Swedish statistician Hans Rosling coined the term "peak child" to indicate the time when the highest number of children would be born in a given time period. And when will that happen? It already did, in the early 2000's.
The late Hans thought the population would "fill out" and stabilize at around 10 billion in 2050, but for a number of reasons I don't think it's going to work out that way. As far as peak child, though, he was absolutely certain and I would not doubt it.
Peak child is useful as an illustrative argument against the myth of overpopulation, but I find it far more poignant than that. The way to imagine it is that each year, on your birthday or New Year's or whatever, realize that fewer children had been born into the world that year past than the year before, and that next year at the same time fewer still will come in to the world.
You could even do the calculations for how many fewer children there would be and how many fewer schools they would need, and then imagine going around the world bulldozing or burning down that many schools. But it wouldn't be a crime because no children would ever come back to them. Quite sad, really.
You can see some of Rosling's fascinating and entertaining presentations here:
No, there's still too many people. The only reason somebody would want to maximize all this farmland to sustain 157 billion people or whatever the video said is for (((profits))). Most of the 8 billion or whatever we have now suck anyway, I'm cool with the Georgia guide stones 500 million. Hell I'd be cool with less than 50 million worldwide.
There are other reasons than greed. If you want a cure for cancer, or practical fusion energy, or spreading life to other planes, or any other desirable goodies, you're going to need geniuses working on them. There's such a thing as the IQ Bell curve, which means that genius is only a small fraction of the population. If you want the world to contain geniuses, you will need it to also contain an awful lot of "normal" people.
I wonder, would there be more genius's if there wasnt literally poison in everything?
They dont want a populace full of smart people, thats for sure.
Also its not just about quantity, yes technically we could support more, but then we destroy other species for their native environments, destroy things like coastal lines, etc that keep things from just eroding apart.
Thats the scary part, we know what can potentially happen by disrupting the balance that took so much time to achieve. But we dont care. Kill anything and plunder it for money. Fuck it.
Are you telling us that we should all be vegetarian farmers?
Swedish statistician Hans Rosling coined the term "peak child" to indicate the time when the highest number of children would be born in a given time period. And when will that happen? It already did, in the early 2000's.
The late Hans thought the population would "fill out" and stabilize at around 10 billion in 2050, but for a number of reasons I don't think it's going to work out that way. As far as peak child, though, he was absolutely certain and I would not doubt it.
Peak child is useful as an illustrative argument against the myth of overpopulation, but I find it far more poignant than that. The way to imagine it is that each year, on your birthday or New Year's or whatever, realize that fewer children had been born into the world that year past than the year before, and that next year at the same time fewer still will come in to the world.
You could even do the calculations for how many fewer children there would be and how many fewer schools they would need, and then imagine going around the world bulldozing or burning down that many schools. But it wouldn't be a crime because no children would ever come back to them. Quite sad, really.
You can see some of Rosling's fascinating and entertaining presentations here:
The best Hans Rosling talks you’ve ever seen
No, there's still too many people. The only reason somebody would want to maximize all this farmland to sustain 157 billion people or whatever the video said is for (((profits))). Most of the 8 billion or whatever we have now suck anyway, I'm cool with the Georgia guide stones 500 million. Hell I'd be cool with less than 50 million worldwide.
start with yourself!
Let’s start with you. Don’t be a hypocrite
There are other reasons than greed. If you want a cure for cancer, or practical fusion energy, or spreading life to other planes, or any other desirable goodies, you're going to need geniuses working on them. There's such a thing as the IQ Bell curve, which means that genius is only a small fraction of the population. If you want the world to contain geniuses, you will need it to also contain an awful lot of "normal" people.
I wonder, would there be more genius's if there wasnt literally poison in everything?
They dont want a populace full of smart people, thats for sure.
Also its not just about quantity, yes technically we could support more, but then we destroy other species for their native environments, destroy things like coastal lines, etc that keep things from just eroding apart.
Thats the scary part, we know what can potentially happen by disrupting the balance that took so much time to achieve. But we dont care. Kill anything and plunder it for money. Fuck it.
If your chinese, youll likely try to eat it.
a) only within whole can partials experience over and under.
b) partials cannot overcrowd or desolate whole.
c) ones (partials) within oneness (whole) implies perpetual balance to one another.