News Roe v. Wade overturned

Page 119 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
35,217
6,787
126
But it's not doubling every generation.
In most of the world, including some of the poorer parts, the rate of population growth has slowed considerably.



By my (very rough) calculation the highest growth rate countries will triple in population in a generation, the ones in the next bracket will double, all the others will grow by considerably less than that.
I've never claimed or even been aware of the prediction that population would double every generation. Doesn't matter.

I've been fully aware of the fact that population increase has slowed and slowed, I've paid attention to the out-there figures you hear about but I've never forgotten that over-population has been a major concern ever since Paul's book came out. I didn't read it, I just knew from my perspective. It screams at you if you're paying attention. Add in the global climate crisis and the political problems and now the increasing problems vis a vis pandemics and you realize that over-population is a big part of "the problem."
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,912
4,005
136
I've never claimed or even been aware of the prediction that population would double every generation. Doesn't matter.

I've been fully aware of the fact that population increase has slowed and slowed, I've paid attention to the out-there figures you hear about but I've never forgotten that over-population has been a major concern ever since Paul's book came out. I didn't read it, I just knew from my perspective. It screams at you if you're paying attention. Add in the global climate crisis and the political problems and now the increasing problems vis a vis pandemics and you realize that over-population is a big part of "the problem."
Overpopulation, if we even are overpopulated, is not the real problem. The problem is that we do not use sustainable methods of doing just about anything.
No matter our population the methods of production we employ would eventually lead to the same problems. All the larger population does is speed up the inevitable conclusion.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
11,592
9,040
146
You are right, we can't keep increasing our population forever, but as was so helpfully pointed out by pmv we are not, and haven't been since around the time of that book being published. Even so, we can keep increasing our population for a long time, at least as far as food production is concerned. We do not have a food production problem, we have a food distribution problem. We produce more then enough food for everyone on the entire planet several times over, and could ramp up that production considerably.
No, our problem is in how we determine who should get food, because capitalisms does not work when dealing with the necessities of life. We pay people NOT to produce food! Think about how fucked up that is. People are literally starving to death because we pay people to not make food so we can keep prices high so capitalism will work with a product that is too abundant to have enough value. So we create artificial scarcity on a product people need to survive.
I'm not convinced the biosphere can accommodate our current population, much less more. We're not responsible enough to preserve it intentionally and we're outpacing it's ability to survive in spite of our incompetence.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,912
4,005
136
I'm not convinced the biosphere can accommodate our current population, much less more. We're not responsible enough to preserve it intentionally and we're outpacing it's ability to survive in spite of our incompetence.
I believe that our biosphere could handle 10 time our current population if we were not such massive assholes.
If we prioritized clean energy, recycling, environmentally friendly manufacturing, and other green technologies over profitability we would not have that big of a problem.
That would mean that we would all probably have to learn to live with a lot less stuff. We would have to learn to repair our equipment instead of throwing it away when it breaks. In short, we would have to learn to live in a whole new way that works with nature for long term stability instead of destroying it for a momentary satisfaction.
Failing that I think out population has been to large for sustainability since the 1800s.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
11,592
9,040
146
I believe that our biosphere could handle 10 time our current population if we were not such massive assholes.
If we prioritized clean energy, recycling, environmentally friendly manufacturing, and other green technologies over profitability we would not have that big of a problem.
That would mean that we would all probably have to learn to live with a lot less stuff. We would have to learn to repair our equipment instead of throwing it away when it breaks. In short, we would have to learn to live in a whole new way that works with nature for long term stability instead of destroying it for a momentary satisfaction.
Failing that I think out population has been to large for sustainability since the 1800s.
Right, but we can't do that. We've proven over the last century we are incapable as a species. Hence the biosphere cannot survive us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo and Pohemi

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
35,217
6,787
126
In any case can we agree that increasing earth's population is apt to work against our solving our larger problems? So called right-to-life in denying the right to decide to terminate a pregnancy is insane.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
35,217
6,787
126
South Carolina

"Republican leaders have publicly said for months they expected the ruling would go their way, including during floor debates of an extended session created specifically to take up a ban at conception. That legislation ultimately expired in November, with the Senate lacking the votes to go beyond six weeks and the House GOP refusing to accept anything other than a near-total ban.

A stalemate was expected to continue, possibly through 2024, when senators next face re-election.

Now the question is not whether, but what, abortion legislation will be debated this year and how quickly."
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
21,101
8,036
136
South Carolina

"Republican leaders have publicly said for months they expected the ruling would go their way, including during floor debates of an extended session created specifically to take up a ban at conception. That legislation ultimately expired in November, with the Senate lacking the votes to go beyond six weeks and the House GOP refusing to accept anything other than a near-total ban.

A stalemate was expected to continue, possibly through 2024, when senators next face re-election.

Now the question is not whether, but what, abortion legislation will be debated this year and how quickly."
Imagine having a right to privacy. Oh how ironic, Trumped!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
Christian Taliban are just getting started, look at this horse shit

So they are opposed to the right to bare arms? It's just deliberate trolling/self-parody at this point, surely?

(Was thinking that's _so_ obvious someone must have beaten me to it in the Twitter thread...and [checks] sure enough...dammit...but seems they are now passing laws that are just 'straight man' set-up lines?)

Also - Margaret Atwood looks more like a genius prophet with every day (and Republican law) that passes.
 
Last edited:

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
11,561
6,419
136
Makes me wonder how they'd react at women who turned up in full Islamic garb - burka, or niqab and chador?
Would they again have conniptions? "We want you to cover up, but not _that_ way"?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY