RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet .......

RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Hippiekinkster -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 2:18:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Funny.. people using public transportation would take care of half those problems Oh? You mean like AmTrack? Sure, you could take the bus to the supermarket and back, while your ice cream melted waiting for the bus. Nothing like taking the whole afternoon to go food shopping as the bus had to stop at every single street going to and returning from the market. And don't even "forget" anything! Of course you could eat your ice cream soup on the way home. I Munich I make my purchases if ice cream in any of the numerous shops and supermarket 5 from my home. I count four right now. But if I want, I take the metro, go to the center of the city, buy that tasty American Haägen-Dasz in the center of the city, take the metro back and put it in my fridge. It is absolutely ok, does not melt on the way. And I do not even take an isolating bag, even if I have some. Just saying. Where do you find Haagen-Dasz in Stadt-mitte? Dalmayr's? Viktuleinmarkt?

SternSkipper -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 2:35:17 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper quote: None of this matters... we're all TOAST as of December 21, 2012 anyway --> TICK... TICK... TICK... GOT FOIL? Yes, actually... it's on YOUR head. (points to the emoticons in my above post) /quote] Isn't that special?[:D]

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 3:13:12 PM)
quote: 1. One child per fertile woman to be born in the ages 23-26, preferably. What if the woman is carrying twins? Triplets? What happens to the other child(ren)?

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 3:25:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper Worth reposting... for cuz you had such a hard time understanding it the first time... quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA None of this matters... we're all TOAST as of December 21, 2012 anyway --> *TICK... TICK... TICK...* [;)][8D][:D] <--- Due note the emoticons this time, genius. Got it this time?!! [sm=rofl.gif] LOL ! ! !

SternSkipper -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 3:33:45 PM)
quote: <--- Due note the emoticons this time, genius. Got it this time?!! LOL ! ! ! Gee sorry that fucked with ya so much

SternSkipper -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 3:35:02 PM)
quote: What if the woman is carrying twins? Triplets? What happens to the other child(ren)? Enter Monty Hall [8D] I think this reproductive engineering on a national scale shit is a riot.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 3:37:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SternSkipper Gee sorry you couldn't figure it out the FIRST time?!! [:D] LOL

tazzygirl -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 4:29:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheFireWithinMe quote: 1. One child per fertile woman to be born in the ages 23-26, preferably. What if the woman is carrying twins? Triplets? What happens to the other child(ren)? You are asking for answers from a man who believes circumcisions are the root to all man kinds problems.

hardcybermaster -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 4:34:53 PM)
euthanasia if you're over 70 and unable to prove that you are still useful....

tazzygirl -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 4:36:38 PM)
Population threads always return to Logan's Run

hardcybermaster -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 4:40:02 PM)
I am 45 so obviously I think 30 is a bit young but it's either that or we have to stop cunsuming all the pointless shit that we do at the moment. Stop being so greedy or die

tazzygirl -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 5:05:52 PM)
lol... you say that the day after Black Friday!

TheFireWithinMe -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 6:19:10 PM)
quote: You are asking for answers from a man who believes circumcisions are the root to all man kinds problems. Would you believe I was really, really tired when I posted that? [sm=modxiiswatching.gif]

tazzygirl -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 6:21:20 PM)
for you, I would believe most anything.

tweakabelle -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 9:06:50 PM)
According to one of my students, one interesting consequence of the population explosion will be the de-privileging of heterosexuality. Very briefly, the argument goes: The imperative to populate is becoming a problem rather than a solution. Families are adjusting to this through inventing new forms of relationships and reproduction/reproductive roles (eg. gay marriages and parenthood , single parent families, IVF reproduction). Society is adjusting through the 'normalisation' of non-hetero or non-traditional lifestyles and choices. Traditional gender roles are being abandoned in more (technologically) advanced societies. .... you get the drift. The need to promote and privilege heterosexuality is disappearing. Will this have the impact my student asserts? Will we grow/drift towards increasingly diverse (anarchic even) gender and sexual roles? Do posters see any merit in this argument? How will sexual behaviour (and gendered behaviours, the two are difficult to separate totally) evolve in a world where too many people is a pressing issue? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

tazzygirl -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/26/2011 9:20:01 PM)
Is the student suggesting that homosexuality, for example, is a result of over population (please dont take that the wrong way, Im just trying to understand how the student sees this) and as such natures way of handling the issue? I feel im way off base, but I want to ask before I answer the questions.

tweakabelle -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/27/2011 2:11:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Is the student suggesting that homosexuality, for example, is a result of over population (please dont take that the wrong way, Im just trying to understand how the student sees this) and as such natures way of handling the issue? I feel im way off base, but I want to ask before I answer the questions. The model of sexuality that influences this student's thinking draws a sharp distinction between the physical/biological/behavioural aspects of sex - which are more or less constant over time - and more social aspects of sex or 'sexuality', the way we interpret, understand, and value those sexual behaviours - which is a comparatively recent development (circa 150 years old). It comes from the work of the French thinker Michel Foucault. So this way of thinking isn't concerned with seeking causes of certain behaviours (etiologies/pathologies) or attractions, or what a 'natural' sexuality might be. It focuses on how society analyses and regulates sexual behaviours and how people internalise those values. On one level, it sees sexuality as a kind of mirror held up to society, a reflection of the ideas and values of that society. Contemporary Western society uses a model that values heterosexual behaviour over all others. All non-heterosexual behaviours are seen as lesser or perverse. It can be seen as hierarchical or vertical model. When my student talks about a "de-privileging of heterosexuality' what is really meant is a more horizontal model where all consensual sexual behaviours are valued more or less equally. It's fairly dense stuff and it's not easy to do it justice in such a short account. Equally I hope this clarifies the questions in your mind. If you need more info please feel free to PM me if you like.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/27/2011 2:38:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I'd love to hear your thoughts. Ehm... do you have me on "hide"? quote: The need to promote and privilege heterosexuality is disappearing. The need to promote and privilege heterosexuality disappeared before the human species began to exist. There has been never any need to promote and privilege heterosexuality. Plus, I do not see how the population growth can have any effect, nor be affected by, any potential promotion of hetero or homosexuality in modern societies. Plus, there was never any "imperative to populate". So I really do not get what was all that about, but I would like mostly to know if you have me on hide and if my previous posting was useful and welcome.

tweakabelle -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/27/2011 3:45:18 AM)
Dear SMM, I don't have you or any one else on hide at the moment. Thanks for your responses to this thread - I do appreciate them both. Please don't think that the reason I haven't commented on them thus far was because I intended to ignore them. I prefer to let others comment first. While I did initiate this thread, I don't own it - it belongs to all and any who contributes IMHO. Whilst I'm afraid I don't fully share your optimism about the future, or confidence in humankind's ability to respond effectively to the challenges of a crowded world, many of the points you made in your first post were interesting and stimulating. It's certainly true that population growth is predicted to peak at about 9-10 billion at some stage in the future, as you pointed out. But our record in accurately predicting the future isn't exactly stellar is it? I'm surprised you're unable to discern a privileged status for heterosexuality. No serious social commentators I've encountered would suggest that society attaches equal value to say, gay and straight relationships. If they are equal as you seem to be suggesting, why is there a need for legislative changes and changes in social attitudes to enable gay marriages?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: 7,000,000,000+ humans on the planet ....... (11/27/2011 4:10:48 AM)
Tweakabelle: To write a large comment without getting any reaction from the person who motivated it is for me frustrating and de-motivating. You do not need to "belong" a thread to answer the comments made to them because of you. If you choose to do so, then please note that I will tend to ignore your requests for comments. BTW you haven't answered in "Agnosticism" either, and there I actually asked you questions. Maybe you have few time, but then why do you open new threads...? quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle But our record in accurately predicting the future isn't exactly stellar is it? It depends, the predicitions I was mentioning were made by the most possible serious people, based on historical facts we have seen already for decades (at the least) and have been in the first 15 years of existence pretty accurate. As I told you, the population growth has started to decrease already for the whole world, the population is no longer growing exponentially, but in a linear way. Anyway, if would like to remind you the advantages of uncertainty [;)] ... if the data we have show that something is happening, why do you just suppose that the contrary will happen? Wouldn't be more reasonable just to say "we do not know what is going to happen with the population" and let it at that, instead of supposing that it will suddenly start again to grow exponentially for no reason at all? quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I'm surprised you're unable to discern a privileged status for heterosexuality. I haven't said that. I am surprised that you understand my words this way. Where have I said that I do not discern a privileged status for heterosexuality? I have said that there was never any need for it. The need is what I quoted from you. Maybe you would like to reformulate your question about homosexuality? Because I really do not see the connection with the population growth. Best regards.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875