Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > Diamonds and Tuxedos
test
Diamonds and Tuxedos Glamour, elegance, and sophistication. That's what it's all about here in ECCIE's newest forum which caters to those with expensive tastes, lavish lifestyles, and an appetite for upscale entertainment.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 278
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70793
biomed163220
Yssup Rider60924
gman4453294
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48646
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42569
CryptKicker37215
The_Waco_Kid36980
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-13-2010, 09:28 AM   #1
Marcus Aurelius
Ambassador
 
Marcus Aurelius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 25, 2009
Location: The Interhemispheric Fissure
Posts: 6,565
Encounters: 2
My ECCIE Reviews
Default Over population

When I was in grade school, the world's population was reported to be 3 billion.
Now it's 6.8 billion. I always scoffed at nut jobs warning about overpopulation. Now I wonder at the effect of the unbridled growth.


Recently I spent a couple hours with a high muckety muck from the CDC.
I brought up the fact that people with the mutated gene Delta 32 are immune to aids and the bubonic plague. Scientists are now starting to use gene splicing to combat aids and other immune deficiency's this way.


To my surprise he wasn't for it. He said it was nature's way. He added, “How many kids do you see today that are alive with severe allergies? Lung problems that in times past would have been fatal early on. We are cultivating masses of people with no ability to pass on strong immune systems.”


Epidemics are brutal but necessary for the long term health and survival of our species.”
Marcus Aurelius is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 11:40 AM   #2
Rudyard K
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Rudyard K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,206
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius View Post
We are cultivating masses of people with no ability to pass on strong immune systems.”


Epidemics are brutal but necessary for the long term health and survival of our species.”

All that is probably true...but what are the options? As the saying goes, every man will die of prostate cancer if something else doesn't kill him first.

Science and technology does solve problems...but that doesn't mean that a whole list of other problems don't take their place. If most eveyone died by the time they were 50...then there wouldn't be a lot of "older population" problems to address.

So far, Death is pretty much un-cureable. All we are doing is changing when it happens.
Rudyard K is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 11:52 AM   #3
Willen
Valued Poster
 
Willen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 8, 2010
Location: San Antonio and Elsewhere
Posts: 1,036
Encounters: 40
Default

In my opinion, this is one of those questions which, from a global perspective, leads you to one answer, but on closer examination quickly inclines you in the opposite direction.

Does the earth have too many people, by far, for its long term health? I strongly suspect it does. So those things which hold down or reverse population growth are, from that perspective, desirable.

OK, but let's get specific. On what basis do "we" decide what measures, both passively and pro-actively, should be taken to adress population issues. And just who is the 'we' who gets to decide? Human history on this sort of subject (think eugenics in all its forms) inspires no confidence at all.
Willen is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 11:53 AM   #4
nevergaveitathought
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 18, 2010
Location: texas (close enough for now)
Posts: 9,249
Default sounds eerily reminiscient.......

let the old people take a pain pill and lay down quietly.....well except me
nevergaveitathought is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 11:55 AM   #5
Rudyard K
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Rudyard K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,206
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought View Post
let the old people take a pain pill and lay down quietly.....well except me
I am reminded of Soylent Green and Logan's Run.
Rudyard K is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 12:06 PM   #6
nevergaveitathought
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 18, 2010
Location: texas (close enough for now)
Posts: 9,249
Default why not this dude?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudyard K View Post
I am reminded of Soylent Green and Logan's Run.
obama
nevergaveitathought is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 12:27 PM   #7
Happy Diver
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Happy Diver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 5, 2010
Location: South Texas
Posts: 746
Encounters: 5
Default

I don't think we'll see global lethal pandemics. I do think we will see ever increasing localized collapses of food supplies and accompanying epidemics. There are too many people and nothing is being done about it.
Happy Diver is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 12:29 PM   #8
nevergaveitathought
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 18, 2010
Location: texas (close enough for now)
Posts: 9,249
Default the future

Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Diver View Post
I don't think we'll see global lethal pandemics. I do think we will see ever increasing localized collapses of food supplies and accompanying epidemics. There are too many people and nothing is being done about it.

you were named happy for a reason
nevergaveitathought is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 01:22 PM   #9
Happy Diver
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Happy Diver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 5, 2010
Location: South Texas
Posts: 746
Encounters: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought View Post
you were named happy for a reason
LOL. The Diver part of me is always happy. Don't get me started on environmental issues and overpopulation.

People are breeding themselves to death.
Happy Diver is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 03:17 PM   #10
runswithscissors
Account Disabled
 
runswithscissors's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 27, 2010
Location: austin and san francisco
Posts: 1,296
Encounters: 21
Default

Is it harsh to say it? "survival of the fittest" also includes the Human, not just relegated to the animal kingdom.

We have pills to wake us up in the morning, pills to put us down at night, pills to keep the kids focused in class. We are a pharmecutical society. Is that what Nature intended?

Is it the Humans time to move on?

We have weakened the human body and are passing on a weakened future society, where does advanced science and population density meet?

We fight to preserve extinction of animals; maybe some species are hardwired to reach a certain point in evolution and then Nature says "time to move on."
runswithscissors is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 04:11 PM   #11
Rudyard K
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Rudyard K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,206
Encounters: 2
Default

One assumes facts that might not be correct.

I once saw a History Channel show that was discussing Polio. It was postulated that the Polio virus had always been around. But, it was only with the coming of human cleanliness that was spread after the turn of the century that it flourished. It flourished though, because there were more children staying alive, because they didn’t die by other reasons related to lack of cleanliness. Cleanliness, cleaner water and food, etc. allowed more children to live, but those children were more susceptible to Polio…so it spread and flourished.

But just because a virus might develop that could kill off a large percentage of the population today, does not mean that such virus will kill off the folks who would have survived anyway, if we didn’t have all the “pills” that keep us feeling more fit today. It just might feel that way because a lot of folks would die.

In other words, if you have 100 “A” quality people…and science develops a pill B that allows another 100 “B” quality people to live…and then science develops another pill C that allows another 100 “C” quality people to live. Just because a virus that comes along that attacks “B” and “C” quality people…and the world has some 200 people that die…so everyone thinks it is really bad. Such a fact does not mean that any of the “A” quality people will die as a result.

So, which is better? Do nothing and only allow the “A” quality to have their long and happy life? Or develop the pills and allow some “B” and “C” quality people to live…at least for a while.? I’m not sure that the fact that, on average, society may be more susceptible to a pandemic, means that those folks who already had high immunities has diminished to any degree. You can’t apply averages to individuals…and least not using logic.
Rudyard K is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 04:48 PM   #12
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudyard K View Post
One assumes facts that might not be correct.

I once saw a History Channel show that was discussing Polio. It was postulated that the Polio virus had always been around. But, it was only with the coming of human cleanliness that was spread after the turn of the century that it flourished. It flourished though, because there were more children staying alive, because they didn’t die by other reasons related to lack of cleanliness. Cleanliness, cleaner water and food, etc. allowed more children to live, but those children were more susceptible to Polio…so it spread and flourished.

But just because a virus might develop that could kill off a large percentage of the population today, does not mean that such virus will kill off the folks who would have survived anyway, if we didn’t have all the “pills” that keep us feeling more fit today. It just might feel that way because a lot of folks would die.

In other words, if you have 100 “A” quality people…and science develops a pill B that allows another 100 “B” quality people to live…and then science develops another pill C that allows another 100 “C” quality people to live. Just because a virus that comes along that attacks “B” and “C” quality people…and the world has some 200 people that die…so everyone thinks it is really bad. Such a fact does not mean that any of the “A” quality people will die as a result.

So, which is better? Do nothing and only allow the “A” quality to have their long and happy life? Or develop the pills and allow some “B” and “C” quality people to live…at least for a while.? I’m not sure that the fact that, on average, society may be more susceptible to a pandemic, means that those folks who already had high immunities has diminished to any degree. You can’t apply averages to individuals…and least not using logic.
Huh??????????????????

You getting ready to run for some kinda of political office RK? If so keep talking like that!
WTF is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 04:49 PM   #13
ANONONE
BANNED
 
ANONONE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 2,961
Encounters: 76
Default

It is a biosphere question.

The reality is no matter what we do, this little terrarium of ours called earth will always correct itself and strive toward balance.

The herd will get thinned one way or another.

Disease, pestilence, or natural disaster?

Either way there is a finite amount that will be supported by the ecosystem, no matter how much blatting we do about the fairness of it all.
ANONONE is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 04:54 PM   #14
WTF
Lifetime Premium Access
 
WTF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 1, 2010
Location: houston
Posts: 48,267
Default

To answer the question..who knows but.there are a finite number of resources, so if we have not reached the population tipping point we will at some point with continued present birth rates.


btw...jARED DIAMOND thinks the earth can sustain 9 billion people but not much more than that. google him is you do not care to trust my recollection. I sure don't.
WTF is offline   Quote
Old 05-13-2010, 05:13 PM   #15
Rudyard K
Lifetime Premium Access
 
Rudyard K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,206
Encounters: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WTF View Post
btw...jARED DIAMOND thinks the earth can sustain 9 billion people but not much more than that. google him is you do not care to trust my recollection. I sure don't.
And Foghorn Leghorn says..."Clunk enough people and we'll have a nation of lumpheads"

Not sure what any of all that has to do with the subject. But as long as were just posting what someone else says.
Rudyard K is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved