31 Jan 17
Originally posted by OdBodWe are having a very significant impact on other species. But that is not just a function of population it has a lot more to do with how we manage things. We could double our population and have less impact if we chose to do so.
I wonder if anyone has a view with regard to the effect our population level is having on the plant and animal kingdoms?
31 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou twisted my words.
You can at least clarify your words. What is it you were really trying to say. I asked for clarification. It seems you do not wish to be forth coming. My guess is that I was right that you deliberately obfuscated them because you knew you were talking nonsense.
I suggested we view health care by population growth.
31 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree,but is our management of the environment being driven by our population levels?
We are having a very significant impact on other species. But that is not just a function of population it has a lot more to do with how we manage things. We could double our population and halationve less impact if we chose to do so.
31 Jan 17
Originally posted by FMFI should probably have used the word 'abort' instead. Well spotted.
On another thread a few hours ago you said "Murder is unlawful by definition". When you refer to the "murder [of] unborn babies" ~ and use the world "murder" in this way ~ are you referring to countries where abortion is "unlawful"?
31 Jan 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, I am saying population growth indicates a healthy population. It is showing positive growth which is a good sign for a population.
In what way? Clarify.
So you are saying high population growth = poor health care? Or the other way around?
And whichever way you choose, why?
The weaker ones die, the strong live. The population continues to grow even without health care which in essence allows those who need medical help to continue to consume.
Let the population grow naturally.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by EladarWell then you are wrong - because it doesn't.
No, I am saying population growth indicates a healthy population.
It is showing positive growth which is a good sign for a population.
This whole thread was based on the premise that a growing population was a bad sign.
The weaker ones die, the strong live. The population continues to grow even without health care which in essence allows those who need medical help to continue to consume.
Let the population grow naturally.
It is still far from clear what you are trying to express. I won't even guess what you are trying to say or you will accuse me of twisting your words. But it is clear that you are confused.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by apathistI am still hoping for some clarification on this. What resources do you think are finite as in a star ship? As far as I know, virtually all resources we use are available in quantities far larger than we will ever use. Many resources are actually recyclable. The issue normally is not so much availability but the cost of extracting them.
Think of earth as a star-ship. We need to manage our resources and our population. We need a long view.
01 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe best way is to allow nature to deal with it.
Well then you are wrong - because it doesn't.
[b]It is showing positive growth which is a good sign for a population.
This whole thread was based on the premise that a growing population was a bad sign.
The weaker ones die, the strong live. The population continues to grow even without health care which in essence allows those who need medi ...[text shortened]... ying to say or you will accuse me of twisting your words. But it is clear that you are confused.