The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Op-Ed OverPopulation: No Problem: Malthus Debunked

Biology has nothing to do with it.

This debate is about the exchange between life and its environment, otherwise known as ecology. Biology itself is therefore not a sufficient background to study this problem.

That's an interesting observation. OTOH, any decent biologist should understand some basic principles of ecology; it would be almost impossible to get an education in biology without learning them.
 
With a diabetes epidemic sweeping the Western world, and the results of morbid obesity killing tens of millions every year it could also be argued that were food resources re-distributed justly the human race would not be suffering from malnutrition in the developing world, and gross obesity in the developed world....re-distribution of resources....now there's a thought, worth thinking.

Or, parents could limit their family size to a number which could be kept in relative plenty, and then teach them self-discipline.

Many have observed that people with wealth and leisure eat healthier foods and engage in more activity. Redistribution is not the answer. New distribution is.
 
You're making the same error he did. Here's another way of looking at it: he assumed that things such as the introduction of the John Deere plow and the so-called Green Revolution are data points to be put on a graph and extrapolated. But they aren't; they're phase changes in the operation of a limited system. There's no way at all to make projections from phase changes, because by their very nature they can't be predicted.

The flip side of that is neglecting the likelihood of phase changes in the planetary ecosystem -- our life-support system. The more pressure we put on it, the more likely it will undergo some major shift into a new equilibrium, and the odds of such a new equilibrium being favorable to us are slim to none; chances are it will be catastrophically bad.

I didn't say the Green Revolution spurred population growth, it merely alleviated the problems associated with population growth. Namely, food insecurity is at an all time low by rate.
 
Or, parents could limit their family size to a number which could be kept in relative plenty, and then teach them self-discipline.

Most people who fail to limit their family size don't have self-discipline in the first place. How can they pass on what they lack?

Of course, a lot of people should limit their family size to one....
 
I don't see any research under discussion.

Your earlier appreciation of the captioned article has already exposed your choice.

- - - Updated - - -

Or, parents could limit their family size to a number which could be kept in relative plenty, and then teach them self-discipline.

Many have observed that people with wealth and leisure eat healthier foods and engage in more activity. Redistribution is not the answer. New distribution is.

Ideals are fine.....then there is reality.....very fat people, everywhere.
 
Biology has nothing to do with it.

This debate is about the exchange between life and its environment, otherwise known as ecology. Biology itself is therefore not a sufficient background to study this problem.

The biology of the human being has absolutely nothing to do with over eating???......

......The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution?

:(
 
Most people who fail to limit their family size don't have self-discipline in the first place. How can they pass on what they lack?

Of course, a lot of people should limit their family size to one....

Official Chinese Government policy limits the size of families to one child.....it's not working.....just imagine trying to cater for an ageing population with such severe restrictions placed on family size....even, well organised Germany is encouraging immigration of young people to compensate for low (German) population growth.....
 
Official Chinese Government policy limits the size of families to one child.....it's not working.....just imagine trying to cater for an ageing population with such severe restrictions placed on family size....even, well organised Germany is encouraging immigration of young people to compensate for low (German) population growth.....

umm 1 child policy is not working?
You are joking right. The standard of living is much much better than before.
 
The biology of the human being has absolutely nothing to do with over eating???......

......The science of life and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution?

:(

The maximum population in an environment is an ecological question, not one of biology.
 
The maximum population in an environment is an ecological question, not one of biology.

That's one element in a very big picture that is being discussed here....never neglect the human person....for we are the stewards of the environment, and it is our impact upon the environment that is creating the problems being discussed here....leading me to remind you that biology is the science of life, and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution.
 
umm 1 child policy is not working?
You are joking right. The standard of living is much much better than before.

There is a time bomb ticking away very slowly, causing the Chinese Government much concern who is going to support China's ageing population when the one child policy is restricting population growth....likewise in a few European countries such as Germany, and even baby loving Italy there is a growing awareness that the population growth of indigenous populations is shrinking creating an need to "import" young people from other parts of the world.

Furthermore, as Apple Inc. evidences economic growth in China comes with a price, sweat shops, slave conditions that hardly speak of an improvement in living conditions despite the appetite for more shiny goods to demonstrate economic growth.
 
That's one element in a very big picture that is being discussed here....never neglect the human person....for we are the stewards of the environment, and it is our impact upon the environment that is creating the problems being discussed here....leading me to remind you that biology is the science of life, and of living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, origin, evolution, and distribution.

But not its relationship between organisms or geology.
 
There is a time bomb ticking away very slowly, causing the Chinese Government much concern who is going to support China's ageing population when the one child policy is restricting population growth....likewise in a few European countries such as Germany, and even baby loving Italy there is a growing awareness that the population growth of indigenous populations is shrinking creating an need to "import" young people from other parts of the world.

Furthermore, as Apple Inc. evidences economic growth in China comes with a price, sweat shops, slave conditions that hardly speak of an improvement in living conditions despite the appetite for more shiny goods to demonstrate economic growth.

No time bomb, the policy can be reversed easily.
Do you want quality of life or quantity of life like in poor countries waiting for handouts all the time ?
 
No time bomb, the policy can be reversed easily.
Do you want quality of life or quantity of life like in poor countries waiting for handouts all the time ?

As long as the one child per couple policy continues the future prosperity of China will be compromised, and China's ageing population will have insufficient younger people to assist them....who will make the mobile telephones for Apple Inc. with insufficient children being born to guarantee China's future prosperity and well being?
 
But not its relationship between organisms or geology.

All is related...one cannot separate the human person from its impact on the environment....and the consequences that arise...
the very topic that we are currently discussing here.
 
Imagine how much worse things would be if there were no gay people. Last thing we need is more rug rats in this world.

Does anyone want to speculate what the population would be if we (gays) were all breeders?
 
As long as the one child per couple policy continues the future prosperity of China will be compromised, and China's ageing population will have insufficient younger people to assist them....who will make the mobile telephones for Apple Inc. with insufficient children being born to guarantee China's future prosperity and well being?

There are alot of smart people there.
I'm sure they know how to look after there wealth as long as there is no civil war.
 
Back
Top