Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Global warming
Thread: Global warming This thread is 9 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT»
Corribus
Corribus

Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
posted September 19, 2015 08:20 AM
Edited by Corribus at 08:39, 19 Sep 2015.

You're right. It's all those communist lefty thermometers that are to blame.

Funny though, a lot of that temperature data was recorded during Bush's presidency, so we can't really blame Obama for it.

http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html

Not to mention, global temperatures are the averages of temperatures recorded all over the world, not just the US.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

I guess everyone's in on this bizarre conspiracy that exists for some reason that nobody can explain. All these national leaders the world over convincing scientists in coordinated fashion they have to "misread" their equipment in exactly the same way to help tell a predetermined story so as to dupe the world's citizens into believing the planet is slowly getting hotter. It's really quite amazing. Right up there with that ozone hole fiction that was promulgated by Russian spies, am I right?

I do find it quite peculiar that you always describe data that disagrees with your political viewpoint "cooked", no matter how absurdly far a conspiracy would have to go to make it so. But any shred of data that you think supports your political viewpoint is always OK. Amazing how that works. I think there's a word for it... cherry something or other.

(Honestly, though... Sepp.org? I went there, checked out the website. What the heck is it? No information at all. Who is writing that stuff? I mean, even if you believe in a massive government conspiracy, you have to have some kind of standards for what sources you WILL accept as an authority, right? Forget climate science. Physics and chemistry are difficult. How do you know these people have any training at all to understand anything? To my mind putting your faith in some random website on a scientific topic like this is as illogical as going to your mechanic to get an appendectomy because you don't believe in the medical establishment. No sane person would do that, because when there are acute consequences, you DO have to have a standard for who has actual useful knowledge. Then again, there are still bozos out there who won't accept blood transfusions, who think vaccines cause autism, and who get gluteal silicone injections in strangers' basements, so I guess even there paranoid delusion and total lack of critical judgment can win the day.)

In other news: Ah, how I've missed you, Elodin. This place was getting so boring. Stick around, will ya?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
SCOURGE OF THE H-SEA
posted September 19, 2015 08:45 AM
Edited by fred79 at 09:07, 19 Sep 2015.

/somewhat off-topic:

in order for a conspiracy to be able to hold any water, you have to have reasoning behind it, elodin. i don't see the reasoning behind telling people the world's atmosphere is heating up, other than to get them to possibly stop procreating like rabbits. and i, for one, surely don't believe that that would stop anyone from having their multiple little rugrats that pollute the planet, use up more resources and take up more room than they're worth(just like their useless-ass parents). because nothing short of extinction will stop the human race's destructive behavior, if even that. a virus doesn't know it's bad, it just does what a virus does, and mutates along the way.

lol @ "global warming conspiracy, brought about by the demon obama". get real, elodin. you need to be able to deciminate propaganda from reality, man. that's not even decently-made propaganda, ffs.


snow that, i'm not even done. even IF the global warming idea was actually a conspiracy, how can you possibly NOT see the benefits of improving how human beings are running things at the moment? how could you not see how the world and mankind BOTH would benefit from trying to find alternative(read, non-invasive, non-destructive, like sunlight) sources of power, or to cut down on overpopulation, or the overconsumption of any and all resources, or the destruction of the forests and trees that give us oxygen?

i mean, really? why in the hell would you even think a "conspiracy" like that could POSSIBLY be a bad idea? because it's lying? wtf, man. your reasoning for even seeing that as bad, is particularly worrying.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Herry
Herry


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
100% Devil
posted September 19, 2015 08:51 AM

I know this would only happen in my dreams, but what if we let Global warming go on just for a little bit, and produce thermal energy that we'd use in some sort of global cooling, no? It's just my imagination, but many things come from imagination.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Pawek_13
Pawek_13


Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
posted September 19, 2015 09:53 AM

Herry said:
I know this would only happen in my dreams, but what if we let Global warming go on just for a little bit, and produce thermal energy that we'd use in some sort of global cooling, no? It's just my imagination, but many things come from imagination.

Problem with heat energy is that you can't use it much, especially if it's dispersed across the whole planet, so sadly, such a solution is impossible to implement. Don't you worry, however! Climate change causes sea streams to disappear. With that, less heat would come to the Northern Pole, what will cause a massive drop in temperature. This would lead eventually to another ice age! So, if we want to evade global cooling, we should do something to slow down the rate of climate change, meaning usual stuff.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Ebonheart
Ebonheart


Famous Hero
Rush the rush
posted September 19, 2015 11:37 AM

A classmate once told me this: The best way to stop global warming is to kill all humans.
As bizarre as it sounds, he had a point.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted September 19, 2015 11:43 AM

We could already avoid extremes by taking some decent contraception measures. In the last 30 years, overpopulation eradicated 70% of other species.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Herry
Herry


Bad-mannered
Famous Hero
100% Devil
posted September 19, 2015 11:47 AM

Well, mind telling me exactly how over-population interacts with/causes the problem? I find global warming to be caused more from chemical, toxic waste and that sort of stuff. Particularly the part of those that goes on the air.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blizzardboy
blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Prince of Poetry
posted September 19, 2015 09:52 PM
Edited by blizzardboy at 22:04, 19 Sep 2015.

In a mind-numbingly basic, sophomoric form of reasoning, you could always (whether in the past, today, or in the future) blame an alleged overpopulation, whether the world had 7 billion people, or 5 billion, or 2 billion, or a few hundred million, as the cause of certain problems. It's a timeless argument, and a personal favorite of tyrants: "We have too many mouths to feed anyway." After all, famines, water shortages, and all other resources shortages are not a novelty of the 20th & 21st centuries. I suppose the root cause of the occasional famine in ancient Persia was that it was hosting a whopping population of several million people across a huge expanse of territory.  Please.

Or look at it another way: if I spend a thousand dollar paycheck at a casino, technically speaking, I suppose I could attribute my ensuing financial problems to the fact that I'm not being paid enough (if I was being paid more, I could blow a thousand dollars at the casino, and still have leftover money for necessary bills) but that's hardly the real problem. I'm sure everybody here could understand why that statement is moronical. You're just using it as a cop out in order to avoid your atrocious spending habits, which in my mind, is very similar - if not practically identical - to people that blame the population for global warming and any other environmental problem.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
SCOURGE OF THE H-SEA
posted September 19, 2015 10:03 PM

@ blizz: so, more people doesn't equal more forests cut down to make room/more resources needed/more pollution, ALL which in turn is a detriment to the environment, which ultimately aids in global warming? you're right, wtf was i and others thinking?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blizzardboy
blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Prince of Poetry
posted September 19, 2015 10:07 PM
Edited by blizzardboy at 22:26, 19 Sep 2015.

fred79 said:
@ blizz: so, more people doesn't equal more forests cut down to make room/more resources needed/more pollution, ALL which in turn is a detriment to the environment, which ultimately aids in global warming? you're right, wtf was i and others thinking?


And more people simultaneously means: more development projects, more technology, more sophisticated infrastructure and management. There are cities all over the world - as we speak - that are gradually turning into a hybrid climate of buildings and gardens, and use renewable resources (which have become more efficient over the decades) to alleviate the power grid, and even feed power into it.

Rainforests in Latin & central America are declining because of extremely poor agricultural practices. This subject involves some discussion, but the short answer is: it's not happening because there are too many people there. Poor farmers use a scorched Earth tactic because the burning temporarily creates extremely high-yield soil for generating cash crops that are exported to the US and abroad. It's a short-term profit-based enterprise that isn't capable of sustaining itself in the long-term. They're already resorting to burning very young rainforest that was burned just 10-20 years ago, and it's not producing close to the same results.

Brainpower is not a liability to the environment. The "billion generic morons" equates to the nation of China, which - at the moment - is the biggest environmental stress on the world, and an object for 1st world people (who themselves were extremely pollutive in the early 20th century) to hypocritically whine about. But give them time. They've already improved so much.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
SCOURGE OF THE H-SEA
posted September 19, 2015 10:15 PM
Edited by fred79 at 22:27, 19 Sep 2015.

@ blizz: you automatically assume the common man is a benefit to the environment? have you ever met "the common man"? most people are destructive parasites, globally speaking. they don't give a rat's ass about the environment.

the people who care, are far outnumbered, by the people who don't. the way you put it, it's like most people born are coming out with new things to help save the environment. most people are cannon-fodder in this respect, as well as in others. they can't get nearly ANYTHING right. they're STILL screwing up, and not understanding the impact they make on the world around them. they have no idea how fragile the ecosystems can be, when introduced to something foreign, that doesn't belong.

people forget, that just as we have evolved since our creation, so has the planet. things are as they are, because they EVOLVED that way, and the environments are DESIGNED a specific way, for specific reasons. it's a natural order of things. nearly all humans do next to nothing but throw monkey wrenches into nature's machine.


edit: really? you cite China as being progressive? one of the top polluters of the planet, as progressing? really, man? please tell me that you're trolling me...


(darn grammatical errors)

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted September 19, 2015 10:17 PM
Edited by artu at 22:46, 19 Sep 2015.

@blizz

While it's true that the core of the problem is not overpopulation but greenhouse gases, population does come in play when we talk about how the effects of global warming will trouble us. Your example of ancient famines is quite ironical in that sense because the same thing goes for them, too. Hunter-gatherers could not face famines because they were automatically limited by the already existing natural resources they were surrounded with when it came to reproducing. With agri-culture and stocked food, people were able to reproduce more and grow in numbers. But that also meant they were now dependent on the surplus food they produced. When something went wrong, such as a long period with no rain etc, they died in thousands which was not the case before. Think of it like this, environmentalists track big cats in forests because their population is a way to measure the health of the forest, I dont remember the exact numbers but X number of tigers mean there are at least X times more herbivorous prey they feed on, and that means there are at least X hectars of trees and plants that they feed on. We do not populate like that, we produce our own food, so we are able to overpopulate unlike any other specie. However, when the effects of global warming hits, these vast numbers will be the issue exactly, we wont go extinct, but millions will suffer because they were able to exist in the first place. Global warming wouldnt be much of a problem if 2 million humans inhabited the earth.

Not to mention, they wouldnt cause this amount of industrial gas to spread into the atmosphere either.
____________
I admit it, I like it when they are bombastic - Neraus

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
markkur
markkur


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
posted September 20, 2015 01:25 AM
Edited by markkur at 01:27, 20 Sep 2015.

artu said:
Global warming wouldnt be much of a problem if 2 million humans inhabited the earth. Not to mention, they wouldnt cause this amount of industrial gas to spread into the atmosphere either.


True, as long as they maybe only had axes and they did not have a mandate to eventually "deforest the earth" in the name of economic survival.

Ofc numbers of people matter and as far as tech, it is worthless if it is not used because of powerful old-lobbies sitting in the middle of governments, "the all important not-so free market", is not as "easy" to use, to expensive for most of us to actually afford, and on and on

@ Elodin

Welcome back but the idea that is a hoax is a crazy reach. I keep hearing that mantra from the wherever it comes, and I ask; "And what is the point of such a campaign?"

Fear is certainly used in order to get folks to buy stuff but what is the motive on such a huge problem? I don't think any government wants their people standing in dark corners and unable to function. Economic slaves have a purpose for the Elite and inactivity is not it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blizzardboy
blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Prince of Poetry
posted September 20, 2015 04:50 AM
Edited by blizzardboy at 05:55, 20 Sep 2015.

artu said:
@blizz

While it's true that the core of the problem is not overpopulation but greenhouse gases, population does come in play when we talk about how the effects of global warming will trouble us. Your example of ancient famines is quite ironical in that sense because the same thing goes for them, too. Hunter-gatherers could not face famines because they were automatically limited by the already existing natural resources they were surrounded with when it came to reproducing. With agri-culture and stocked food, people were able to reproduce more and grow in numbers. But that also meant they were now dependent on the surplus food they produced. When something went wrong, such as a long period with no rain etc, they died in thousands which was not the case before. Think of it like this, environmentalists track big cats in forests because their population is a way to measure the health of the forest, I dont remember the exact numbers but X number of tigers mean there are at least X times more herbivorous prey they feed on, and that means there are at least X hectars of trees and plants that they feed on. We do not populate like that, we produce our own food, so we are able to overpopulate unlike any other specie. However, when the effects of global warming hits, these vast numbers will be the issue exactly, we wont go extinct, but millions will suffer because they were able to exist in the first place. Global warming wouldnt be much of a problem if 2 million humans inhabited the earth.

Not to mention, they wouldnt cause this amount of industrial gas to spread into the atmosphere either.


But, once again, the population in itself isn't the direct cause of climate change, but an indirect cause. Manmade emissions & decreasing plantlife is the cause (deforestation, yes, but correct me if I am wrong that the destruction of oceanic algae is actually by far the bigger factor). Manmade innovation can be used to mitigate and even counter this. I think the only genuine threat is if our impact on the environment & atmosphere isn't taken seriously or is denied altogether. That would be catastrophic.

Hunter-gatherers suffered a range of other problems: moving where the animals did; a more hazardous lifestyle; less material comforts; lower life-expectancy from having far too much meat in their diet. Agrarian society made life move forward, and, we no longer suffer so much from regional droughts/floods, because commence has gone international.

Global warming wouldn't be a problem if 2 million humans lived on Earth. It would also be about 1000 times less advanced. Besides, although it isn't always fashionable to do so, I happen to like my species quite a lot. I like our cities and our concerts and our huge parades and festivals and parties and conventions and space stations and airplanes and skyscrapers and restaurants and breweries and computers and waterparks and our million other interesting features, and most of the time I like people themselves, and in a single city of 2 million people, much of that would be lost. Granted, there isn't as much pristine wilderness where the local idyllic wildlife devours its own children if it misses one too many meals, but I think with innovative solutions you can negotiate between human civilization while still preserving the natural environment, and to some extent, even integrating it into the most urban human environment, allowing a garden landscape and an urban landscape to overlap. By the end of the 21st century I think this will be standard.

And, in case people are confused in what I am saying: I am not saying that we need to go back to birthing children at the age of 15, and the average woman dishing out 8+ babies a piece. Although population growth by itself is objectively a good thing, radical explosions in population are difficult to adjust to. Once upon a time, disease kept the population low. Those days are gone. Once upon a time, you were essentially a fully independent adult at 16, and started working many years before that. Those days are gone. People should be graduating highs school and going to vocational schools or universities. However, I don't see continued moderate population growth as anything except a very good thing. The world isn't even remotely close to being filled up and I think the best times are yet to come.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blizzardboy
blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Prince of Poetry
posted September 20, 2015 05:56 AM
Edited by blizzardboy at 06:13, 20 Sep 2015.

I think there has been some good, fairly civil discussion generated here btw from some of us. I nominate blizzardboy and artu for a QP. We've contributed a lot to this thread. I deserve 2 for having superior arguments, but 1 is acceptable. Fred can have one too, since he's a tap dancing zombie that's chosen the ugliest shade of green possible for a background.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
SCOURGE OF THE H-SEA
posted September 20, 2015 07:07 AM

blizzardboy said:
Fred can have one too, since he's a tap dancing zombie that's chosen the ugliest shade of green possible for a background.


look, i know my human hate-speech() arguments aren't worded as positively as yours, but cut a guy some slack. i deserve at least a hearty handshake for my participation in a futile online discussion that doesn't change the reality of it whatsoever.


btw, that color of green is awesome. everyone else seems to not like the puke green color(irl as well), but i love it. it looks both natural and toxic, and it fits well with a mutant zombie; and provides a pleasant contrast in color, too.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted September 20, 2015 07:33 AM
Edited by artu at 07:37, 20 Sep 2015.

Thanks for the QP suggestion.

Two things,

A) Farmers having it better than hunter-gatherers is a very debated subject nowadays, I've come across many articles recently, suggesting this is just a blind assumption based on the old-fashioned view that history is a straight-forward line of progress and improvement. What you say about their diet for example is false, hunter-gatherers on average had accsess to many more variety of fruits and vegtables because they constantly traveled, they worked significantly less and when they did, the work was what their anatomy evolved for, they didnt break their backs carrying tons of seeds etc. The early settlements were a haven for epidemic diseases. While it is certainly true that because of how agriculture led the way and the technology it resulted in (alphabet, big settlements, calenders) we live much easier lives today, it is now quite a common view that the early farmers (an average Joe, not the kings, of course) were the unluckiest people ever to walk this planet. The most convincing arguments I've read about this comes from the Yuval Harari book I've linked as a pdf in the book thread, I highly recommend it, it's an amazing read.

B) Yes, in short term, numbers by themselves are not the cause of global warming and this vast land we call Earth isnt full yet. But since the industrial revolution and the medical advances in science, our population sky-rocketed. It is more so since these improvements started to spread around every corner of the world. In historical terms, these events are like happening since yesterday morning, it is quite easy to foresee that this multiplication will keep on and on in an accumulative manner every century if we dont adjust our social norms and cultures accordingly and there will come a time when sheer numbers themselves will be the problem, and not in the soooo distant future. We're not there yet and I'm not suggesting a population-gestapo state which snatches the third baby from their parents like in some distopian science-fiction novel. However, the times of "be fruitful and multiply as much as you can" should come to an end, humanity should start to seriously consider a more balanced approach to reproduction.
____________
I admit it, I like it when they are bombastic - Neraus

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
kiryu133
kiryu133

Hero of Order
Highly illogical
posted September 20, 2015 08:38 AM

And the answer to that is widespread education and higher living standards, is it not? Of course, that opens up some problems of its own on hw much a single person is really able to impact the environment.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blizzardboy
blizzardboy


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Prince of Poetry
posted September 20, 2015 11:01 PM
Edited by blizzardboy at 00:13, 21 Sep 2015.

artu said:
Thanks for the QP suggestion.

Two things,

A) Farmers having it better than hunter-gatherers is a very debated subject nowadays, I've come across many articles recently, suggesting this is just a blind assumption based on the old-fashioned view that history is a straight-forward line of progress and improvement. What you say about their diet for example is false, hunter-gatherers on average had accsess to many more variety of fruits and vegtables because they constantly traveled, they worked significantly less and when they did, the work was what their anatomy evolved for, they didnt break their backs carrying tons of seeds etc. The early settlements were a haven for epidemic diseases. While it is certainly true that because of how agriculture led the way and the technology it resulted in (alphabet, big settlements, calenders) we live much easier lives today, it is now quite a common view that the early farmers (an average Joe, not the kings, of course) were the unluckiest people ever to walk this planet. The most convincing arguments I've read about this comes from the Yuval Harari book I've linked as a pdf in the book thread, I highly recommend it, it's an amazing read.


Sounds like an enjoyable read.


Quote:
B) Yes, in short term, numbers by themselves are not the cause of global warming and this vast land we call Earth isnt full yet. But since the industrial revolution and the medical advances in science, our population sky-rocketed. It is more so since these improvements started to spread around every corner of the world. In historical terms, these events are like happening since yesterday morning, it is quite easy to foresee that this multiplication will keep on and on in an accumulative manner every century if we dont adjust our social norms and cultures accordingly and there will come a time when sheer numbers themselves will be the problem, and not in the soooo distant future. We're not there yet and I'm not suggesting a population-gestapo state which snatches the third baby from their parents like in some distopian science-fiction novel. However, the times of "be fruitful and multiply as much as you can" should come to an end, humanity should start to seriously consider a more balanced approach to reproduction.



- The world population isn't skyrocketing. It's currently increasing annually by 1.13%, and that growth rate is expected to decrease.


Population skyrocketing goes down as the developing world becomes a population of working people going to universities, instead of rural families that still have their daughters getting married at 15 or so. It's happening as we speak and it's going to happen more.

We're not expecting to even reach 10 billion people by 2050, and nobody can say for sure where we will be technologically and developmentally in 35 years, but I think it's safe enough to say that we'll have made quite a big of progress. 35 years ago from our current point was 1980. Almost half the world lived under authoritarian communist governments, people didn't own PCs or for the most part even VCRs, and John Lennon was alive.

My belief - and it is admittedly conjecture - is that long before the Earth reaches genuine population problems, and we are literally stacked in superstructures like sardines and it really is looking like we need a space upgrade, we'll already be expanded beyond Earth long ago. The 21st century isn't going to experience the kind of spike we experienced in the 20th century. The growth is leveling out to become more mild.

That isn't to say that there aren't localized population problems. A particular city or region may suffer from various infrastructure or managerial problems that make it inadequate to accommodate its population: these localized population problems are as old as civilization. But those aren't closed environments; there is a far bigger world out there and on a global environment it is false to attribute our problems to population, especially since that increased brainpower is what we use to fix and revolutionize society.
Russia, for example, has the opposite of crowding problems.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
SCOURGE OF THE H-SEA
posted September 20, 2015 11:35 PM
Edited by fred79 at 23:48, 20 Sep 2015.

/somewhat off-topic:

sorry blizz, but i don't believe you at all on the population decrease. everywhere i turn, i'm hearing of people having multiple kids(anywhere from 5-8, or even more). add to that, the guys who impregnate gals, and then move on, and keep doing so, having more and more kids(something i've also been personally seeing), and the population will be getting out of control even more than it already is.

i don't know where you're getting your info, but from where i live and who surrounds me and what i hear and see from people who talk about their families on t.v., people are multiplying like snowing rabbits. they aren't giving ONE SINGLE THOUGHT to what kind of consequences that might have, for everyone(including their offspring), later on down the road.

tell me, blizz: what do you actually hear come out of people's mouths, where YOU live, about their current families, or plans thereof? what are the bachelors saying about any accidental offspring they might be having? how many are paying child support? how many kids do they have, and with how many women?

if you hear the things that i hear and see the things that i see, it's a simply math equation. 2 parents have at least 4 kids, and increasingly, 5 or more. now, just keep running with that. 2 parents have 4 kids. those 4 kids will grow up to procreate with others. each kid procreates and has at least 2 kids each. that's 8 more human beings. now multiply that by the number of people doing that. now add in allllll the people who aren't settling down, or having families, and who go around collecting sperm or eggs from various other people, to create single-parent offspring. the numbers just keep going up, blizz. i don't see them going down, especially when the government gives you money for each kid via welfare, or the missing parent has to because of child support, etc. IT IS STUCK IN PEOPLE'S MINDS THAT IT IS BENEFICIAL TO HAVE KIDS, AND IN POORER AREAS, TO HAVE AS MANY AS POSSIBLE. there should be an alarm going off inside you. if not, reread this paragraph until it does. this is what i'm seeing and hearing directly from the horses mouths, and this is my simple math to back up my reasoning.

being that the solid family structure is rapidly going out the window here in the u.s., and how people are concentrating more and more on themselves via their stupid snowing handheld phones that they carry everywhere, and the ever-increasing reality-tv culture where EVERYONE IS A snowING STAR NOW, what do you think that will entail, as time progresses?

the general public, as i see it, aren't even paying attention to what they're creating or what they're affecting, because they're too busy focused on THEMSELVES. nobody's being responsible(about ANYTHING, ffs), and nobody is being held accountable for their population growth. except maybe china. that's one thing i'll give china: they have their heads in the right place, with controlled population growth. it's high time the rest of the world followed suit. it's way snowing PAST time, ffs.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 9 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0917 seconds