat like that until we actually wipe ourselves out.. i hope so anyway!
signature
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 3:32:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 2:17:15 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/12/2011 11:39:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
We are far from starving, and far from being the dominant oxygen breather.

Fact fail. Take down your American ignorant-of-the-world blinders, please.

About two-thirds of the global population (about 4.7 billion out of 7 billion people) are categorized by the World Health Organization as underfed or starving. Around 15 million people die per year as a result of starvation.

Okay 7 billion.
15 million is .21 % of 7 billion
I'd like to borrow your shades please, oh and let me know when that % gets out of the tenths place.
Not even close to being a serious issue.
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 5:17:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 3:32:02 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/13/2011 2:17:15 PM, PervRat wrote:
At 4/12/2011 11:39:20 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
We are far from starving, and far from being the dominant oxygen breather.

Fact fail. Take down your American ignorant-of-the-world blinders, please.

About two-thirds of the global population (about 4.7 billion out of 7 billion people) are categorized by the World Health Organization as underfed or starving. Around 15 million people die per year as a result of starvation.

Okay 7 billion.
15 million is .21 % of 7 billion
I'd like to borrow your shades please, oh and let me know when that % gets out of the tenths place.
Not even close to being a serious issue.

FOUR POINT SEVEN BILLION ARE STARVING OR UNDERFED. You either can't read or simply refuse to. THAT IS SIXTY SEVEN PERCENT OF THE WORLD POPULATION.

And humans are the causation for the vast majority of oxygen consumption, on the order of 100 times the production of carbon dioxide as, say, volcanoes. It isn't just 7 billion humans breathing, but our cars and factories burning oxygen and choking out carbon dioxide and other unbreathables.
reddj2
Posts: 239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 6:49:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 2:32:57 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
Overpopulation is going to get very ugly before it actually provides the force necessary to squash our abilities to procreate. Very ugly. But don't worry, we'll just ignore it because we're close to some miracle technology that allows us all to be selfish as5holes and everything just works out.

Like rob said we are all selfish
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 7:16:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 7:14:35 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I actually think overpopulation is a problem--not necessarily in itself, but because of massive overconsumption and environmental consequences. I'm not in favor of state-sponsored population control, though.

Bah.
If you were in charge of the men with guns, I think you'd feel differently. ^_^
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/13/2011 9:09:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 5:17:31 PM, PervRat wrote:

FOUR POINT SEVEN BILLION ARE STARVING OR UNDERFED. You either can't read or simply refuse to. THAT IS SIXTY SEVEN PERCENT OF THE WORLD POPULATION.

And humans are the causation for the vast majority of oxygen consumption, on the order of 100 times the production of carbon dioxide as, say, volcanoes. It isn't just 7 billion humans breathing, but our cars and factories burning oxygen and choking out carbon dioxide and other unbreathables.

I am hungry now.
I also randomly have a .2% chance of dying this year from hunger.
It doesn't mean anything.

I am ghastly afraid of too much oxygen in the air due to global warming and a rise in Co2.
The world could spontaneously combust!
Thank God for new babies!

I think I'll go stop by Burger King just in case.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 3:54:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/13/2011 11:36:37 AM, innomen wrote:
At 4/13/2011 5:10:41 AM, feverish wrote:

I know it's nice hyperbole to say that fascism is right wing, but it's kind of ridiculous.

The dictionary disagrees with you, fascism is inhertly right-wing.

fascism
noun
[mass noun]
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

fascist
Noun
* S: (n) fascist (an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

It is calling Nazis socialists that is ridiculous.

One of the first things they did was nationalize the banks. - Is that right wing?

It can be, if you're doing it for elitist ends. Right and left wing refers to more than just economic structure. For example Libertarians are historically left-wing in terms of social liberties but are right-wing in economic terms.

Prior to the Nazi's in this country, eugenics became very attractive to the Wilson crowd who signed into law the sterilization act. Margaret Sanger, the mother of abortion was primarily motivated by Eugenics, particularly in the area of race.

I don't know a lot about Sanger, but she sounds like an interesting and oxymoronic individual from her wiki page, she apparently spoke out against forced eugenics and was mostly focussed on abortion and contraception rights for women, although she does seem to have had some loon opinions. She can't have been that much of a racist either as she was apparently down with MLK.

The early thrust of eugenics was thought of as a way to better attain equality within society.

I find that idea ridiculous and abhorent but there does seem to be some truth in it. Thanks for provoking me to read a bit more about the links between socialism and eugenics.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 4:56:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 3:54:23 AM, feverish wrote:
At 4/13/2011 11:36:37 AM, innomen wrote:
At 4/13/2011 5:10:41 AM, feverish wrote:

I know it's nice hyperbole to say that fascism is right wing, but it's kind of ridiculous.

The dictionary disagrees with you, fascism is inhertly right-wing.

fascism
noun
[mass noun]
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
(in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

fascist
Noun
* S: (n) fascist (an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views)

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...

It is calling Nazis socialists that is ridiculous.

One of the first things they did was nationalize the banks. - Is that right wing?

It can be, if you're doing it for elitist ends. Right and left wing refers to more than just economic structure. For example Libertarians are historically left-wing in terms of social liberties but are right-wing in economic terms.

Prior to the Nazi's in this country, eugenics became very attractive to the Wilson crowd who signed into law the sterilization act. Margaret Sanger, the mother of abortion was primarily motivated by Eugenics, particularly in the area of race.

I don't know a lot about Sanger, but she sounds like an interesting and oxymoronic individual from her wiki page, she apparently spoke out against forced eugenics and was mostly focussed on abortion and contraception rights for women, although she does seem to have had some loon opinions. She can't have been that much of a racist either as she was apparently down with MLK.

The early thrust of eugenics was thought of as a way to better attain equality within society.

I find that idea ridiculous and abhorent but there does seem to be some truth in it. Thanks for provoking me to read a bit more about the links between socialism and eugenics.

Your definition of fascism is poor, and could be applied to every communist regime that existed or still exists. North Korea? Sounds like it would fit your definition easily, are they considered fascist right wing or communist left wing?

Right wing would be less government and more private industry, greater free market less restrictions. No government intervention in private affairs.

Read the book liberal fascism and you will see the fallacy of where the term was distorted.

Explain how Nazism fails at being socialist in model. Essentially it's socialism with a gigantic dose of nationalism, and this was the major difference between it and the Soviets at the time, where the Soviets were all about a complete world view of their economy and political structure, where the Nazis were about a German centric view of the the politics and economy. Nazis were more about socialism in that they wanted to control production, whereas the Soviets were about collectivization.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 5:13:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Overpopulation, to me, is when there are so many people that no matter how original my ideas seem there was always someone who thought of them first. We are over populated.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 7:18:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 4:56:08 AM, innomen wrote:

Your definition of fascism is poor,

It's not my definition. I sourced the Oxford English Dictionary and wordnet Princeton. If you think your own interpretation is so much superior then you should probably move out of the stationery buisness and start producing your own dictionary.

and could be applied to every communist regime that existed or still exists.

The definition depends on the ideology being right-wing, how does that apply to communism? The common ground with a lot of communist regimes and fascism is the authoritarian element.

North Korea? Sounds like it would fit your definition easily, are they considered fascist right wing or communist left wing?

That's just a crazy dude's dictatorship, I don't think it really falls into any organised political ideology.

Right wing would be less government and more private industry, greater free market less restrictions. No government intervention in private affairs.

That's a very narrow interpretation of what the term right-wing represents and is focussed solely on economic factors. Many right-wingers in the US and elsewhere have no problem with government intervention in things like abortion and marriage rights, they just don't want high taxes.

Read the book liberal fascism and you will see the fallacy of where the term was distorted.

You can keep your anti-liberal propaganda thanks.

Explain how Nazism fails at being socialist in model.

Socialism is based around equality, the antithesis of Nazism.

Essentially it's socialism with a gigantic dose of nationalism, and this was the major difference between it and the Soviets at the time, where the Soviets were all about a complete world view of their economy and political structure, where the Nazis were about a German centric view of the the politics and economy. Nazis were more about socialism in that they wanted to control production, whereas the Soviets were about collectivization.

That's the difference. Nationalising stuff with a goal of control by elites is fascist and right-wing, nationalising stuff with a goal of collective control is socialist and left-wing. Not that I really agree with authoritarian communists like Stalin anyway.
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 11:00:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 5:13:47 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Overpopulation, to me, is when there are so many people that no matter how original my ideas seem there was always someone who thought of them first. We are over populated.

So that would be about 1000 to 1200 people?
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/14/2011 11:08:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/14/2011 7:18:01 AM, feverish wrote:
At 4/14/2011 4:56:08 AM, innomen wrote:

Your definition of fascism is poor,

It's not my definition. I sourced the Oxford English Dictionary and wordnet Princeton. If you think your own interpretation is so much superior then you should probably move out of the stationery buisness and start producing your own dictionary.

and could be applied to every communist regime that existed or still exists.

The definition depends on the ideology being right-wing, how does that apply to communism? The common ground with a lot of communist regimes and fascism is the authoritarian element.

North Korea? Sounds like it would fit your definition easily, are they considered fascist right wing or communist left wing?

That's just a crazy dude's dictatorship, I don't think it really falls into any organised political ideology.

Right wing would be less government and more private industry, greater free market less restrictions. No government intervention in private affairs.

That's a very narrow interpretation of what the term right-wing represents and is focussed solely on economic factors. Many right-wingers in the US and elsewhere have no problem with government intervention in things like abortion and marriage rights, they just don't want high taxes.

Read the book liberal fascism and you will see the fallacy of where the term was distorted.

You can keep your anti-liberal propaganda thanks.

Explain how Nazism fails at being socialist in model.

Socialism is based around equality, the antithesis of Nazism.

Essentially it's socialism with a gigantic dose of nationalism, and this was the major difference between it and the Soviets at the time, where the Soviets were all about a complete world view of their economy and political structure, where the Nazis were about a German centric view of the the politics and economy. Nazis were more about socialism in that they wanted to control production, whereas the Soviets were about collectivization.

That's the difference. Nationalising stuff with a goal of control by elites is fascist and right-wing, nationalising stuff with a goal of collective control is socialist and left-wing. Not that I really agree with authoritarian communists like Stalin anyway.

First, kudos for spelling stationery correctly.

Now...right wing is pretty much the same thing as conservative, which is a somewhat subjective word. What was considered liberal 200 years ago is now considered conservative by many respects. States rights, and individual rights in the US were considered very liberal, and a strong central goverment was considered conservative (reminiscent of a monarchy); now those are backwards and the conservatives or right wing look to the individual versus the collective, or the central power.

Right Wing: "The conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."http://dictionary.reference.com...
There is nothing inherently fascist abou that right? It depends on the particular political party at the time. If you think that Nazism fits into that definition at the time of German politics please make a case for that, but i don't think you can.

Now Socialism: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." http://dictionary.reference.com.... Nazism did in fact employ a socialist model of economy.

And Fascism: "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."
http://dictionary.reference.com... Which is more of the governance than the economics, but easily can integrate the two, as Hitler had done. But Fascism is completely comfortable within the realm of the left wing, since you acknowledge that the left wing is all about economic equality, which is almost always in direct conflict with individual rights.

Make sense?