The End Of Humanity.

[justjess]

It gives you the land amount that isnt desert or mountain. And its from the university of texas. Theres a million others that debunk this as well but seeing as we are talking about texas i figured let texas have a voice

Not an academic article and the link within that website doesn't work. That website looks like it was made by some guy in his grandma's basement. Also, you should note that he states that it doesn't take into account the lakes and rivers but gives us the amount of land that is HABITABLE, which has to be around lakes and rivers. Quite the blunder lol.

,

 

[justjess]

To get .edu and claim to be universoty of texas you actually have to be the university of texas.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

Dude, you don't even need an article for the claim I'm making. If you have basic math skills, which you should have, you can do it yourself. Take the size of Texas and divide it by the world's population.

I'm not debating the math, I'm stating (as I've stated before) that its a ridiculous concept, and generally meaningless. That you could technically cram the entire global population into a relatively small area has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Overpopulation isn't an issue because we're running out of space to stand in, so saying 'there's enough space for us all to stand in, so overpopulation isn't an issue' is a total non-sequitur.

You believe everything written on a website which could have been made by anyone claiming to be anyone? Also, the websites link "could not be found" and they made a colossal error that puts the whole website into the trash can.

It's an article written by a university professor, on that university's government-registered web-page, expressing clearly and succinctly why your 'the word population can fit in texas' argument is as meaningless as it is. The 'error' is one of your perception, not the writer of the article. He says the 'cram the world into texas' spiel doesn't account for lakes, rivers, mountains, or deserts, completely ignoring whether or not the land in question is livable. He then does his own calculation based on actual livable land on the planet, which tells a very different story.

 

[Karlysymon]

@Mr.Grieves
There is a little test i often like to use:

As of right now, how many people, aged 45 (that is someone born in 1972), do you know that have more than 5 kids? Pick 5 friends and ask each one the same question.

We dial down a decade. How many 35yr olds do you know that have more than 5+ kids? How many 25yr olds....(this is useless because the answer is obvious).
Ofcourse one will state that is much more likely to happen in developing countries (having 5+ kids), but is it, at this point in time?

Where is the over population if people are having fewer children? Is it just green-agenda hype? Iam all for conserving the enviroment but like you all have said, its excessive greed that is the problem.

For all the money the west spends on military, we could give condoms and birth control to every African and South American man and woman, might help. The church plays a big part of that problem in South America though. There are ways to stabilize and lower the population without genocide.

Although most countries have four or more children per woman, a few are below or near replacement fertility levels,including Mauritius (1.5), Seychelles (2.3), South Africa (2.4), and Cape Verde (2.4). And
countries such as Rwanda have recorded marked fertility decline in recent years. The fertility rate in Rwanda declined by about two children between 2005 and 2014. Further, fertility decline has resumed in most countries that had experienced stalls, for example in Kenya.

https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2016/04/changing-narrative-fertility-decline-africa/

Ethiopia is among nine African countries whose rate of population growth is declining. Others are Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Togo and Uganda. But many other African countries whose fertility decline was on course have now stalled, while others are yet to begin the transition.

http://bbc.com/news/world-africa-34732609

 

[justjess]

I hinestly just dont understand the problem if people are CHOOSING to have less kids. Over population or not aside

 

[Aero]

I think it's good that people are having less children. Because this is the exact type of shit I used to talk about in all those abortion threads. People being born into straight up slavery because of Western Culture. And I'm not just talking about the third world. I'm talking about the children growing up in America right now. They aren't going to have jack shit for opportunities. Or they will feed the jail system.

Obviously abortion isn't the answer to our greed problems. We may be sparing some poor souls, but the system will persist. And we can't even make a dent in those systems by rejecting them. It's not enough, it's so woven into the fabric of our lives. It's mixed in with the concrete that built all of our streets. How can anyone blame all the hustlers out there? Our governments are literally hustling people to death. So yeah, tell me all about some "traditional values" doctrine. It's not even a dream, it's pure fantasy.

 

[Illuminized]

The Tragedy of the
European Family

Emmanuel Macron, the
newly elected French
president, has no children;
German chancellor Angela
Merkel has no children. British prime minister,
Theresa May has no children; Italian prime
minister Paolo Gentiloni
has no children; Holland’s prime minister, Mark Rutte, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Luxembourg’s Xavier Bettel, and Scotland’s, first minister, Nicola Sturgeon —all have no children. The list goes on…Latvia’s childless president is Raimonds Vējonis, Lithuania’s childless
president is Dalia Grybauskaitė and Romania’s childless president is Klaus Werner Iohannis. And, Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission too, has no children and is family-less. So to put it rather bluntly: a grossly disproportionate number of the people making serious decisions about Europe’s future have no direct personal sibling, child or grandchildren’s interests at stake in that future. They are not part of a family and have come to see all their attention focused on one dominant and all-powerful social unit to which they pay obeisance and give their complete and devoted attention: The State. The demographics look
problematic. Among native Europeans, the birthrate is currently between 0.2 and 1.1. Europe is not replicating itself and will, if trends are extrapolated—
cease to exist. The numbers are disturbing combining an ageing population, very low birthrates and an inability to
pay for their rich benefits: what will come of Europe? …

http://breitbart.com/london/2017/07/22/malloch-tragedy-european-family/

Breitbart is part of the Alt-Right movement and pro-Israel. You left out the part where it basically argues for "the family" to be upheld, which is an inherently conflicted, Aristotelian (excess reason) and Christian (excess faith), traditional value. It's setting up a scenario where people will want to emulate Israel/Jewish tribalism. If everyone behaves and lives like Jews, then the existence of a Jewish state is justified.

Adam Weishaupt once said: "When I think of the great variety in people's ways of thinking, basic convictions and tastes, I cannot help but be amazed that seven or eight people can assemble under the same roof, lock themselves into the same ring of walls, and unite in a single family."
How much more can this be said for an entire nation!

There's nothing suspicious about the world leaders having no children. They've obviously devoted themselves to a certain ideal (not ideal for us of course) to sacrifice their sex life and family for the cause. It's worth pointing out that most geniuses don't have offspring either.

Nationalism, without a socialist aspect, without regard for the whole, is a recipe for disaster. And when Nazism and Christianity intermingle, there will be devastating consequences for all. It is vital to distance these two ideologies, at all costs.

 

[Karlysymon]

I hinestly just dont understand the problem if people are CHOOSING to have less kids. Over population or not aside

People have a right to do as they please, to have as many children as they want. If you don't see falling birth rates as a problem, then WHY DO governments see it as problem, literally paying people to have babies?
http://slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/09/how_to_make_more_babies.html

Germany's family minister (a mother of 7 kids) introduced Elterngeld like a decade ago. The state pays a parent who chooses to stay-home to raise a child (there are guidlines for eligibility, ofcourse)

And this widely published story:

This small village, 93 miles (150km) south-east of Naples [Italy] is running so short of children that its mayor is offering €10,000 (£6,863) to anyone who produces one.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/nov/09/sophiearie.theobserver

@Illuminized
Breitbart being alt-right/pro-jewish or not, doesn't matter. They haven't been the first nor will they be the last to do a write-up on this issue. Israel itself has low birth-rates.

 

[justjess]

Pensions rely on currently working young people paying taxes. Thats a pretty easy problem to solve though if they wanted to.. shift the tax burden off individuals and onto corporations for one example. They also worry about having enough working people and dont want immigrants - with automation and technology advancing as fast as they are the worker shortage shouldnt be so bad, we already have plenty of unemployed that could be retrained, and immigrants could be embraced instead. The declining birthrate is only a problem for people who want to mantain the status quo.

Just read the italian article.. as i said earlier in the thread italians are very xenophobic and nationalistic. They want italian blood so bad its a matter of a few papers for me to reclaim citizenship over there based on grandparents who left in the 30's. The little towns are in fact dying - my ancestral home isnt far from the town in the article - but they are dying because there is little work available that pays enough to sustain a family. Thats happening to rural areas everywhere and is a matter of economic priorities yet again.

 

[Kung Fu]

It's an article written by a university professor, on that university's government-registered web-page, expressing clearly and succinctly why your 'the word population can fit in texas' argument is as meaningless as it is. The 'error' is one of your perception, not the writer of the article. He says the 'cram the world into texas' spiel doesn't account for lakes, rivers, mountains, or deserts, completely ignoring whether or not the land in question is livable. He then does his own calculation based on actual livable land on the planet, which tells a very different story.

Everything you have said here is false.

Whoever this person is made an error and a big one at that. It's okay to admit it no need to jump through hola-hoops in order to justify this anonymous person's error.

 

[Kung Fu]

I hinestly just dont understand the problem if people are CHOOSING to have less kids. Over population or not aside

People are choosing to have less kids because they can't afford them. Doesn't look like a choice to me.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

Everything you have said here is false.

Whoever this person is made an error and a big one at that. It's okay to admit it no need to jump through hola-hoops in order to justify this anonymous person's error.

rofl, this is getting clownish. 'Whoever this person is'? 'This anonymous person?' It's a named university professor on a registered university website. The article you submitted in order to try and prove your exceedingly goofy point was the anonymous one. The 'error' you vaguely alluded too doesn't exist, and is more a reading comprehension issue on your part it seems.
I guess you've gone full troll, seems like you've given up on actual discourse.

 

[Kung Fu]

rofl, this is getting clownish. 'Whoever this person is'? 'This anonymous person?' It's a named university professor on a registered university website. The article you submitted in order to try and prove your exceedingly goofy point was the anonymous one. The 'error' you vaguely alluded too doesn't exist, and is more a reading comprehension issue on your part it seems.
I guess you've gone full troll, seems like you've given up on actual discourse.

You're the one with a reading comprehension. Are we even looking at the same website? Show me that this person is who they say they are and that it's a registered university website?

This "professor" gives us the land that is HABITABLE (meaning there's water for humans to drink) however, later down the this "professor" points out that we haven't accounted for lakes and rivers, you know water to drink, meaning than the land he gave us as "habitable" was either not habitable and he lied or that the land he stated was "habitable" does account for lakes and rivers which would mean he lied or made a mistake later on about the "not accounting for rivers and lake" bit. That should tell you how bullshit and fake everything on that website actually is.

The only one trolling and desperately trying to hold one here is you, buddy.

 

[Undertaker]

 

[Mr.Grieves]

You're the one with a reading comprehension.

I'm the one with a reading comprehension...?
lol, the fuck..?

This "professor"

You really have to stop pretending this guy doesn't exist. It's laughably ridiculous.
Pianka was a 1978 Guggenheim Fellow, a 1981 American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow, and a 1990 Fulbright Senior Research Scholar. He has received numerous awards, and at least three species, an Australian lizard (Ctenotus piankai )[25] and two lizard parasites, are named after him.[26] A symposium in his honor was held by the Herpetologist's League in 2004. The American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists passed a resolution on the word "Piankafication" to describe Pianka's influence on evolutionary biology and ecology at their business meeting in 2004.[27] In this resolution, they noted that he has had "vast and immeasurable influence on several fields of evolutionary ecology" and that his "years in the field have set the standard for both natural history and for ecological studies, resulting in publications that have lain the foundation for research programs..."

Pianka received the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist Award from the Texas Academy of Science. He and his research were featured in a wildlife documentary on monitor lizards — "Lizard Kings" — which premiered nationally on the PBS NOVA series in October 2009.

In 2015, Pianka was awarded the Auffenberg Medal in recognition of his extensive research on monitor lizards by the Monitor Lizard Specialist Group. In the same year, he received the highest award of the Ecological Society of America, the Eminent Ecologist Award.[28]

gives us the land that is HABITABLE (meaning there's water for humans to drink) however, later down the this "professor" points out that we haven't accounted for lakes and rivers, you know water to drink, meaning than the land he gave us as "habitable" was either not habitable and he lied or that the land he stated was "habitable" does account for lakes and rivers which would mean he lied or made a mistake later on about the "not accounting for rivers and lake" bit. That should tell you how bullshit and fake everything on that website actually is.

This makes as much sense as you telling me I 'have a reading comprehension'. I don't have time to unravel this level of stupid right now, but I'll get back to you.

 

[Kung Fu]

I'm the one with a reading comprehension...?
lol, the fuck..?

You really have to stop pretending this guy doesn't exist. It's laughably ridiculous.
Pianka was a 1978 Guggenheim Fellow, a 1981 American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow, and a 1990 Fulbright Senior Research Scholar. He has received numerous awards, and at least three species, an Australian lizard (Ctenotus piankai )[25] and two lizard parasites, are named after him.[26] A symposium in his honor was held by the Herpetologist's League in 2004. The American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists passed a resolution on the word "Piankafication" to describe Pianka's influence on evolutionary biology and ecology at their business meeting in 2004.[27] In this resolution, they noted that he has had "vast and immeasurable influence on several fields of evolutionary ecology" and that his "years in the field have set the standard for both natural history and for ecological studies, resulting in publications that have lain the foundation for research programs..."

Pianka received the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist Award from the Texas Academy of Science. He and his research were featured in a wildlife documentary on monitor lizards — "Lizard Kings" — which premiered nationally on the PBS NOVA series in October 2009.

In 2015, Pianka was awarded the Auffenberg Medal in recognition of his extensive research on monitor lizards by the Monitor Lizard Specialist Group. In the same year, he received the highest award of the Ecological Society of America, the Eminent Ecologist Award.[28]


This makes as much sense as you telling me I 'have a reading comprehension'. I don't have time to unravel this level of stupid right now, but I'll get back to you.

I never said Pianka didn't exist but rather that any random person who made this "basement" quality website could be posing as him in order to make his ridiculous claims sound more feasible.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

OoOoh, ok, so now you're saying this guy is an impostor pretending to be Pianka, who somehow got his fabricated article posted on a university of Texas website?
Or that the website in question is a fabrication?

https://net.educause.edu/edudomain/show_faq.asp?code=EDUELIGIBILITY
1.What are the eligibility requirements for obtaining a name in the .edu domain?
Eligibility for a .edu domain name is limited to U.S. postsecondary institutions that are institutionally accredited, i.e., the entire institution and not just particular programs, by agencies on the U.S. Department of Education’s list of Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies. These include both "Regional Institutional Accrediting Agencies" and "National Institutional and Specialized Accrediting Bodies" recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

Note that institutional accreditation is required for .edu eligibility; program accreditation is not sufficient. Not all agencies accredit institutions. Some accredit only institutions, some accredit only programs, and others accredit both institutions and programs.

It is also important to note that, while every effort is made to keep the EDUCAUSE list up-to-date, the U.S. Department of Education's list of Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies and State Agencies are the only official comprehensive lists of agencies.

"basement" quality website

Dudes living in basements make great looking webpages, because they have the time and care about that sort of thing. University professors don't and don't.

in order to make his ridiculous claims sound more feasible.

Now that it's thoroughly established that this experienced and lauded professor of Biology did in fact write this from a highly informed perspective, can you now acknowledge that his claims aren't ridiculous? Or are you still WAY smarter than this guy?

 

[Kung Fu]

This is going to go in circles. This overpopulation nonsense which is somehow going to be the end of us is not backed up by any kind of scholarly work or evidence. That's the end of that.

 

[Mr.Grieves]

rofl, so declares Kung Fu, arbiter of all wisdom, who when thoroughly proven wrong on all fronts declares the conversation over, and himself correct.

 

[Kung Fu]

rofl, so declares Kung Fu, arbiter of all wisdom, who when thoroughly proven wrong on all fronts declares the conversation over, and himself correct.

Provide me one academic scholarly article from a reputable journal article that states that overpopulation is going to be the end of humanity?