This made me very sad.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Population growth:

Click image to enlarge.

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.[5] The CIA World Factbook gives the world annual birthrate, mortality rate, and growth rate as 1.915%, 0.812%, and 1.092% respectively[6] The last one hundred years have seen a rapid increase in population due to medical advances and massive increase in agricultural productivity[7] made possible by the Green Revolution.[8][9][10]

The actual annual growth in the number of humans fell from its peak of 88.0 million in 1989, to a low of 73.9 million in 2003, after which it rose again to 75.2 million in 2006. Since then, annual growth has declined. In 2009, the human population increased by 74.6 million, which is projected to fall steadily to about 41 million per annum in 2050, at which time the population will have increased to about 9.2 billion.[5] Each region of the globe has seen great reductions in growth rate in recent decades, though growth rates remain above 2% in some countries of the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, and also in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.

Population growth drops as a country develops.
We just need to focus on getting half the earth out of the gutter and see what the situation looks like then rather than start to impose regulations on breeding.

[john9blue]

it's probably because animals aren't sadistic bastards that are killing the planet

hard to be mournful over human death when mass human death would probably be better for our species in the long run.

wowzers.
You a part of the voluntary human extinction movement?
You know, I think this might be the root cause of many of our disagreements. You haven't watched enough Star Trek in your formative years in order to develop on optimistic view about human potential.

The only reason "animals" aren't "killing the planet" is because they aren't smart enough to do so.

P.S. humans are animals too
P.P.S. animals other tthan humans also kill for fun

lol, not exactly. i was just exaggerating my pessimism more than usual.

[Gillipig]

Population growth:

Click image to enlarge.

Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%.[5] The CIA World Factbook gives the world annual birthrate, mortality rate, and growth rate as 1.915%, 0.812%, and 1.092% respectively[6] The last one hundred years have seen a rapid increase in population due to medical advances and massive increase in agricultural productivity[7] made possible by the Green Revolution.[8][9][10]

The actual annual growth in the number of humans fell from its peak of 88.0 million in 1989, to a low of 73.9 million in 2003, after which it rose again to 75.2 million in 2006. Since then, annual growth has declined. In 2009, the human population increased by 74.6 million, which is projected to fall steadily to about 41 million per annum in 2050, at which time the population will have increased to about 9.2 billion.[5] Each region of the globe has seen great reductions in growth rate in recent decades, though growth rates remain above 2% in some countries of the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa, and also in South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.

Population growth drops as a country develops.
We just need to focus on getting half the earth out of the gutter and see what the situation looks like then rather than start to impose regulations on breeding.

But then you walk into another problem. If Everyone lived like the west we would need so much more resources than we can possible conjure up. We would need 4 earths if everyone alive today would live like the average american. 2.5 earths if everyone lived like the average frenchman. Add a couple of billions more to the mix as the future no doubt the future will bring us and even the lifestyle of the average chinese would be too luxorious for the earth to handle. In fact it already is!
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680379/what ... -americans

[nietzsche]

Well I'd rather have them kill the animal instantly than torture it.

As john said, only we humans are fucked up enough to torture each other and other animals.

Also in Mexico, cartels are using dogs to practice torture and killing for new members.

[2dimes]

Ok, fine. I'd rather see the cartels killed than the bear but it's not going to happen.

Also if you have a dog as a pet it loves you unconditionally. Some where along the line some person you expected to treat you with at least minimal respect, probably has let you down or judged you.

Tbh, I'm not even sure if "unconditional love" as we humans know it is part of a dog's vocabulary as it were. In fact, I'm willing to bet that if those people could actually get into a dog's head they would probably be horrified lol.

I take it you have never had a dog? Your point is quite a lot off btw. Just because a dog doesn't think of itself in a the same way as we do doesn't mean it has the better view of who it is. We're arguably better at objectively judging a dog than itself is.

A nice dog, loves everyone unconditionally, they're just happy and excited to meet you.

I've had dogs my whole life, I just don't anthropomorphize them. I don't think it's fair to the dog.

I know he has simple thoughts but something is going on there. He remembers things like which door he should be getting in on the truck depending on who is there to open it for him. If it's just him and me, driver's side back. If the kids are there it's passenger side back. I doubt he has it pre-planed before he sees the truck siting in the house.

As for happy, he seems more happy corresponding with events like getting his way or eating a piece of cheese or sausage. Example of expressing that is wagging his tail or bouncing. That almost allways happens when he first sees a person. In the end though you're right. I'm not him so I need to imagine his emotions the way I experience emotions.

[Gillipig]

As john said, only we humans are fucked up enough to torture each other and other animals.

Chimps are know for their often pointless cruelty towards each other. But seeing as how they're 98% genetically identical to us, and probably still able to breeed with us, one might make the case that they are the same species.

[Funkyterrance]

As john said, only we humans are fucked up enough to torture each other and other animals.

Chimps are know for their often pointless cruelty towards each other. But seeing as how they're 98% genetically identical to us, and probably still able to breeed with us, one might make the case that they are the same species.

Rofl! You may want to check your facts on that one Gillipig but you can try for yourself if you're still skeptical.

[Gillipig]

As john said, only we humans are fucked up enough to torture each other and other animals.

Chimps are know for their often pointless cruelty towards each other. But seeing as how they're 98% genetically identical to us, and probably still able to breeed with us, one might make the case that they are the same species.

Rofl! You may want to check your facts on that one Gillipig but you can try for yourself if you're still skeptical.

What exactly is it that confuses you? What is it that you don't understand/haven't heard of before?

[Funkyterrance]

As for happy, he seems more happy corresponding with events like getting his way or eating a piece of cheese or sausage. Example of expressing that is wagging his tail or bouncing. That almost allways happens when he first sees a person. In the end though you're right. I'm not him so I need to imagine his emotions the way I experience emotions.

Don't get me wrong man, I love my dog and don't think she's faking it when she seems excited to see me, etc. Like you said, I just can't say for certain if she has the same feelings as I do. It may be love or it may be respect or it could just be an instinct to want to be with her "pack". I just think it's cool to coexist and be able to communicate with an animal that is so different from myself. Dogs are awesome!

[puppydog85]

He probably was confused by the italicized section. The whole breeding with chimps thing. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "probably".

[Funkyterrance]

~somehow restrains self from horrible joke~

In north America many people seem to have more empathy toward other animals than people. I wonder if it is the concept that people are poor because they did not work hard enough. The bear was living a productive life when it was captured. Arguably there should have been some effort to do it in the most pleasant way possible. That is expected as part of our perceived civilized evolved social existence.

I'm with Haggis though. I believe the people know they're having a hard time. The bear is being stressed but it just does not anger me.

are you fkin serious? it has nothing to do with being "poor"

it's probably because animals aren't sadistic bastards that are killing the planet

hard to be mournful over human death when mass human death would probably be better for our species in the long run.

John, I think what 2dimes meant is that some people tend to feel that humans are generally responsible for their own situations and therefore tend to be less empathetic towards people than animals since animals are mainly acting on pure instincts.

[Gillipig]

He probably was confused by the italicized section. The whole breeding with chimps thing. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "probably".

Ah, that lol. Didn't see something was in italic. Well we know of many different types of species that can crossbreed. Horses and Donkey's produce mules. Tigers and Lions produce Ligers and Tigons etc. vv
Many of these animals share less amount of identical DNA with each other than Humans and Chimpanzees does. For two animals that look a lot unlike each other, we're exceptionally much alike in terms of DNA. Animals that are less related to each other than we and chimps are can still breed with each other. So there's a good chance we can still breed with each other. But that is also why I had to throw in probably. "Good chance", but no example of human/chimp interbreeding have yet been found. I wonder why lol. To treat the idea as sheer nonsense however just goes to show how ignorant of biology you are. yes funky, I'm talking to you.

[BigBallinStalin]

A nice dog, loves everyone unconditionally, they're just happy and excited to meet you.

Ok but it annoys me that I personally know people that throw away enough food to easily feed those two kids not counting restaraunt waste caused by them.

The problem of overpopulation wouldn't be solved even if we didn't throw away our food. With an ever increasing population there will always be a time where we are more humans than we can feed.

Oh I thought you were suggesting there is not enough food for everyone to eat because there is too many of us.

The problems are far more likely we're not bothering to distribute it and in many places you have too many orphans who can't figure out agriculture.

Of course the planet can't provide everyone with a mansion and a yacht. I would also agree, some regions are over populated.

We're no where near capacity for a much simpler existence, how does a city like Cairo function?

Nevermind Cairo 2dimes lol. Here's a graph detailing how human population from the 19th century until now has increased, different scenarios for the future as estimated by the UN have also been added.
If we keep growing in numbers for years and years and years, there will come a time when even if every square inch of farmland is being used perfectly, and we cut down all the forrests and everyone live on minimum food possible and doesn't waste anything, some people will still starve to death. You must agree with this, you must agree with that increase in human population can not be allowed to increase in eternity. You're probably arguing that that time hasn't come yet, and that we could still support all humans if we only were better at efficently using our farmland and not throw away food. But I ask you what is the point of doing all this if we don't do anything about the underlying problem? Why just postpone starvation instead of erasing it? Controlling how many people live on the earth is the only way to deal with the problem. Everything else is just sweeping dust under the mat.

Gee. That sure looks fancy. I bet I could make one up too!


GDP and population density have no correlation. (so the overpopulation problem is false).

GDP has been increasing over the centuries, so has life expectancy, and population, while infant mortality and people living on $1 wages/day have been decreasing.

People have been saying your position for centuries, but hey, they've been wrong. Of course, they can keep crying fowl by readjusting their graphs every 10 years, so that their position still seems relevant.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell021298.html
Julian Simon - The Economics of Population Growth,
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/w ... 022499.asp
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... c0005.html

etc.

[Funkyterrance]

Ah, that lol. Didn't see something was in italic. Well we know of many different types of species that can crossbreed. Horses and Donkey's produce mules. Tigers and Lions produce Ligers and Tigons etc. vv
Many of these animals share less amount of identical DNA with each other than Humans and Chimpanzees does. For two animals that look a lot unlike each other, we're exceptionally much alike in terms of DNA. Animals that are less related to each other than we and chimps are can still breed with each other. So there's a good chance we can still breed with each other. But that is also why I had to throw in probably. "Good chance", but no example of human/chimp interbreeding have yet been found. I wonder why lol. To treat the idea as sheer nonsense however just goes to show how ignorant of biology you are. yes funky, I'm talking to you.

From what I understand there were attempts to do this sort of thing but none of the attempts were successful. If I am wrong about this I would like to apologize to everyone for my ignorance of the biological ramifications of humans breeding with apes. I mean cmon, eww.

[2dimes]

I dunno, advancements in waxing since the turn of the century have been quite significant.

[Funkyterrance]

[YouTube][/YouTube]

I dunno, advancements in waxing since the turn of the century have been quite significant.

*shudders*

[2dimes]

What about the bear? You know assuming you trust the knots there.

[chang50]

As john said, only we humans are fucked up enough to torture each other and other animals.

Have you never watched a cat tormenting/toturing/playing with/sharpening their hunting skills on,a small creature like a bird mouse or cockroach,and not eat its victim?.I am reluctant to anthropomorphise as we can never truly judge the intentions of our fellow animals but if we judge it to be valid when people say 'my dog is happy/sad',it is equally valid to say 'the cat is tormenting that mouse'.

[Funkyterrance]

Is it just me or does that guy look like he is aware of the fact that he's sterile?

[Neoteny]

Ironically, this thread makes me happy.

[Army of GOD]

Ironically, this thread makes me happy.

ITT: Neoteny tortures kittens

f*ck you, Mr. Kitten torturer.

[puppydog85]

Ah, that lol. Didn't see something was in italic. Well we know of many different types of species that can crossbreed. Horses and Donkey's produce mules. Tigers and Lions produce Ligers and Tigons etc. vv
Many of these animals share less amount of identical DNA with each other than Humans and Chimpanzees does. For two animals that look a lot unlike each other, we're exceptionally much alike in terms of DNA. Animals that are less related to each other than we and chimps are can still breed with each other. So there's a good chance we can still breed with each other. But that is also why I had to throw in probably. "Good chance", but no example of human/chimp interbreeding have yet been found. I wonder why lol. To treat the idea as sheer nonsense however just goes to show how ignorant of biology you are. yes funky, I'm talking to you.

From what I understand there were attempts to do this sort of thing but none of the attempts were successful. If I am wrong about this I would like to apologize to everyone for my ignorance of the biological ramifications of humans breeding with apes. I mean cmon, eww.

No, you are perfectly correct that all attempts have failed. Gilly is holding out for a theory that up until now has been falsified.

[thegreekdog]

A nice dog, loves everyone unconditionally, they're just happy and excited to meet you.

Ok but it annoys me that I personally know people that throw away enough food to easily feed those two kids not counting restaraunt waste caused by them.

The problem of overpopulation wouldn't be solved even if we didn't throw away our food. With an ever increasing population there will always be a time where we are more humans than we can feed.

Oh I thought you were suggesting there is not enough food for everyone to eat because there is too many of us.

The problems are far more likely we're not bothering to distribute it and in many places you have too many orphans who can't figure out agriculture.

Of course the planet can't provide everyone with a mansion and a yacht. I would also agree, some regions are over populated.

We're no where near capacity for a much simpler existence, how does a city like Cairo function?

Nevermind Cairo 2dimes lol. Here's a graph detailing how human population from the 19th century until now has increased, different scenarios for the future as estimated by the UN have also been added.
If we keep growing in numbers for years and years and years, there will come a time when even if every square inch of farmland is being used perfectly, and we cut down all the forrests and everyone live on minimum food possible and doesn't waste anything, some people will still starve to death. You must agree with this, you must agree with that increase in human population can not be allowed to increase in eternity. You're probably arguing that that time hasn't come yet, and that we could still support all humans if we only were better at efficently using our farmland and not throw away food. But I ask you what is the point of doing all this if we don't do anything about the underlying problem? Why just postpone starvation instead of erasing it? Controlling how many people live on the earth is the only way to deal with the problem. Everything else is just sweeping dust under the mat.

Gee. That sure looks fancy. I bet I could make one up too!


GDP and population density have no correlation. (so the overpopulation problem is false).

GDP has been increasing over the centuries, so has life expectancy, and population, while infant mortality and people living on $1 wages/day have been decreasing.

People have been saying your position for centuries, but hey, they've been wrong. Of course, they can keep crying fowl by readjusting their graphs every 10 years, so that their position still seems relevant.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell021298.html
Julian Simon - The Economics of Population Growth,
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/w ... 022499.asp
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articl ... c0005.html

etc.

I believe it's called a Malthusian Cycle. I don't know all the details but I heard it in an audio lecture. Basically, in history, human populations oustripped available resources and there was a decrease in population. There is a belief by some that there will be another Malthusian collapse in the future, although we're apparently overdue for one. And the reason we're overdue for one? Um... the professor said technology and the high rate of growth in technology was due to... capitalism. YAY CAPITALISM! Saving us from a Malthusian catastrophe for about 400 years!

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, they're called Malthusians.

Malthus believed that population would grow than fall because people would reach the diminishing returns of food production (i.e. as population grew, farm land would have to increase, but that additional farm land is less efficient, so there would be less food, which in turn would lead to starvation, etc.).


Of course, he was wrong because (a) technology, (b) the price mechanism (and profit and loss incentives), and (c) people aren't that stupid (they respond to incentives--e.g. "gee, if we have too many kids, we won't be able to feed them all"). (Recall that tribe in Northern Canada which basically kills off their elderly and females in the expectation of harsher times).


As a side note, most people perpetuate this myth because they're uninformed, so it's our duty to update them.

[2dimes]

(Recall that tribe in Northern Canada which basically kills off their females in the expectation of harsher times).

Just the ones that back talk or don't put out. Of course now because we're "modern" and "civilized" there's food banks and we marry them.