PDA

View Full Version : More babies



Dargor
18th February 2008, 19:06
Who reads that title and thinks its a good thing. Looking at this article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10493129) I think "oh shit"

Sure having babies is natural and is needed for the survival of our species, but currently where going a bit too far. Overpopulation is what I'm talking about.

When are we as a civilization going to grow up and address it.

For further info overpopulation.org (http://www.overpopulation.org/).

Hitcher
18th February 2008, 19:20
*We as a population*? What's that supposed to mean? Surely procreation is a largely a matter of personal choice?

Have you bred or are you planning to?

Highlander
18th February 2008, 19:21
I think it is the fault of the TV programme selectors.

Dargor
18th February 2008, 19:32
*We as a population*? What's that supposed to mean? Surely procreation is a largely a matter of personal choice?
Get your quotes straight. But if *we as a civilization* continue to bred under personal choice, then this planet will only run out of space and resources faster until it leads to our doom.


Have you bred or are you planning to? No, and i wont be anytime soon, but if i do decide to then i will do so sparingly.

MotoGirl
18th February 2008, 19:48
I've love to see the statistics broken down by ethnicity. I question whether the European women would be pumping out as many babies as some of the other ethnicities NZ keeps importing.

H00dz
18th February 2008, 19:49
thank god at least you guys are speaking english here....have ya seen the HTFU thread.....sorry have nothing of value to add here except to say that I myself am busily overpopulating the world with offspring so of course I'm gonna say its a good thing ........:niceone:

JimO
18th February 2008, 19:50
Who reads that title and thinks its a good thing. Looking at this article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10493129) I think "oh shit"

Sure having babies is natural and is needed for the survival of our species, but currently where going a bit too far. Overpopulation is what I'm talking about.

When are we as a civilization going to grow up and address it.

For further info overpopulation.org (http://www.overpopulation.org/).

so you think New zealand is overpopulated

Dargor
18th February 2008, 20:28
so you think New zealand is overpopulated
Well where not all living in tiny apartments so we aren't doing too bad. But at this rate i dont think it will be long.
How much farm land has been lost to housing development. How many cant afford to eat real food (meat) because of the cost.
And how much of that remaining farm land is being used to support overpopulated countries.

I think we as a civilization are overpopulated. The western civilization, So parts of Amereca and Europe are but where doing alright atm. As are parts of Asia.

Where in a situation where we can see what is happening to overpopulated areas and prepare or avoid.


I've love to see the statistics broken down by ethnicity. As would I.

thank god at least you guys are speaking english here Thanks for the complement.

Jantar
18th February 2008, 20:49
Who reads that title and thinks its a good thing. Looking at this article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10493129) I think "oh shit"

Sure having babies is natural and is needed for the survival of our species, but currently where going a bit too far. Overpopulation is what I'm talking about.

When are we as a civilization going to grow up and address it.

For further info overpopulation.org (http://www.overpopulation.org/).


Oh dear..... There are lies, damned lies and Statistics (Henry Du Pré Labouchère (1831-1912)). But now we see a perfect example from Dagor.

In the first article you mention, it gives a birth rate of 2.2 births per women. This number is insuffient to maintain a constant population, let alone increase it.

In the second article the data shows a decling world wide birth rate birth rate, but what is missing is the real reason for the large increase in our planet's population. Everyone is living longer.

Statistics are great for passing on mis-information when some data is left out. :sleep:

Dargor
18th February 2008, 21:06
Oh dear..... There are lies, damned lies and Statistics (Henry Du Pré Labouchère (1831-1912)). But now we see a perfect example from Dagor.

Ok so I referenced some stats without examining them thourghly, That doesnt change the fact that we need to be address overpopulation.

As for the cause being longer life. Well i would rather live longer and have less shorties.

Hitcher
18th February 2008, 21:12
Well i would rather live longer and have less shorties.

Fewer shorties. Whatever they are. Perhaps they assist in breeding *sparingly*.

riffer
18th February 2008, 21:12
I have four children. Does that make me a bad person?

What about if I also say those four kids are shared between four adults? Hardly keeping the population up are we?

Statistics are lies.

riffer
18th February 2008, 21:14
Fewer shorties. Whatever they are. Perhaps they assist in breeding *sparingly*.

Dude, I don't know if you've noticed but your signature has a sentence starting in a preposition. Bad bad bad...

Hitcher
18th February 2008, 21:14
I have four children. Does that make me a bad person?

Perhaps fecund is the word you seek?

riffer
18th February 2008, 21:16
Yes - most abundantly fecund it would appear.

Hitcher
18th February 2008, 21:18
Dude, I don't know if you've noticed but your signature has a sentence starting in a preposition. Bad bad bad...

That was so last week. It was time for a change anyway...

riffer
18th February 2008, 21:20
Much better quote. A band I remember fondly from my early teens.

Jantar
18th February 2008, 21:26
As for the cause being longer life. Well i would rather live longer and have less shorties.

I don't understand what you are saying here. You want to live longer? OK, so does the rest of the world's population. In that case you need to accept that the population remaining will increase; and the population will age more, as we are seeing.

In order to stop overpopulation we would need to wipe out millions (maybe billions) of older people. Are you suggesting genocide?

Dargor
18th February 2008, 22:05
I have four children. Does that make me a bad person?
No that doesn't make you a bad person, it makes you one who wasn't thinking about overpopulation at your time of breading.


What about if I also say those four kids are shared between four adults? Hardly keeping the population up are we? If everyone did that, there would be no problem.

I don't understand what you are saying here. You want to live longer? OK, so does the rest of the world's population. In that case you need to accept that the population remaining will increase; and the population will age more, as we are seeing. All I'm saying is its an issue that needs to be addressed, awareness is the first step and its probably the largest.
But the answer for this situation would be that the birth rate needs to drop as the life expectancy increases.

And no I'm not calling for mass genocide, but if you were volunteering maybe we could start with you. Mass genocide is a last resort that should never need to be used.

riffer
18th February 2008, 22:25
Mass genocide is a last resort that should never need to be used.


Tell that to the Congolese (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/24/world/main657774.shtml)

or maybe the Kenyans (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jan/29/kenya.international)

Or the Darfuris (http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/fs/2005/45105.htm).


oh hell, what about civilised countries? Like say South Africa (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20290.php)?

And that's just SOME of Africa. Not even counting the rest of the world. Death toll in Iraq since George W went in is the equivalent of a 9/11 EVERY DAY FOR TEN YEARS (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2008/02/911-every-day-for-ten-and-half-years.html).

Last resort, my arse.

* Armenia: Over 1,000,000 deaths (1915-1917)
* The Holocaust: 6,000,000 deaths of Jews; 5,000,000 deaths of Poles, Roma, Communists, and other “undesirables” (1938-1945)
* Cambodia: 2,000,000 deaths (1975-1978)
* Bosnia: 200,000 deaths (1992-1995)
* Rwanda: 800,000 deaths (April 6 – mid-July of 1994)
* Darfur: Hundreds and thousands of deaths (2003 – Today)

Wake up and smell the decaf.

faredce
19th February 2008, 00:07
its all dandy saying personal choice and u cant deny some ppl the chance of kids while others are popping out 1 a year but we do need to restrain ourselves a little. the world cant handle this many ppl and the weight will slowly push the planet down until we no longer spin in the normal orbit....its science haha j/k

mayb a bomb shuld b "accidentaly" dropped in a high population country say europe russia china america australia africa....not many just a few lol

Hitcher
19th February 2008, 07:48
*World overpopulated, says father of four. Urges restraint.*

A highly credible plea.

Clockwork
19th February 2008, 07:52
its all dandy saying personal choice and u cant deny some ppl the chance of kids while others are popping out 1 a year but we do need to restrain ourselves a little. the world cant handle this many ppl and the weight will slowly push the planet down until we no longer spin in the normal orbit....its science haha j/k

mayb a bomb shuld b "accidentaly" dropped in a high population country say europe russia china america australia africa....not many just a few lol

You're suggesting that as the world's population increases so does the overall mass of the earth!!

Where do you suppose all this extra mass come from?

Blue Velvet
19th February 2008, 07:59
overpopulation.org (http://www.overpopulation.org/).

That website sucks.

Hitcher
19th February 2008, 08:07
You're suggesting that as the world's population increases so does the overall mass of the earth!?

There are KB members who seem to believe, in all honesty, that the top half of the wheels on their bike travel faster than the bottom half.

There are others who refute the phenomenum that is countersteering.

Anything is possible...

007XX
19th February 2008, 08:10
I personally fully support Dargor in his choice not to reproduce :shifty:

faredce
19th February 2008, 08:19
You're suggesting that as the world's population increases so does the overall mass of the earth!!

Where do you suppose all this extra mass come from?

are u suggesting that it doesnt!!
how can u not believe that.if a child is born and weighs something it increases the weight of the earth. now im talking numbers so smaller that they are dismissable but it is the same theory of wen u swim in the ocean and get wet wen u leave the water with water on ur body the level of the sea TECHNECALLY get lower and again the scale of the ocean is far to large for such an insugnificant occurance but ur taking water out therefore the level drops.
u add a baby to the world the weight increases.:)

Pwalo
19th February 2008, 08:25
Boys and girls, calm down. The 'population bomb' hysteria has already been done in the late 60's/late 70's. We were all supposed to have starved to death by 1975 (sic). You guys are so last century.

Macktheknife
19th February 2008, 08:28
I personally fully support Dargor in his choice not to reproduce :shifty:

Hell Yeah!




This seems to me a misinformed, misled point of view.
Your argument is based on misleading statistics with several significant flaws. You have generalised an argument based on regional specifics and applied it to our local situation which is dramatically different.
In NZ we actually need a higher birth rate than we currently have. We have had a declining birth rate for over 10 years, and coupled with a rapidly ageing population we are heading for a serious problem in the next 20-30 years.
Without increased birth rates, and higher immigration rates, NZ is going to find it incredibly difficult to maintain or achieve economic stability, sufficient medical support services and aged care services. Not to mention the loss of the pension scheme, large amounts of the social security system, and a shrinking talent pool of higher skilled individuals for specialist care.
We do not need less breeders, we need more of them and rather quickly. It is probably too much to hope for that we could only have the smart ones breeding but, I suppose we can use more labourers. :shifty:

Clockwork
19th February 2008, 08:32
A child grows because it eats and everything it consumes is of this earth either dirrectly or indirectly. Therefore, net mass gain of planet. Zip!

I'm not saying that the earth isn't getting heavier, I guess there are meteors falling somewhere most of the time but other than that the only other thing arriving is energy ie sunlight, radio waves etc. And that has no mass.

Hitcher
19th February 2008, 08:54
I personally fully support Dargor in his choice not to reproduce

Dargor's *stable door* clearly needs some attention...

Hitcher
19th February 2008, 08:56
u add a baby to the world the weight increases.

It is as I predicted. Gahhh! Thud.

faredce
19th February 2008, 09:07
A child grows because it eats and everything it consumes is of this earth either dirrectly or indirectly. Therefore, net mass gain of planet. Zip!

I'm not saying that the earth isn't getting heavier, I guess there are meteors falling somewhere most of the time but other than that the only other thing arriving is energy ie sunlight, radio waves etc. And that has no mass.

lol im talking about the birth of a child not the growth of the child over time

so u are only going to admit that meteors are the only thing adding weight to our planet. all other growth is neutralized by what we eat.

2000 years ago the world population was like 230 million so with a 30x increase this has not effected the planets weight?? any weight is simply...meteors

not being a dick just trying to see how u think:yes:

ElCoyote
19th February 2008, 09:11
I've love to see the statistics broken down by ethnicity. I question whether the European women would be pumping out as many babies as some of the other ethnicities NZ keeps importing.

+1 kid, now convince Uncle Helen

Grahameeboy
19th February 2008, 09:13
I guess we need to establish whether the previous years were lower than normal before. If they were then the claimed increase is really just back to normal...

So really the number of births has been lower for the last 40 years and has now increased...

Beemer
19th February 2008, 09:34
I wouldn't mind people breeding if they all did a good job of looking after their kids. There are some people with more than half a dozen kids who look after them all and teach them respect, and there are people with only one kid who abuse it/kill it/never give it any love or affection, etc. I still think you should have to prove you are a fit person to have children because they are such a huge responsibility. They don't trust you to vote or drink until you are 18 but if you drop out a sprog earlier than that you get rewarded with a hand out.

I don't think NZ is going to become overpopulated any time soon but perhaps we could look at limiting the type of people we let into the country and not being so generous to those who breed. It's a lifestyle choice just like drinking or playing pokies, so why should they be rewarded? Yes, I realise people need to breed to replace the ones who die, but I know of people who have four kids to four different fathers and they aren't even 30 yet. Great life ahead and a great role model to boot!

007XX
19th February 2008, 09:36
Dargor's *stable door* clearly needs some attention...

Hmmm...Wait til our infamous Nymph gets a hold of this thread...*gah...thud* galore.

Finn
19th February 2008, 09:41
The problem in NZ is that the wrong people are breeding too much. Helen's "cash for kids" accelerated this. It scares me to think what NZ will be like in 20 years.

faredce
19th February 2008, 09:44
I wouldn't mind people breeding if they all did a good job of looking after their kids. There are some people with more than half a dozen kids who look after them all and teach them respect, and there are people with only one kid who abuse it/kill it/never give it any love or affection, etc. I still think you should have to prove you are a fit person to have children because they are such a huge responsibility. They don't trust you to vote or drink until you are 18 but if you drop out a sprog earlier than that you get rewarded with a hand out.

I don't think NZ is going to become overpopulated any time soon but perhaps we could look at limiting the type of people we let into the country and not being so generous to those who breed. It's a lifestyle choice just like drinking or playing pokies, so why should they be rewarded? Yes, I realise people need to breed to replace the ones who die, but I know of people who have four kids to four different fathers and they aren't even 30 yet. Great life ahead and a great role model to boot!

bingo!
on the money mate well said:2thumbsup

Ocean1
19th February 2008, 09:54
It scares me to think what NZ will be like in 20 years.

Quite.

We might be subjected to rabid postulations on the effect of rampant and widespread Coitus Uninterruptus on planetary ecology.

Dargor
19th February 2008, 10:10
This seems to me a misinformed, misled point of view.
Your argument is based on misleading statistics with several significant flaws. You have generalised an argument based on regional specifics and applied it to our local situation which is dramatically different.So my view that its an issue we need to look at and prepare for is misled by the stats i didn't look at very hard. Even though those stats lie. Maybe you should look at some more stats (http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/web/prod_serv.nsf/b9e2b9a56bf2820bcc256b3b000bbd7c/419945b8e8dc07dacc256c5400769299?OpenDocument#1)


In NZ we actually need a higher birth rate than we currently have. We have had a declining birth rate for over 10 years, and coupled with a rapidly ageing population we are heading for a serious problem in the next 20-30 years. I dont know where you got that idea. At least I have references for my *misinformed, misled point of view*


I still think you should have to prove you are a fit person to have children because they are such a huge responsibility. They don't trust you to vote or drink until you are 18 but if you drop out a sprog earlier than that you get rewarded with a hand out. I really like this idea also, but it sure isn't happening under any of our current governments.

Clockwork
19th February 2008, 10:35
lol im talking about the birth of a child not the growth of the child over time

so u are only going to admit that meteors are the only thing adding weight to our planet. all other growth is neutralized by what we eat.

2000 years ago the world population was like 230 million so with a 30x increase this has not effected the planets weight?? any weight is simply...meteors

not being a dick just trying to see how u think:yes:

Look, this is kind of off topic but I will have one last go at this...

Before a child is "birthed" it has grown as a consequence of what its Mother consumed, which as I stated before, is entirely of this earth either directly or indirectly.

I'll simply repeat my original question to you. Where would you suppose all this additional matter comes from?

fireball
19th February 2008, 10:51
LilSel and I keep trying for babies maybe we are doing something wrong?

hmm maybe more practice will help?:whistle:

Finn
19th February 2008, 10:51
Where would you suppose all this additional matter comes from?

The Supermarket?

Str8 Jacket
19th February 2008, 10:53
LilSel and I keep trying for babies maybe we are doing something wrong?

hmm maybe more practice will help?:whistle:

Yep, I think that you definately need more practice! :D

faredce
19th February 2008, 11:04
I'll simply repeat my original question to you. Where would you suppose all this additional matter comes from?

cells proliferate they duplicate and mass increases
the food a mother eats indirectly supplies nutrients to the child the baby extracts it from the mothers blood.
hence an anorexic girl who eats pretty much nothing can still have a baby. it will be serverly undernourished but will have gained its own mass through general cell duplication.

off topic i know sorry. well leave it there

MIXONE
19th February 2008, 11:25
It's simple really.If you cant feed them dont breed them.
This is for the solo parents pumping them out so we can support them:mad:

Macktheknife
19th February 2008, 11:41
I dont know where you got that idea. At least I have references for my *misinformed, misled point of view*


According to the Statistics New Zealand web site, birth rates in NZ have fallen from 59,911 in 1991 to 54,021 in 2002, and are now on the rise again reaching 59,193 in 2006.

Remember we are talking about birth rates here, not population growth from immigration.

The world population chart shows that the percentage of aged persons (over 65) has risen by over 2% globally (more in NZ) since the 1950's in most population groups around the world, this is a reflection of lower birth rates (a non-replacement effect) as well as longer life spans. Most of the developed world has a birth rate of between 1.8 and 1.9, not even replacement.

This places an increasing pressure on waged and salaried taxpayers, (whose numbers are shrinking remember as everyone retires) which means that it takes more money to support the aged (whose numbers are growing) who are no longer able to contribute through taxes.

That means you will end up with a higher social security expenditure per capita than ever before, paid for by higher taxes, which means lower discretionary spending, which impacts the GNP and the GDP which lowers the overall effective economy of the country. This in turn makes people want to look for greener pastures overseas, which deprives us of more taxpayers, and leaves us with even fewer skilled people to look after the aged.

Which most people would consider a bit of a problem, unless you are one of those who is leaving for greener pastures.

007XX
19th February 2008, 12:17
Quite.

We might be subjected to rabid postulations on the effect of rampant and widespread Coitus Uninterruptus on planetary ecology.

Now you're talking! :niceone: :laugh:


LilSel and I keep trying for babies maybe we are doing something wrong?
hmm maybe more practice will help?:whistle:

You ain't trying hard enough...or using the wrong tool / manual maybe :innocent:


...Which most people would consider a bit of a problem, unless you are one of those who is leaving for greener pastures.

Pretty much sums it up.*gosh, you talk pwetty...:love:*

Bottom line is: raising awareness is one thing, and as it has been highlighted, New Zealand is not really the worldwide crisis center for overpopulation of the planet, now is it?

Trying to raise the issue by posting on a biker forum where most people will have children of their own (or a family in the making) smacks of trolling and is just about as irritating as summer flies ona donkey's arse.

May I suggest talking to the UN...bet they'll welcome you with open arms Dargor.:yes:

idb
19th February 2008, 12:21
....
In order to stop overpopulation we would need to wipe out millions (maybe billions) of older people. Are you suggesting genocide?

Wouldn't that be gerocide?

idb
19th February 2008, 12:27
I'll simply repeat my original question to you. Where would you suppose all this additional matter comes from?

From its mummy's tummy stupid!

Some people just don't understand basic science eh Faredce?

idb
19th February 2008, 12:30
LilSel and I keep trying for babies maybe we are doing something wrong?

hmm maybe more practice will help?:whistle:

Ummm...is LiLSel a boy?
A common error I understand.

idb
19th February 2008, 12:34
cells proliferate they duplicate and mass increases
the food a mother eats indirectly supplies nutrients to the child the baby extracts it from the mothers blood.
hence an anorexic girl who eats pretty much nothing can still have a baby. it will be serverly undernourished but will have gained its own mass through general cell duplication.

off topic i know sorry. well leave it there

Quite right!
In fact, if you think about it, it's a good thing that the Japanese are eating all the whales because they are balancing out the effect of us fat Westerners on the planet.

idb
19th February 2008, 12:35
Oh hang on...if the whales are floating in the sea then they probably don't weigh anything at all...hmmm...

riffer
19th February 2008, 12:40
cells proliferate they duplicate and mass increases
the food a mother eats indirectly supplies nutrients to the child the baby extracts it from the mothers blood.
hence an anorexic girl who eats pretty much nothing can still have a baby. it will be serverly undernourished but will have gained its own mass through general cell duplication.

off topic i know sorry. well leave it there

Dude - Einstein's general theory of relativity would suggest you are an idiot.

Matter can neither be created or destroyed. Only changed.

jrandom
19th February 2008, 12:43
LilSel and I keep trying for babies maybe we are doing something wrong?

<img src="http://i27.tinypic.com/2m6ah4l.jpg"/>

Steam
19th February 2008, 12:43
Dude - Einstein's general theory of relativity would suggest you are an idiot.

Oh man, a physics insult! The most deadly insult of all! Insulted by a nerd!
You seriously have to kill yourself now to avoid further humiliation. Next he'll be insulting you via calculus.
Shame and burn!

jrandom
19th February 2008, 12:44
cells proliferate they duplicate and mass increases

I like you.

Hitcher
19th February 2008, 12:45
Next thing you know the top halves of his spinning wheels will be going faster than the bottom halves and, voila, no more countersteering!

idb
19th February 2008, 12:46
Dude - Einstein's general theory of relativity would suggest you are an idiot.

Matter can neither be created or destroyed. Only changed.

Yeah, but could be changed into something heavy...like a fat baby!
Sheesh!!!

Help me out here faredce, I can't through to these people!!!!

jrandom
19th February 2008, 12:50
Next thing you know the top halves of his spinning wheels will be going faster than the bottom halves and, voila, no more countersteering!

I hear that doesn't happen on shaft-driven motorcycles, though. Part of the reason why they can't wheelie.

Swoop
19th February 2008, 12:55
LilSel and I keep trying for babies maybe we are doing something wrong?

hmm maybe more practice will help?:whistle:
Didn't your Mum tell you that The Stork delivers babies?

However with the extra workload recently, "Storky" is havin' a rest.:lol:

riffer
19th February 2008, 12:56
Didn't your Mum tell you that The Stork delivers babies?

However with the extra workload recently, "Storky" is havin' a rest.:lol:

Probably looking for some more stuff to make babies from. We've obviously run out on Earth. :confused:

idb
19th February 2008, 12:57
Probably looking for some more stuff to make babies from. We've obviously run out on Earth. :confused:

Now you're being sarcastic...that's often the first thing that happens when someone realises they've lost an argument.

riffer
19th February 2008, 13:01
Pointing out perceived faults in others is not exactly helping you win any either...

however it will get you a job in Helen Clark's staff helping her answer questions in parliament.

Ocean1
19th February 2008, 13:04
Matter can neither be created or destroyed. Only changed.

I'm working on a theory I shall call "Schrodinger's baby".

See, I figure... if the baby in question isn't in evidence, (the best sort), then it's existence is indeterminate.

There is, therefore a coherent superposition of quantum states whereby said baby is both born... and not.

In which case the mass of this 'ere planet is both growing... and not.

And we're all either fookt... or not.

Bloody profound stuff eh?

Any idea if it's marketable?

mstriumph
19th February 2008, 13:09
Oh dear..... There are lies, damned lies and Statistics (Henry Du Pré Labouchère (1831-1912)). .............
In the first article you mention, it gives a birth rate of 2.2 births per women. .............


i personally doubt the ability of ANY woman to give birth to .2 of ANYthing ... :crazy:

mstriumph
19th February 2008, 13:12
Didn't your Mum tell you that The Stork delivers babies?

... .... you can giggle but there WAS a time when i thought the problem of overpopulation could be solved by the mass extermination of storks ----

--- in my own defence, i was very young at the time :innocent:

jrandom
19th February 2008, 13:19
I'm working on a theory I shall call "Schrodinger's baby".

I'm working on what I shall call the 'Heisenbaby uncertainty principle'.

It's mostly concerned with observer entanglement.

fireball
19th February 2008, 14:01
http://i27.tinypic.com/2m6ah4l.jpg
:sick::puke:no thank you lol

MIXONE
19th February 2008, 14:07
Pointing out perceived faults in others is not exactly helping you win any either...

however it will get you a job in Helen Clark's staff helping her answer questions in parliament.

It would be a short term job though finishing some time Sept this year:clap:

idb
19th February 2008, 14:34
Pointing out perceived faults in others is not exactly helping you win any either...
.

I thought that was the best method of winning an argument, I've been doing it wrong all these years!

Dargor
19th February 2008, 15:04
Bottom line is: raising awareness is one thing, and as it has been highlighted, New Zealand is not really the worldwide crisis center for overpopulation of the planet, now is it? So you want to wait with your head in the sand untill NZ is crisis center. I Hope you like genocide.


Trying to raise the issue by posting on a biker forum where most people will have children of their own (or a family in the making) smacks of trolling* and is just about as irritating as summer flies ona donkey's arse.
Are you asking me to be politically correct, to warry about hurting your feelings. This is exactly whats going bring about problems, people being so delicate about the issue.

007XX
19th February 2008, 15:10
So you want to wait with your head in the sand untill NZ is crisis center. I Hope you like genocide.

So, since I feel like humouring you just long enough to push your weak argument to the limit, what exactly do you plan on achieving here?


Are you asking me to be politically correct, to warry about hurting your feelings. This is exactly whats going bring about problems, people being so delicate about the issue.

Bwahhahahahahaa...he calls me delicate...:killingme And in the same sentence implies I would be a political correctness aficionado...my ribs hurt from laughing.

Swoop
19th February 2008, 16:00
I'm working on a theory I shall call "Schrodinger's baby".
Any idea if it's marketable?
<tencharacters>

007XX
19th February 2008, 16:07
I'm working on what I shall call the 'Heisenbaby uncertainty principle'.

It's mostly concerned with observer entanglement.

Here is a nice marketing cover for ya :niceone:

Ocean1
19th February 2008, 16:08
<tencharacters>

Yes, exzachery.

Reminds me of the dude that got sick of the usual perenial arguement with the other half. See "schrodinger's toilet seat".

Ocean1
19th February 2008, 16:12
Here is a nice marketing cover for ya :niceone:

Escher's dogs?

faredce
20th February 2008, 00:38
lol i understand the fact that matter can not be created from nothing. and that isnt what im suggesting.
i just cant believe that u dont think 6 billion people would effect the weight of the earth??

never mind i believe it does and ill sleep just fine tonight

Animal
20th February 2008, 01:27
oh hell, what about civilised countries? Like say South Africa (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/20290.php)?


South Africa, civilised? ROFLMAO :laugh:

About as civilised as Rwanda and all those other delightful countries we import refugees from.

Animal
20th February 2008, 01:36
It scares me to think what NZ will be like in 20 years.

A colonial province of Somalia?

Pwalo
20th February 2008, 06:49
lol i understand the fact that matter can not be created from nothing. and that isnt what im suggesting.
i just cant believe that u dont think 6 billion people would effect the weight of the earth??

never mind i believe it does and ill sleep just fine tonight

For heaven's sake man. Think about what you have just said. You cannot add mass to a system that is essentially closed.

To 'make' any animal, plant you must convert mass and energy. The logical extension of your argument is that in fact the earth as a whole is probably getting lighter. (Expending energy will always result in some being lost as heat).

Now that's enough thinking for now. Get a haircut, and get a real job.

homer
20th February 2008, 06:56
A child grows because it eats and everything it consumes is of this earth either dirrectly or indirectly. Therefore, net mass gain of planet. Zip!

I'm not saying that the earth isn't getting heavier, I guess there are meteors falling somewhere most of the time but other than that the only other thing arriving is energy ie sunlight, radio waves etc. And that has no mass.

you also should mention plants trees

anything growing adds weight

i know a lots of trees are being cut down, but id guess that cause for the need for more food and farming practices there will be more weight added overall

007XX
20th February 2008, 07:40
Escher's dogs?

:laugh: Glad you thought of it! I personally have always been fond of his "drawing hands". Even tried to replicate it a few times in my younger years; bit of a tall order unfortunately!

Blue Velvet
20th February 2008, 07:52
Do we really need to worry?

Ocean1
20th February 2008, 07:59
Do we really need to worry?

In your case, no.




:bleh:

Blue Velvet
20th February 2008, 08:12
In your case, no.

:scratch: :confused:

Ocean1
20th February 2008, 08:16
:scratch: :confused:

Well, you do have positive mass.

But not a lot.

And you don't actually consume anything.

Blue Velvet
20th February 2008, 08:24
And you don't actually consume anything.

I ate a few spiders in my sleep last night. My subconscious says they were tasty.