Quote from: spacial on December 26, 2011, 06:14:35 AM
I do sometimes wonder where the world is going with such populations. I understand, of course, the economic arguments, though I can't say I am particularly impressed by them and not convinced of their long term efficacy.
Estimated world population figures, 10,000 BC–2000 AD.
Estimated world population figures, 10,000 BC–2000 AD (in log y scale).I did not mean to divert, but anyway let me just say something on human population.
Some people, not only from Judo-christianism, but other religious groups, sometimes express their naive concern over possible detrimental effect of homosexualism on the survival of
Homo sapiens sapiens. It is ironical that they bring up theories of Malthus and Darwin, the foundation of evolutionary theory and a basis for atheism.
Even considering the population and evolutional theory, those concerns are scientifically wrong. Based on evolutionary stable strategy, we can expect that those ratios between men:women, hetero-:homo-sexual, cis-:trans-gener was already stabilized and will not change significantly in the long-term (I mean until human species exist). These three phonotypes are not inheritable, have existed in the human history at the same ratio, and the ratios will remain the same regardless of the population size.
The most important factor determining population size is food productivity. The total world population probably never exceeded 15 millions before the agriculture revolution (the new stone age). And the recent and most significant event was the industrial revolution, which made the human population exceed 1 billion.
A problem is that the current rate of human population increase is not sustainable. Some people say 300 million is sustainable, and the footprint study says 4 billions.
Simply saying, lack of resources brings wars, and overpopulation brings epidemics to maintain the balance between the population size and the carrying capacity of the system. Based on this simple axiom, we may expect that new strains of contagious disease will be the Armageddon, I mean, the mechanism decreasing the human population to be balanced again with the nature.
Quote from: fionabell on December 24, 2011, 06:29:27 PM
Why send lesbians over seas to kill people when we have nuclear missiles which are far more efficient?
Do you imply that nuclear missiles can be far more efficient in dealing with school shootings in the U.S.? If not, you may think about the reason. Probably, it would be the same for your questions on sending lesbians overseas.
Barbie~~
