Over-population...

[spookz]

Originally posted by Blindman
The approach was so belligerent and immoral that I have had to put my two and bit cents in.

this thread is cool compared to others with the same topic. the butchers and mad eugenicists come crawling out of the woodwork. (the darkies get slaughtered!)

Originally posted by Blindman
My country has never had a war except for helping other countries, we have never had a civil war. We are one of the most peaceful countries in the world. If all the world could be in harmony as the states of Australia it would be a happy world..

what is that all about? you do know your history yes?

Australians understand only the stereotypical or traditional scenes of historical or present-day slaughter. For them, genocide connotes either the bulldozed corpses at Belsen or the serried rows of Cambodian skulls, the panga-wielding Hutu in pursuit of Tutsi victims or the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. As Australians see it, patently we cannot be connected to, or with, the stereotypes of Swastika-wearing SS psychopaths, or crazed black tribal Africans. Apart from Australia's physical killing era, there are doubtless differences between what these perpetrators did and what we did in assimilating people and removing their children. But, as we will see, we are connected - by virtue of what Raimond Gaita calls "the inexpungable moral dimension" inherent in genocide, whatever its forms or actions

http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/rsrch/rsrch_dp/genocide.htm

hilarious

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Blindman
I don’t remember mentioning wealth. Your standard of living has nothing to do with wealth.

If you say so. But most other people consider these to be directly connected.

I have a high standard of living because if I get sick I can go to the hospital for free. If im to stupid or unwilling to work the government will supports me . When I want to improve my self there are many options, most of which only require commitment not money and are government funded..[/B]

Quite. And how do you think your governent can afford to give you this high standard of living except by continuing economic growth?

There are very few countries that live in your so called police state. Even the US is so far from a police state the it is preposterous to think so.[/B]

I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was talking about where your proposal would take us. I certainly did not say that the US is a police state (although it is in one qualitative sense, since in less economically high-powered states there are less police). I was talking about the 'tyranny of the majority and the increasing necessity of making people conform as our democratic societies become increasingly larger and more rigidly organised. You must admit that the 'War on Terrorism' has excused a very worrying increase in social control, and such controls are never withdrawn, only built on further.

In Australia we have a clear definition between state and federal governments. We have a modern and fair constitution. The states have right to enforce their own laws in respect to local customs, excreta. The constitution guaranties that a tyrant could not possible survive without the consent of the states and its peoples. [/B]

Tyranny of the majority is what I'm talking about, not dictatorships. As democracies pass a certain size the ability of the individual to change society disappears. Increasingly we must just do what we're told by the majority, who are always right of course. Hence the bigger the democracy the lower the voting turnout. And IMO it's not much of a democracy that needs to enforce voting by law. Why the hell should you vote if you don't want to, not voting is a very valid choice when all the options are unwanted.

[The state I live in produces more then 30% of my countries wealth. (we have 6 states and two territories), there is occasional talk of succession but we all know it is better to work as a whole then to divide. [/B]

This explains your high standard of living.

We need to define a global constitution. [/B]

No we don't. I do not share your enthusiasm for planned and written constitutions. One reason the English constitution has worked so well is that is it largely unwritten and has thus been able to evolve according to need, and expert opinion remains divided on whether more of it should be ossified in writing.

[The will always be a lose of freedom, it is part of living in a society.[/B]

My very point. And as society becomes ever more intricately structured and necessary to the maintenance of our increasing standards of living so the freedoms will continue to disappear.

We now live in times of war.[/B]

Well hardly.

[My country has never had a war except for helping other countries, we have never had a civil war. We are one of the most peaceful countries in the world. If all the world could be in harmony as the states of Australia it would be a happy world..[/B]

I think Spookz covers this.

[Don’t be greedy..[/B]

Um - OK

 

[Blindman]

Sorry spookz you’re absolutely right. There are dark times in this counties history.

What you must remember is that during the 50’s to the early 70’s Australia had an open door policy to immigration. We let in millions of people from all over the world. I am only a first generation Australia and still carry some of my Dutch heritage. Thusly it is difficult to connect to the past history of Australia. There are millions of first and second generation Australians who don’t seem to feel guilty for the policies of this countries founders and creators.

I would retract the statement if I could.

Canute

Quite. And how do you think your governent can afford to give you this high standard of living except by continuing economic growth?

Exactly..

More to say latter, must do some real work now..

 

[Frencheneesz]

Ok I think I'd like to clear a couple things up:

First: WE DO NOT HAVE DEMOCRACIES! By the REAL definition of the word, a democracy has not existed for a couple thousand years. All of our "democracies" are Straight republics. People only vote on actual laws to be passed rarely, and only on the community level.

Somone mentioned marking a number for maximum ideal carrying capacity of the world. However they were tenative to do so because they can't see that far ahead. My response is: why don't we set a limit now and change it when we see the need? Duh

ALSO, I agree that we need a world constitution and world government. But somepeople don't understand that CONSTITUTIONS CAN BE CHANGED. In fact, the US constitution originally planed to have a constitutional convention every so often to change it to the times, however, it got vetoed and so we don't get that chance anymore.

A world constitution would not be extensive, and would not be all that restrictive. It would only define how we resolve international problems. Nothing more.

" expert opinion remains divided on whether more of it should be ossified in writing."

What the hell good does a constitution do, if its not in writing? (hey suicide is now legal, pass it on)

 

[Frencheneesz]

split so read easier

I really don't think forcing people to vote is a good idea. Then the vote will be skewed by people who vote randomly to save time. I can think of some ways that it WOULD work to force people to vote, but how does austrailia do it Blindman?

ANYWAY, back to the main premise. Why does everyone think it is so bad to make humans have to go through a medical process to get pregnant? huh? And whats so bad about bias taxes? We tax tobacco because that hurts us (and its a luxery, not the point). We should tax for children because more of them hurts us. Duh. Even if they are taxed and hystorectimied (sp), they still have the right to have as many kids as they want and can. They will just have to pay for it, in cash

 

[Blindman]

I really don't think forcing people to vote is a good idea. Then the vote will be skewed by people who vote randomly to save time. I can think of some ways that it WOULD work to force people to vote, but how does austrailia do it Blindman?

In Australia we are punished via a fine, I think was about $60AUS (around $30US). Not much but it made me go and vote the next time.

It may be true that people will give a donkey vote, especially if you’re not to keen, or not in touch. But once inside the booth most people will know what they want, they may not vote for anyone specific by they certainly vote against what they don’t like.

I think that in counties where it is not compulsory to vote, it can lead to inadequate representation of minorities. Especially the poor and ethnic groups.

 

[Blindman]

Canute <I> standard of living and wealth </I>

But most other people consider these to be directly connected.

Whose wealth, yours? Your neighbors? Local council? The state? The republic?
What if you’re denied the goods and services what good would wealth be.
How do you quantify love and happiness in terms of wealth?
If I work hard in a repetitive unfulfilling job and make twice as much as someone with a creative fulfilling job. Who has the better standard of living?

I have been too a place where the communities income would be less then the average professional worker. Yet we enjoyed a great life style, food literally threw its self at you, the people were very well feed and most of all, were very happy. We stayed there for 4 weeks and were not once ask for money. We were expected to work, not that I would have called it work. No one complained, no one rushed. Even in sickness their culture had prepared them. A sick old woman was dieing. We were stressed and offered help to bring her to a modern hospital. She declined (oh no tears in my eyes) with her family all around she would rather die then leave them. She died several days after we left. Im glad we never sent her away.

Now who has the better standard of living? Next time your out on the freeway moving at 2 miles an hour look around you and see how many happy faces you see.

Standard of living is governed by expectation not wealth.

 

[Canute]

Frencheneesz - good points and overall I agree with you. Especially:

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
Somone mentioned marking a number for maximum ideal carrying capacity of the world. However they were tenative to do so because they can't see that far ahead. My response is: why don't we set a limit now and change it when we see the need? Duh

But no - apparently we must wait for the utopia that technology will soon impose on us.

[ALSO, I agree that we need a world constitution and world government. But somepeople don't understand that CONSTITUTIONS CAN BE CHANGED. In fact, the US constitution originally planed to have a constitutional convention every so often to change it to the times, however, it got vetoed and so we don't get that chance anymore.[/B]

Good point. This is why it evolves better when (to some degree) it is unwritten, thus English law evolves (to some degree) by practice and precedent in response to changing circumstances and as informed by expert practice rather than simply political process.

A world constitution would not be extensive, and would not be all that restrictive. It would only define how we resolve international problems. Nothing more.[/B]

By that meaning I'd be all for one (mostly unwritten of course)

What the hell good does a constitution do, if its not in writing? (hey suicide is now legal, pass it on) [/B]

The same thing as a written one, but based on precedent and practice, with the possibility of change at any moment (say in some particular legal case at the discretion of the courts).

 

[Canute]

Blindman - I don't understand you position. You agreed with me that your standard of living depended on economic wealth. Yet you disagreed when I connected standard of living with economic wealth. I'll restate my point - standard of living is not the same as quality of life (in normal usage of the words). One depends wholly on economic wealth (the 'standard' which is commonly measured) and one does not (beyond being able to subsist).

 

[Blindman]

<b><i>Canute</i></b>
I do not make my statement lightly.

Are you talking about standard of living. Or “standard of living” as a financial indicator allowing investors to manage their risk?

Economic wealth. (Once again you will see a financial point to this).

Economies could be driven entirely but art. It is not the art traded that produces the wealth but the underlying society and culture that allows the growth of such art, that is where the economic value is.

Even if this, value of potential art, in terms of monetary value, is small to other economies, if the people are happy they have a high standard of living,
Thus high economic value, because security in the knowledge that maintenance of there culture can be sustained over the long term. (their not about to go bust).

I judge my security and happiness on my ability to sustain my life style. I chouse not to have a two story mansion overlooking the ocean. I chose to live in a less glamorous home. My standard of living (not financial) is just the same as the multi million dollar life style so hyped in the media.

Anyway for you (Canute) I will no long say standard of living.. Ill just call it the societal contentment factor(SCF).

This SCF must be a major component in the judging of human population control.

Constitution?? World constitution?? Law and the world legislative body??. Supreme court and world court how should they relate?. Think its time for a few new threads..

 

[Frencheneesz]

Blindman:

When people say, standard of living, they will most likely take it, not to mean the litteral meaning, but to be connected to the phrase that is constructed as such. Standard of living defined be the dictionary is measured by the amount of material wealth that an average person has. Quality of life, while litterally meaning the same thing, is almost completely based on opinion of what a good life is, and the happieness of a person.

Therefore quality of life has a correlation, but not a completely dependant connection with "standard of living". ok?

sorry this thread is completely off base, but noone seems to be discussing the topic. Weeehhhh do we really have to start a new thread?

BTW. How do you fairly enforce an unwritten law?

 

[Olaus]

Originally posted by Blindman
Unemployment is not driven by population size. Humans work for humans.. More humans, more work. Increased human populations also contribute to a more enriched and varied workforce. To cater to a minority demand in a small population is uneconomical, but in larger populations it become profitable


Once you do that all the people who are employed to help the unemployed will lose their jobs. Then once there all eliminated the executioners will lose their jobs and will have to kill them selves. Then because there is so many less people some business will no longer be profitable. So on and so one..
I know your not serious just making a point.


We will have wars no matter how many humans there are.

Not something new in human history. Increased human populations mean more resources to fight the “plague”. Also I don’t know of any plague-scale diseases since the 1918 pandemic. Once again plague or widespread disease is spread via trade, commerce and adventure. If no one traveled outside there home states we would never see a pandemic again.

SARS is just a media hype syndrome. It kills about 3-4% of people infected. Ebola virus kills 50% and is highly contagious yet it has not spread around the world.

AIDS is spread in uneducated populations via ignorance; population density has nothing to do with it. In Australia we have very low AIDS related deaths.

In my country population decline is a serious issue. We may soon have generous government rebates just by having children. It is a problem that is affecting most of the western world. Life has become so easy in our high density cities and towns that having children provide us with no real benefits (apart from love and family)

I do agree that so called third world counties do have problems. Their problems are not due to population it is due to culture.

Recent studies (I’ll have to get the ref latter) show that around 2050 human populations will start to decline.

I argue that population decline is the worst thing that could happen to humanity and we must do everything in our power to continue to increase population.

We owe it to mother earth to live on. We owe it to mother nature to leave earth behind and spread beyond her embrace and take the universe that has been given to us. To go into decline is to say we have had enough and we should just sit back and wait for our death.

It looks different in America. No jobs, lack of housing, traffic jams, long lines.

If there is no surplus of people, why are there no jobs?

 

[Frencheneesz]

olaus:

please don't copy so frikking much of someones post, especially when you can't even match 3% of the length.

BTW, hes saying that less people would mean even LESS jobs due to lack of need destroying more jobs than the lack of people open up. I don't agree, however.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Maybe they should euthanize all americans because they are the greatest poluters in the world.

Then we should 'sacrifice' all the germans because they eat too many saugages.

The french are next since they smell like garlic.

Politicians will be hanged because they lie too much.

Executioners will be executed because they kill too much.

People that post crap on forums will be castrated.

Never realized that solving problems was this easy.

Make an orderly queu please for the gas chambers...wait your turn...

 

[Frencheneesz]

great spuriousmonkey, you addressed the entirely wrong issue. If you read other peoples posts, noone advocated killing anybody, unless you consider a fetus a body...

its not.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Originally posted by Frencheneesz
great spuriousmonkey, you addressed the entirely wrong issue. If you read other peoples posts, noone advocated killing anybody, unless you consider a fetus a body...

its not.

sorry, confused some theads then...but lets kill all of them anyway.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Um, excuse me... I most definately was advocating killing people

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Interesting

Originally posted by Dr Lou Natic
Um, excuse me... I most definately was advocating killing people

This could be an interesting example of the 'invisible poster' syndrome. I have it myself. I somehow cannot notice any posts of specific forum members. And before you ask, I haven't blocked them. They are there, but I don't see them.

Apparently I did see the kill all people threads, but not the do not kill all people threads, whereas other contributors to this thread had the opposite problem.

It is one of those classic mysteries that can be classified in the same category as women are from venus, men are from mars.

 

[Clockwood]

Give people a contraceptive implant at puberty that wears off when they reach thirty. That would cut population growth down to size.

 

[sHaZbOk]

good ideas, they won't happen though, sorry. it's impossible to regulate these things and if we start to put laws on the number of children people can have the world will be a little more like CHina, and we don't want that now do we, i mean look how they turned out, they have SARS