Summations Only

IamJoseph, I would like you to be honest in your reply to this message. You have absolutely no idea what sustainable development is do you? You have not actually read any of the information supplied to you have you? You are ranting against a position that you refuse to learn anything about aren't you? How can you oppose a position that you do not understand? It just makes you look stupid. Is your intent to look stupid? Are you trolling?In the OP Message 1, you asked the following questions - When you asked those questions, you had absolutely no intention of listening to any other point of view other than your own did you?This thread was designed for you to shout your brand of religiously motivated madness for your own satisfaction wasn't it? This is basically you stroking your own arguement. A sort of forum masturbation.If you really did honestly ask those questions, you would have at least made an attempt to listen to and understand other solutions.Sustainable development is not a contradiction in terms. You would understand this very simple idea if you had read any of the information supplied to you. You however are not interested in being educated. You are interested in remaining intentionally ignorant. You are an intellectual coward. You will not even look at any other information just in case it may damage your argument. Excuse me? I have not put forward, nor would I advocate any ideas of mass murder. This is not, has never been and will never be my position. You have made this up in your own head. Now you are resorting to imagining things in order to make rash accusations. I have shown you, even with pretty pictures how population can be and is being controlled. Hooah made reference to it in [mid631214]. Pressie elaborated on it in Message 10. Frako mentioned it in Message 33. I provided you with a larger description in Message 52 complete with a graphic, explanation, statistics and sources to back up the claims. Frako posted more information in Message 59 from his own home country showing that not only could it happen, it is happening. Huntard discussed the issue in several posts including Message 73. I discussed it agin in Message 80. Huntard mentioned it again in Message 81. Fearandloathing mentioned it in Message 88. Frako again mentions it in Message 118. I corrected you the last time you made the this same bullshit accusation in Message 143. In all of those comments regarding population contreol, not one mentions murdering or killing anyone. The only person making these claims is you. You are the only one saying it, and you are accusing others of saying it.I will provide you with some more information. By the way, how do you ignore the information supllied to you? Do you cover the graphs with your hand and pretend they are not there?Just to make it clear for you as you seem to repeatedly miss it I will put the following sentence in bold and CAPITAL LETTERS. POPULATION MANAGEMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY KILLING OR MURDERINGNo one here has said it does except for you. It has been pointed out to you why you are wrong about this before. You are still wrong if you think that population control involves killing people.Clear enough? Probably not.I will now describe, in detail, with graphs and sources how population control works.To put it simply - 2 parents have two children. Then the two parents die (they are not murdered), leaving the net population increase as zero. See how maths works. 2 + 2 - 2 = 2.That is the premise behind population management. See, as discussed previously, no murdering involved.Is this happening? Yes, it is.Look at this image (source: http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/.../20/top-5-demography-myths) All of the blue nations are having 2 or less children per couple. This means that population control measures are working in all of the blue countries on the map and many of the green ones also. It is actually happening out in the real world (with no killing). If you look at the nations where there is still a very high birth rate, you will find that the education and empowerment of women is very low. Educate these women, give them control of their own bodies by allowing them to use birth control and guess what? Total international population management has been achieved.I will also point out why you are wrong in thinking that it is just the births that are leading to the worlds current high population. Here is another handy graphic - (Source: World Total Fertility Rate Declines)This is the global fertility rate. It is the global average number of children women are having. Notice how in the 1950's women globally were having around 5 children each. Remember the equation I showed you before? 2 + 2 - 2 + 2. This equation has no net growth. Using the same equation in the 1950's you would get : 2 + 5 - 2 = 3. This is a net growth of 3 people, per woman on average globally. See the differnce? Now look at the current time period. It is sitting at 2.9. So, the equation would be 2 + 2.9 - 2 + .9. So a net growth of .9. About 1. See the differnce. See how this is going down. Can you see how population control works without anyone having to be murdered?allong with that graph is this - (Source:World Total Fertility Rate Declines)For more information that you wont read because it refutes your position try this paper called "The Fertility Transition Around the World -
1950-2005" at Page not found | Program on the Global Demography of Aging at Harvard University | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthI am sure you are wondering why the population is still increasing. Here is another neat graph to show you. Notice how the blue bars are still higher than the red bars. The red bars show death rate. The blue is birth rate. While the vlue bars are higher than the red bars, there are more people being born than are dying. Also, take this into account - (Source: http://www.sublimeoblivion.com/.../20/top-5-demography-myths)The average life expectancy is increasing steadily. Check out this handy graph. (Source : http://homework.uoregon.edu/pub/class/hc434/couplings.html/)This is the global average average life expectency.Here is another one showing more recent history - (Source :WordPress.com )There are more people around because every human being on the planet is living longer. This does not mean that overpopulation is not a problem. Births are still too high (this does not mean that anyone is going to go out and start killing people).I know you will tell me that none of this is real and it cannot happen. Once again I am going to have to rely on reality to prove that it can and is happening. (Source: World Total Fertility Rate Declines)Remember how we discussed the red bar being lower than the blue bar meaning popluation growth because there are more births than deaths. Well, in Russia, the opposite is happening. otice the red bar is higher than the blue bar. This shows that there are more people dying in Russia than being born. Keep in mind that no one is mudering these people to control the population. The following information accompanies the graph - Is that sufficient reality to refute your statement that population control cannot happen. Is the plain and simple fact that it is actually happening in many nations of the world not sufficient evidence. Is reality not enough evidence for you?And remember, noone is murdering anyone to manage the population. It does not use those words but that is exactly what it says??? If it was exactly what it says, it would use those words. If it does not say anything about interplanetary colonisation, then you have no basis for your lunacy. This ones all you. 'Out of Africa' means 'out of Africa'. You cannot read 'out of Africa' to mean leaving the Earth. You are so ignorant you cannot even get the phrase right. It is called SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. It is not a death wih chant. It is the solution. You are advocating slow death by starvation. I am advocating prosperity and security for all. I have reality on my side. You are standing by yourself with your fingers in your ears and your eyes shut ranting, hoping that if you ignore reality for long enough it will go away. Your intellectual cowardice and dishonesty is staggering. What madness are you suggesting? The madness of ensuring that all future generations of children have a world with breathable air, drinkable water, food to eat etc. Is that the madness you are accusing me of? Your premise is a promise of starvation. Nothing more. Again with the controlled mass murder. This is something that you are making up in your own head. Might want to see someone about that. Your suggestion shows that you believe that you are fine with the near complete destruction of our planet and the extinction of nealry every animal, including humans. Most of the plants will go too. The wholesale destruction of human civilisation. That is your solution. How does that show that life is sacred?I bet that you illustrate very quickly in your next post that you still have not read any of the sustainable development information provided to you. I bet that you will quickly show that you are knowingly debating from a self imposed position of ignorance. You have the information. All you need to do to be intellectually honest is to read it. I bet you dont because you are an intellectual coward. You refuse to learn because you are afraid it may shake the foundations you stand upon.Remember now - population management does not mean killing people. Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.Edited by Butterflytyrant, : No reason given.

To be honest I did not read it with deep focus or thoroughly, just glimpsed at it. This is because I understand your arguement and do not accept it. The point is that even if zero growth is achieved, in all levels and sectors, for an infinite amount of time, if such is even remotely possible, it will do what has never been done in the universe. It is not just the space which is expanding [going forth]; it is the entire universe expanding, wth all its traits, attributes and inherent programs. It is expanding. A decrease is its antithesis and never seen.Your task is far more improbable than Genesis. You think by using the PC friendly term of sustainable, you can alter the natural metabolism of the planet's ecosytem. That you can control rabbits and fish growth, then compensate for the loss of foods for higher primates by also 'sustaining' their growth, then by adjusting the energy used, reducing the virus elevations and every other sector there is. Can you first try to 'sustain' the intake f tobcco and drugs first - just for one species on the planet? I see your premises become exposed on closer examination and become only examples of desperation and escapism. Its also very PC to use mass murder as a sustaining strategy.

quote:

---

Umm what murder so ontop of spilling your seed and abortion, not having kids is also murder ????????????????

---

Umm yes. Its not pro-choice or pro-life anymore; its pro-decrease like it or not. That is murder, devoid of any choice factor. Imagine being judged that way with the clear evidence of obsesively denying and rejecting a way out for life.

quote:

---

The solution is simple

​

there are 7 billion of us the planet can only sustain so many if we dont have as many kids as some stupid folks do the population number will drop enabeling prosparity and further advances for human kind, if we have to many kids the population number wil go up the planet will not
be able to sustain us we will die out and never reach another planet.

---

It means we have to go forth and find more places to park. Actually.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Before we find a new place to park our own numbers will kill us

Great post BFT, although apparently beyond the grasp of it's intended recipient.I had not realized that our average life span has increased some 44% since 1950.So it seems that our population growth is naturally slowing as a bi-product of education and freedom. Would you say that population growth is not such a problem after all and will continue to diminish? I mean, population levels will be naturally controlled by the available resources but will we beat the curve and reduce our growth before we are forced to?If this is the case, is the real challenge to increase the average standard of living without an expanding economy?

IamJoseph,This is the last paragraph of that post. The first line in your post is this - there was hope, for a brief moment...until you wrote this - This clearly illustrates that you do not understand sustainable development. It clearly illustrates intellectual dishonesty and cowardice on your part. You have no desire to learn. You activelly work to remain ignorant. I dont know if it would be possible to prove those points more completely and totally than you have done. Congratulations. Refer to my signature.

Your problem is I understand the situation very well and you are in denial. There is no alternative to the Genesis provision from any POV. It is not humanity's last hope - it is the only hope for survival. This should be your preamble when you cease being in denial. Some views accept we are already late, the past 50 years being wasted via terrorism and climate corruption issues which deflected humanity's future provision, else we would have had a global mandate secured at the UN. Instead, the corrupt UN is working out ways to earn more money by taxing humanity to clean the air. As if.When the classroom is chock block full of students, we need another classroom: controlled killings of students is proof we are already on the wrong path. It is clear you do not understand what sustained mass murder is.

quote:

---

I had not realized that our average life span has increased some 44% since 1950.

---

Knock-knock! This aligns only with my premise.

quote:

---

Before we find a new place to park our own numbers will kill us

---

You said it. We need new parking plots instead of destroying cars.

Genesis is an ancient tribal myth, with no necessary application to modern problems.But belief is better than artificial respiration at keeping ancient myths alive. You seem to exemplify this.Genesis has been disproved in so many ways, but facts don't affect belief, do they? Facts can just be ignored or misrepresented--anything to keep belief alive, eh?You can believe what you want. You can rub blue mud in your naval on alternate Thursdays.But unless you have some real evidence, don't expect others to fall for that stuff.

quote:

---

Genesis has been disproved in so many ways

---

If you want to debate that point instead of why securing other lands outside earth has no alternative, then you have to include some examples of your vacant claim. I can give maybe 50,000 factual stats of the ancient world which says Genesis is not mythical and that there is no other writings anyplace with more non-mythical, scientfically verified stats. Its called intellectual honety - not to be confused with your post which lacks any content of credibility.

Would man have landed on the moon if one Kennedy didn't challenge humanity to go forth? That is what is needed now. Ths debate has been won - its another check mate, based on no credible defense outside of denial.Anyone wants to dabte the universe is finite or that humanity's future depends on following magestic laws of equality and inalianable human rights instead of magestic names!?

No you dont. You are making it very that you dont understand the situation. I dont believe I have ever met anyone who understands the situation less than you obviously do. I know I have never discussed the issue with someone who is so intent on being ignorant of the facts and so resistant to reality as you are. No. I am not. I have spent years studying this issue. I based my degree on it. I am well versed in regards to this subject. You on the other hand do not have the slightest grasp on the basics. And you continually refuse to attempt to learn in order to provide a valid, sensible post. There is an alternate point of view. There is reality. Also, Genesis does not support your point of view. You hae no arguement from either direction. Genesis does not support you and reality does not support you. This shows how little you know. It also shows that you dont read or understand the information provided to you. The UN is not making a profit from this. The UN is not earning anything. This is costing the UN money. Again, reality does not support your position. What controlled killing of students? What the fuck are you talking about you crazy little man? I am always willing to learn. Please enlighten me. What, in your opinion is sustained mass murder? Where is it occuring? How is it occuring?You must really hate reality. It is terribly damaging to all of your arguements.

Hello Dogmafood, Thanks for the compliment. On reflection, it probably could have done without the tone of condescension given that other people would be reading it. It is remarkable. There are many factors that have lead to this increase. Things as simple as knowledge of human dietary requirements to advances in medical technology have contributed. Better access to general health care has also had a huge effect. Just having access to a doctor to get a checkup and the increase in the speed and effectiveness of pathology tests has changed. Today, I could book an appointment at the local medical centre, usually have an appointment within 3 days, have blood and urine samples taken, be directed to any specialist required for further testing and have the results of the path tests inside a week. This sort of preventative medicine has been very important. We are more aware of ways to prevent ourselves from getting sick, can get checkups to detect illness in the early stages, have better testing methods to find out more in less time and are better at treating illness when it is dicovered. All it takes is health care and education. One of the things I am noticing in the current global financial times is that health care and education are moving down the priority list (in Australia anyway). I would have put health care and education as the top issues for every general election.I am guilty of taking this for granted.It is a sobering thought to know that I would be well past middle age if I was in the 1950's. Now, I am still short of half way. That is what seems to be happening. Surprisingly enough, most women dont actually want to be housebound baby making machines. They have the same sort of career plans, desire to travel, dreams and goals as men do. It is pretty hard to get these things done while pumping out babies. Having 5 children occupies a huge amount of time. In the 1950's, generally, between 20 and 30 years could be taken up by a woman having the average 5 children. Giving a woman the right to decide when she has children and how many children she has seems like such a simple idea. Africa is currently suffering because they lack education and womens right. The two biggest causes of this are tradition and religion. Church groups (particularly the Roman Catholic Church) believe that aids, HIV and starvation are acceptable as long as no one is using condoms. This is an easy position to take, comfortable in a Western nation, sitting back with a glass of clean, drinkable water and a fridge filled with food in the next room.Here is an article by the International Planned Parenthood Federation discussing the issue and Obama's changes - Page not found | IPPFIt begins with this - Islam in the middle east also plays its part. Clerics in Pakistan are probably the worst. Here are some quotes to give you the general idea. (Source:http://www.overpopulation.org/Africa.html)The issue is at its worst where there is a lack of education and poor womens rights. It is still a big problem. However it is less of a problem than it could have been. The big changes are not being made by governments or nations. Ordinary women are making the changes. Ordinary women who now have the power to live their lives how they want to live them. My partner wants to go back to work. So no more children for us. The idea of having 5 children in the western world is not common anymore. I just asked my partner if she would like to have another 3 children, her reply was "are you out of your fucking mind". Most women will just tell you they wont be doing it. Quality over quantity seems to be the better way to go.To use my family as a case study -We are both professionals on good incomes. We have access to excellent health care and education. We would like to provide the best opportunities for the two children we have rather than dividing our resources (and public access resources) further by having more children. The maths is quite simple for us.In developing nations it is even more simple. 1 or 2 children in a family is often a burden, dividing the same amount of resources among 8 children means that there are 8 suffering children.We can beat the curve. Many nations are doing it. One of the biggest battles is with religion. See IamJosephs comments for and example. In areas where birth control is a sin and women are not equal the battle is far from won. Thats what the goal of sustainable development is all about. Less people means that everyone can have a greater share. If people can be made to understand the moral responsibility they have to future generations, they would be more inclined to accept this. It is not just economic costs that need to be taken into account.

No you can't. You know you can't. I know you can't.You cannot support this claim.If you beleive that you can, start a thread.You could call it"50 000 factual non-mythical, scientfically verified stats of the ancient world which says Genesis is not mythical"You know it is not true so you wont do it. You have no idea what ntellectual honesty is. If you did, you would know that this... ...makes no sense.