Crowded Earth: how many is too many?

Oct 23, 2011 by Marlowe Hood and Richard Ingham
File photo shows commuters in a congested street in Kolkata, India, on World Population Day on July 11, 2011. Already straining to host seven billion souls, Earth is set to teem with billions more, and only a revolution in the use of resources can avert an environmental crunch, experts say.

Already straining to host seven billion souls, Earth is set to teem with billions more, and only a revolution in the use of resources can avert an environmental crunch, experts say.

As early as 1798, Thomas Malthus gloomily forecast that our ability to reproduce would quickly outstrip our ability to produce food, leading to mass starvation and a of the species.

But an and its impact on agriculture proved Malthus and later doomsayers wrong, even as our numbers doubled and redoubled with accelerating frequency.

"Despite alarmist predictions, historical increases in have not been economically catastrophic," notes David Bloom, a professor in the Department of and Population at Harvard.

Today, though, it seems reasonable to ask if Malthus wasn't simply a couple of centuries ahead of the curve.

On October 31, the world's population is officially scheduled to hit seven billion -- a rise of two billion in less than a quarter century.

Over six decades, the global has roughly halved, and amounts to a statistical 2.5 children per woman today.

But this varies greatly from country to country. And whether the planet's population eventually stabilises at nine, 10 or 15 billion depends on what happens in developing countries, mostly in Africa, with the fastest growth.

As our species has expanded, so has its devouring of the planet's bounty, from fresh water and soil richness to forests and fisheries.

At its current pace, humankind will need, by 2030, a second planet to satisfy its appetites and absorb its waste, the Global Footprint Network (GFN) calculated last month.

And through the coal, oil and gas that drive prosperity, we are also emitting that alter the climate, potentially maiming the which feed us.

Racked by civil war and poverty, Somalia's population is projected to grow from about 10 million today to 22.6 million by 2050. Ninety-nine percent of married Somali women have no access to family planning.

"From soaring to the crippling effects of climate change, our economies are now confronting the reality of years of spending beyond our means," GFN's president, Mathis Wackernagel, said.

French diplomat Brice Lalonde, one of two coordinators for next June's UN Conference on Sustainable Development, dubbed "Rio+20," said Earth's population rise poses a fundamental challenge to how we use resources.

"In 2030 there will be at least another billion people on the planet," Lalonde said.

"The question is, how do we boost food security and provide essential services to the billion poorest people but without using more water, land or energy?"

This is why, he said, Rio+20 will focus on practical things such as increasing cleaner sources in the world energy mix, smarter use of , building cities that are environmentally friendlier and raising farm yields without dousing the soil with chemicals.

But such options dwell far more on the impact of population growth than on the problem itself.

Braking fertility rates would help the human tally stabilise at eight billion and haul poor countries out of poverty, ease the strain on natural resources and reduce climate vulnerability, say advocates.

For some experts, voluntary birth control is the key.

Geoff Dabelko, director of the Environmental Change and Security Programme at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, cites Somalia as a case study of what happens when women have no access to contraception.

Racked by civil war and poverty, its population is projected to grow from about 10 million today to 22.6 million by 2050. It has the eighth-highest birth rate in the world and an average of seven children per family.

A 2010 study in Colombia found family planning explained less than 10 percent of the country's fertility fall. The real driver was improved standards of living.

Even before the country fell into a full-fledged crisis, a third of its children were severely underweight, according to UNICEF. Ninety-nine percent of married Somali women have no access to family planning.

Many economists, though, argue that the answer lies more in reducing poverty and boosting education, especially of women.

A 2010 study in Colombia found family planning explained less than 10 percent of the country's fertility fall. The real driver was improved standards of living.

Even so, at summits that seek to shape Earth's future, tackling population growth head-on is almost taboo.

"When I attended the UN environment conference in Stockholm (in 1972), the No. 1 item on the agenda was out-of-control population growth," recalled Paul Watson, head of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a radical green group.

"When I attended the 1992 conference (in Rio), it wasn't even on the agenda. No one talked about it any more."

Demography was similarly absent from the UN's 2002 Johannesburg Summit, when Earth's population had climbed to six billion.

Why does "how many is too much" remain absent from the top tables?

One perceived reason is the opposition by religious conservatives to contraception or abortion. Politicians, too, may see no mileage in addressing an issue that will only cause them headaches and yield benefits several decades away.

But for some critics, population measures are synonymous with the mistakes of coercive sterilisation in India in the 1970s or China's "one child" policy, which has led to a gender imbalance in favour of boys.

Explore further: New 'Surveyman' software promises to revolutionize survey design and accuracy

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Energy, food security to dominate Rio+20: envoy

Oct 13, 2011

Boosting energy efficiency and renewables and providing food for a future world of eight billion will dominate next year's UN Rio+20 conference, the talks' co-coordinator said on Thursday.

Humanity falls deeper into ecological debt: study

Sep 20, 2011

Humankind will slip next week into ecological debt, having gobbled up in less then nine months more natural resources than the planet can replenish in a year, researchers said Tuesday.

UN: Fight climate change with free condoms

Nov 18, 2009

(AP) -- The battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available, the U.N. Population Fund said Wednesday.

World population to surpass 7 billion in 2011

Jul 28, 2011

Global population is expected to hit 7 billion later this year, up from 6 billion in 1999. Between now and 2050, an estimated 2.3 billion more people will be added—nearly as many as inhabited the planet as recently as ...

Recommended for you

World population likely to peak by 2070

Oct 23, 2014

World population will likely peak at around 9.4 billion around 2070 and then decline to around 9 billion by 2100, according to new population projections from IIASA researchers, published in a new book, World Population and ...

Bullying in schools is still prevalent, national report says

Oct 23, 2014

Despite a dramatic increase in public awareness and anti-bullying legislation nationwide, the prevalence of bullying is still one of the most pressing issues facing our nation's youth, according to a report by researchers ...

Study examines effects of credentialing, personalization

Oct 23, 2014

Chris Gamrat, a doctoral student in learning, design and technology, recently had his study—completed alongside Heather Zimmerman, associate professor of education; Jaclyn Dudek, a doctoral student studying learning, design ...

User comments : 144

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1.5 / 5 (30) Oct 23, 2011
Here, renamed, are the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, Malthus, Ludd, Marx and Obama.
JRDarby
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2011
...and no mention of greater funding into R&D for space travel is made. Sigh.
Callippo
2.1 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2011
The greater funding into space-travel won't help you, if you don't invest into funding of their energy sources. It all boils down to the ignorance of cold fusion research.

But what your comment actually means? Do you want to move the overpopulated people to the hostile surface of Moon or Mars? We should learn how to control our own population a way sooner before we can terraform the cosmic space around Earth.
Pirouette
2.1 / 5 (27) Oct 23, 2011
And how in the world do you convince third world populations to use birth control to save the planet? Most of them want to have children, LOTS of children. It's a status symbol for men, makes them feel more of a man. Abortion is legal under the law in most countries, but in poor countries, starving people haven't the money for condoms, much less for food and taking care of existing kids. It's easy for US to say, "why don't they do this and don't do that", but WE don't live under THEIR living conditions, nor are ruled by their emotions. We may continue the research into cold fusion, but what is the guarantee that it would work? I'm all for space travel and colonization of other planets, but our knowledge is still limited in those areas and, in any case, possible habitable planets are too far to reach. Mars and the Moon are the best bets, but the radiation problems are too formidable for now. We need protection for the frail human body as well as for the spacecraft before we can get to
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (23) Oct 23, 2011
Mars to colonize. In the meantime , many of the people in the third world counttries and some in the West will just go their own way and procreate because they only have sex and not much of anything else in their lives.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2011
Also, people tend to live longer in most countries due to advanced drugs to keep us disease-free and cure existing diseases. . .and more of these are found almost every day. If such science did not exist or were only for those who could afford it, much of the world's population would die out soon enough. But who has the heart (or lack of heart) to let that happen?
Pirouette
1.8 / 5 (24) Oct 23, 2011
Basically, Malthus was correct in his prediction. But in 1798 there was no way for him to predict that science could produce the means to preserve the length of lives and cure too many sick babies who ordinarily would have died.
Instead of "survival of the fittest", we now have survival of the UNFIT, as well. And that goes counter to Nature or, "the luck of the draw", if you will.
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (21) Oct 23, 2011
the article says: ""But for some critics, population measures are synonymous with the mistakes of coercive sterilisation in India in the 1970s or China's "one child" policy, which has led to a gender imbalance in favour of boys.""

A gender imbalance with few or no attractive girls for the purpose of sexual partners MAY be a catalyst for boys to resort to homosexual activity. In effect, the lack of the right gender in a society would be an effective means of population control. So true would it be the case if it were the other way around. Without both male and female in the same approximate number, an alternative for natural sex would be utilized, especially in a male dominated society, although rare females MIGHT be revered and prized for their ability to procreate, but more in a utilitarian way if rare enough.
Palli
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 23, 2011
One perceived reason is the opposition by religious conservatives to contraception or abortion. Politicians, too, may see no mileage in addressing an issue that will only cause them headaches and yield benefits several decades away.

This is exactly why we must break free from these puppet masters.
I've discovered that pulling back on those strings lets in a little light that further exposes these creeps.
Strings I discovered so far include:
- Respect for politics and the choice of voting for lesser of evils
- Respect for religion and the demand there of
- Respect for societal/monetary status and "things"

In turn, the light has revealed to me that we are all equal, it's as clear as John Lennon.
Only when we are free to FOCUS on real issues together, can we hope to become efficient as a race, everything else is a compromise.
As 99% are gathering, I hope this will be apparent and one day become a reality...zzz z z z
Gigel01
1 / 5 (7) Oct 23, 2011
We aren't too many, we just need to expand. The oceans and the space wait for us. I hope to live to see the first ocean and Moon nations appearing. And we need something else: to put money into fundamental research. If all the money spent in wars in Iraq and other places had been invested in nuclear fusion, US and the Earth would have been much better off right now. With nuclear fusion we can begin to build 3D buildings, farms and factories, above, on and under the surface. Plus the space would be easily reachable.

But until then, think about solar energy being produced in 3D: atmospheric balloons capturing energy at different levels, one above the other. The surface covered would be very small.

The truth is we are not too many, but we are a bit dumb, especially ever since globalisation took place.
LVT
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 23, 2011
> Today, though, it seems reasonable to ask if Malthus wasn't simply a couple of centuries ahead of the curve.

Or just hopelessly naive about real-world economics, which is why he and the much better economist Ricardo didn't really "get on".
JohnMoser
1.6 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2011
People in free capitalistic societies barely reproduce, at best. Often populations shrink. So the answer is clear.
Palli
4 / 5 (4) Oct 23, 2011
People in free capitalistic societies barely reproduce, at best. Often populations shrink. So the answer is clear.

I take it you are being cynical. Capitalism for population control "works" as stove to burn-off of excess demand for life, with Interest rates being set by the heat knob. It probably seems really smart and intuitive to the elite.
Nerdyguy
2.9 / 5 (10) Oct 23, 2011
Overpopulation is THE problem of the modern age. All the other topics we spend endless hours debating (i.e., climate change, economic growth, taxes, energy policy, war, etc.) share the common denominator of overpopulation. We simply must address this issue and yet I'm continually amazed that governments around the world give it less attention than other matters.
ShotmanMaslo
2.5 / 5 (8) Oct 23, 2011
My definition of too many is "a number that will make it impossible for all the people to live a modern lifestyle as in developed countries, utilising conservative near-future technologies". We have already passed this number long ago, IMHO.

Then there is the question of oil, which is the main reason fueling population explosion. In a few decades, it may begin to run out, just as human population reaches its peak. That could lead to an extinction of epic proportions.
Fionn
2.9 / 5 (9) Oct 23, 2011
The problem is not simple overpopulation: it is overpopulation of the poor and superstitious. Where does the most deforestation, pollution, and war occur but developing nations? Which nations still practice theocracy? Where do suicide bombers come from, Scandinavia and Japan? They are the ones who must decrease their reproduction, and all future aid should be tied to their acceptance of population control. Fewer later kids allow women more opportunities for education and increase overall prosperity.

Meanwhile, the west needs more children. Current systems for providing for our elderly are not sustainable without an increasing population. Japan and China already have inverted population pyramids, which not only strains the current generation, but requires immigration, primarily from poorer nations, leading to all the problems Europe is experiencing. Declining fertility also harms genetic diversity. One child per two people is a waste of good genes.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2011
People in free capitalistic societies barely reproduce, at best. Often populations shrink. So the answer is clear.

That's the dilemma for the socialist, central planners: increase liberty and prosperity, stable population; increased control, reduced liberty and prosperity and increasing population.
Pirouette
1.5 / 5 (25) Oct 23, 2011
which proves that Socialism and Communism increases undesirable habits in the population.
In the U.S.S.R. there was so much corruption and the "black market" flourished because the ordinary citizen couldn't afford to buy many products and, by the time he/she got INTO the store, the shelves were empty anyway. , , ,not to mention all the alcoholism that was rampant with that system.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (28) Oct 23, 2011
which proves that Socialism and Communism increases undesirable habits in the population.
In the U.S.S.R. there was so much corruption and the "black market" flourished because the ordinary citizen couldn't afford to buy many products and, by the time he/she got INTO the store, the shelves were empty anyway. , , ,not to mention all the alcoholism that was rampant with that system.

But communists do reduce the population with murder and/or starvation.
Pirouette
1.5 / 5 (25) Oct 23, 2011
well. . .that's a bit undesirable, wouldn't you say? Plus, the Communists REMOVED those they considered as undesirables and did not consider it to be murder. . .that included the nonproductive, unproductive or those too sick to work. . . .as well as dissidents. That's one of the things that amuses me about the 'occupy wall street' crowd. Under Communism, they would be all lined up against the wall and. . . . .removed
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (28) Oct 23, 2011
that's a bit undesirable, wouldn't you say?

I think so, but there are many 'progressives' who post on physorg that support this method.
kaasinees
1.3 / 5 (12) Oct 23, 2011
Overpopulation is THE problem of the modern age. All the other topics we spend endless hours debating (i.e., climate change, economic growth, taxes, energy policy, war, etc.) share the common denominator of overpopulation. We simply must address this issue and yet I'm continually amazed that governments around the world give it less attention than other matters.


Is that so? What about Libya then? Hiring foreigner soldiers to overthrow a government and kill/impoverish many people in the process.
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2011
Overpopulation IS definitely a major issue, no matter how you feel about abortion, birth control and any other preventative to stopping the increase in the human species. Sure, we all like to see cute little babies, but those babies grow up and have their OWN babies, generation after generation. You have to think of the QUALITY OF LIFE of existing people before you condemn all these measures.
The guy who killed Khadafy did a kindness to his country. He should be hailed as a hero for that. Remember that it was Khadafy who impoverished his own country and murdered his own people.
Pirouette
1.6 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2011
The murder of a despot tyrant murderer is not a crime that needs to be punished.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (25) Oct 23, 2011
The murder of a despot tyrant murderer is not a crime that needs to be punished.

That is self-defense, not a crime.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (25) Oct 23, 2011
Animals reproduce, that's what animals do. When the population grows such that it can no longer be sustained by the environment starvation takes care of it.... Humans are no different, we are not special not matter how much we like to think we are.

Overpopulation is a matter of definition, true overpopulation is impossible, the resources of the planet will only support so much life.

If we want to artificially limit the population we could also boost the quality of life of those that are left... so by increasing the population to the point of saturation we are decreasing the quality of life of everyone.

In my opinion you should not bring a new life into the world if you cannot reasonably support that child. Of course this won't work if left up to the judgement of each individual, it must be enforced to have any effect.

As it stands, not only do we not enforce this, we reward the behavior... We are backwards, most things we do are backwards because most people are stupid.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (24) Oct 23, 2011
Most people think with their hearts instead of the heads. Little do they know they are causing more harm than good, ensuring the continuation of the cycle of poverty, starvation, crime, drug abuse, and incarceration for untold generations into the future.

This isn't complicated though, if only people weren't mostly idiots. Reward good behavior, punish bad behavior. Having your 4th child when you have been on welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and who knows what else since the birth of your first child is not good behavior, and it should not be rewarded. Having a child when you are addicted to methamphetamines or crack cocaine is not good behavior and should not be rewarded with free money from the government.

So what do you we do to help the innocent child? Get it away from the unfit parent(s). Here is where charity needs to step up, with time not just money. Shit breeds shit, left to shit parents a child will turn into a shit adult... 9 times out of 10. Cut it off at the source.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (18) Oct 23, 2011
most people are stupid.

But some are smart enough to have the power to decide if those stupid people can have children?
Who do you consider to be that omniscient?
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (23) Oct 23, 2011
As far as India and other poverty stricken countries go the answer is not much different... If you can't afford to care for a child to a reasonable standard then you should not have that child.

Religion is largely to blame for this mess we are in, as it usually is. Go forth and multiply... Sex is only for procreation, and whatever other nonsense those idiots think. The Catholic Church condemning the use of condoms is one of the worst atrocities of our time. I hate most religions with a passion because of the stupidity they impart on humanity, this being but one example of many.

1: If you're on welfare, don't have a child.
2: If having a child will put you on welfare, don't have a child.

If everyone followed these rules the problem would solve itself in a few generations. Good Luck!
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (24) Oct 23, 2011
Oh look, more 1's from bleeding heart idiots.

I am telling you the solution to one of the most significant problems that exists today, and it is simple:

DON'T HAVE CHILDREN YOU CANNOT SUPPORT.

Go ahead and give me a 1 for that, you fucking idiots.
CHollman82
1.9 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2011
It's ironic, the people voting me down are likely the ones who's children are supported by a forced deduction from my paycheck.

According to most idiots it is fine and dandy to have as many children as you want even if you know you cannot support them, and it is fine and dandy to essentially steal from others to do so.

You should be thanking me.
CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (22) Oct 23, 2011
most people are stupid.

But some are smart enough to have the power to decide if those stupid people can have children?
Who do you consider to be that omniscient?


Whether or not you should have a child has nothing to do with how intelligent you are... I don't know how you got that from what I typed...

No one has to "decide" this... If you cannot support a child without stealing money from others to do so (welfare), you should not have a child... this isn't a grey area, this isn't a decision to be made, it's black and white... either you are on welfare or you are not.
astro_optics
3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2011
historically Malthus wasn't all that much ahead of his time, as UK was having a population explosion issue at the time. They were lucky enough that they could ship off the unwilling convicts/ex-pats to the New World and Australia. The times were tough in UK then... this time around the same story will repeat itself just on a global scale.
Fagamemnon
3.3 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2011
Yes CHollman82, you are clearly a member of the enlightened class and humanity should be honored to carry on your genes. Surely your mad iPhone programming skills will benefit humanity greatly in the future.
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 24, 2011
As much as CHollman82 put it a bit arrogantly, he speaks the inconvenient truth IMHO. The fact is that you should not have children if you cannot support them (or often even yourself). Its arrogant and selfish to reproduce in such conditions, you are condemning your innocent children to life of poverty and suffering. Never existing (which is neutral) is better than having a bad life (which is bad).

All countries with population explosion problems (demographic trap) should adopt China-like population control policy. Despite some drawbacks it was very successfull (prevented almost half a billion births and succesfully halted the demographic trap) and its no surprise that some time after it was introduced China started the path to become emerging superpower.
CHollman82
2 / 5 (21) Oct 24, 2011
The low votes people like ShotmanMaslo and myself are receiving are a perfect indication of the current state of "the dumb leading the blind" that has resulted in most of societies problems. We should not tolerate people that willfully, through their intentional actions, increase the rate of poverty.

It is amazing that an enlightened community (or so I thought) could have such a negative reaction to the statement that you should not have children if you cannot support them... it is extremely disheartening.
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2011
Yes CHollman82, you are clearly a member of the enlightened class and humanity should be honored to carry on your genes. Surely your mad iPhone programming skills will benefit humanity greatly in the future.


That's not what this is about, you're missing the entire point. I had children WHEN and BECAUSE I could support them by myself without the coerced or even forced help of others. It's as simple as that.
rawa1
2 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2011
The low votes people like ShotmanMaslo and myself are receiving are a perfect indication of the current state of "the dumb leading the blind" that has resulted in most of societies problems
It's more general problem. Most people admit, the civilisation should restrict its consumption, but they're refusing wildly every option, which would involve them into such restriction personally.

In another words, the people are willing to limit itself only if you provide exactly the same conditions for everyone. Currently only the war is able to provide such universal restriction, which is why so many people are accepting it so resignedly. Albeit it's quite apparent waste of precious resources, collected with human society during whole centuries.
Nerdyguy
2.6 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2011
"The low votes people like ShotmanMaslo and myself are receiving are a perfect indication of the current state of "the dumb leading the blind"" -CHollman82

Not sure about that. It could be because you come across like an a-hole. And, hell, I even agree with you.
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2011
Oh, well, in a perfect world people would be judged by their ideas not their tone of voice.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (27) Oct 24, 2011
should adopt China-like population control policy. Despite some drawbacks it was very successful

Some drawbacks? Like murdered baby girls? Forced abortions? Pol Pot and Stalin were quite successful in reducing their populations.

Why don't all those who believe the planet is over populated create a foundation funded by all your personal assets. The foundation will fund volutary human sterilization programs around the world.
After you donate your personal assets to the foundation you will then cement your legacy in history and commit suicide to help save the planet.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (27) Oct 24, 2011
The low votes people like ShotmanMaslo and myself are receiving are a perfect indication of the current state of "the dumb leading the blind"

No, its becuase there are still some people who despise socialist tyranny and respect human life and inherent human rights.
I am judging your ideas.
Of course it could also help if the govt stopped providing welfare for women, infants and children. When the govt subsidizes something you get more.
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 24, 2011
No, its becuase there are still some people who despise socialist tyranny and respect human life and inherent human rights.


There is no such thing as "inherent" human rights. What rights we have we grant ourselves through mutual observation of those rights. "Inherent" or "Natural" rights are non-existent. Ask a Gazelle in Africa being chased by a lion about it's natural right to life.

I respect human life and the rights that we grant each other. Show me where anything I have said suggests otherwise.
CHollman82
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2011
Some drawbacks? Like murdered baby girls? Forced abortions? Pol Pot and Stalin were quite successful in reducing their populations.


Stupid analogy, no one is suggesting that. I am suggesting not having children if you cannot reasonably support them... from that you go to murdering children... a sure sign of someone who is too overcome with emotion to have a rational discussion.
Nerdyguy
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 24, 2011
ryggesogn2 - are you suggesting:

a) there is no problem. OR
b) there's a problem and we should do something about it. OR
c) there's a problem and we should just sit on our hands?

rawa1
1.7 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2011
Despite the common belief, many people simply don't want to have kids, when they've such a possibility. The irresponsible making of children is the manifestation of selfish gene in the same way, like the willing childless state and it's very easy to balance it.

The main source of overpopulation in less developed countries is, the people there are using the kids like the form of pension insurance. If you would guarantee the pension or at least stable currency, these people will actually stop to feed redundant children immediately - which is the reason, why Western countries are facing decline of population.
cees_timmerman
not rated yet Oct 24, 2011
There are more than enough plants and insects to feed all of humanity, and if you are being cared for, there is no need to care for a lot of babies in hopes of enough surviving to care for you.
To put things in perspective, all 7 billion humans could easily fit in a prison the size of Texas: (6.78354146 * (10^11)) / (7 * (10^9)) = 96.9077351 square meters per person.
FrankHerbert
1.1 / 5 (57) Oct 24, 2011
CHollman is right in the sense that people who can't support children shouldn't have them, but he is a fool drowning in naivete if he thinks just saying so will do anything. If you live in a third world hell hole and that's all you know, how are you supposed to know that isn't the best environment for a child? After all the person and likely generations of her family also lived (survived) in the same conditions.

Now if CHollman is interested in more than talk and actually doing something about it, I'd applaud that. As far as I am aware, the only proven way to reduce birth rates is to educate women. Is this too much welfare for you? From your earlier tone I'd assume so, but you're free to address it if I'm wrong.

If you are willing to educate disadvantaged women around the world, then what you said was fine as you support a solution. If not you are only interested in passing blame around and should be ridiculed as the pathetic anti-social jerk you come across as in this topic.
emsquared
2.8 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2011
It has less to do with economic model or politics and everything to do with education/education of women and religion.

Which is to say, independent of the economic or political system employed in a country, the birth-rate will decline with higher societal education or increase because of a religion that mandates out-breeding competing religions. This is evident in the US with Mormons and Catholics (high birth in capitalist democracy), and in northern European nations (which US conservatives may consider socialist) and China, with their low birth rates.

Just so happens certain political systems correlate with low education and breeder religions.

No global policy will ever be developed because the only nations that would do it are either already doing it, or don't need it, and once population truly does become a problem, nature (and massive scale war) will take care of the rest. All you can do is try to take care of yourself and your future and that of your off-spring.
LVT
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2011
I feel that you've mixed up the terms "Right" with "Entitlement".

A "right" is a restriction on the government. "You have a Right to free speech" means the state will not lock you up for saying something (unless you are using what you are saying to organise a criminal act).

An "entitlement" is a the state robbing peter to pay Paul.

I must say that the states failure reward system (funded by punishing innocent wealth creators) is highly dysgenic (i.e. similar to eugenics but with the opposite end result).
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2011
In the latter days of the communist regime in Romania, people were not haveing children because they could not afford them under their oppressive communist govt.
But the govt was worried about under-population so it banned abortions and contraception.
Now you know why Romania has all those orphans and why they executed their last communist leader.
The point it govt mandates lead to nasty consequences like families murdering baby girls or the govt forcing abortions or sterilizations in China for breaking the law.
Holly and others may just be saying what people should or should not do, but that leads to legislation which leads to dead children and forced sterilization.
Holly and others are free to do what they want with family planning in their own lives, but when you start telling others (ordering others) what to do then you bear some responsbilibilty for the consequences.
Pirouette
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2011
CHollman82 first says:
""Having your 4th child when you have been on welfare, food stamps, medicaid, and who knows what else since the birth of your first child is not good behavior, and it should not be rewarded. Having a child when you are addicted to methamphetamines or crack cocaine is not good behavior and should not be rewarded with free money from the government.""

and then he says,
""It's ironic, the people voting me down are likely the ones who's children are supported by a forced deduction from my paycheck.""

WOW. . .sounds like CH is an anti-Sociialist as well as anti-Creationist. That's impressive. By that, I suppose he is also a Conservative and opposes Obama's Socialist programs as well as his goal of redistributing wealth. Now that appeals to MY Conservative values.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (19) Oct 24, 2011
"free money from the government" and "forced deduction from my paycheck"
Yep, we ARE on the same wavelength.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2011
Rygge ia, unfortunately, correct regarding the murder of baby girls in China, where the gov't allows only one child per couple. It lies in Chinese tradition that boy babies are preferable to girls because they can work and provide for the family, meaning their parents as well as a wife and a child. A small village in a remote area where the villagers are not too well monitored can murder girl babies with impunity, and be in keeping with the law. It's a pity, but maybe a necessary evil.
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 24, 2011
Another thing to consider, is that sex FEELS pretty damn good and, even with birth control, specifically condoms, accidents can happen and the rubber can tear, spilling the contents into the cervix. When that happens, a baby sometimes is the result, accidentally. Also, y'all must have suspected by now that men are like dogs. . . .almost always thinking of sex. If the time comes that men stop wanting sex, then women will not get pregnant. Thus, the population goes down.
But that drive is strong and the titillation of certain nerve endings feels good. Perhaps a drug will need to be found that will inhibit the good feeling that happens in sex and reeducate men to halt their need for such "comfort".
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (18) Oct 24, 2011
should adopt China-like population control policy. Despite some drawbacks it was very successful

"An eight-months pregnant woman was dragged from her home and forced to have an abortion because she had broken Chinas one-child-per-family law.

Twelve government officials entered Xiao Aiyings house where they hit and kicked her in the stomach, before taking her kicking and screaming to hospital.

There, the 36-year-old was restrained as doctors injected her with a drug to kill the unborn baby.
The policy leads to an estimated 13 million abortions every year, with many of those ordered by local authorities. Infanticide is also widespread in many rural areas.

Those who violate the one child law can be fined up to £25,000.

Read more: http://www.dailym...bioDJmb0

"
ShotmanMaslo
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2011
"An eight-months pregnant woman was dragged from her home and forced to have an abortion because she had broken Chinas one-child-per-family law.


I dont support forced late-term abortions as a means to enforce such policies. So count incidents like these among the drawbacks I mentioned.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2011
"An eight-months pregnant woman was dragged from her home and forced to have an abortion because she had broken Chinas one-child-per-family law.


I dont support forced late-term abortions as a means to enforce such policies. So count incidents like these among the drawbacks I mentioned.

It doesn't matter if you support this or not.
These are the results of what you advocate.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2011
That's a very sad story. It didn't mention the gender of the foetus. I fail to see the necessity of 12 grown men beating, punching and kicking a helpless pregnant woman., and then gov't officials lying that it didn't happen. That is MONSTROUS and only proves how sadistic the Red Chinese have become in the treatment of their own people. Perhaps they have always been that way, for the most part, or it just might be the result of living under Totalitarianism.
Very much like a pack of hungry, vicious dogs ripping at their prey.

The article also states: ""Most Chinese families are allowed only one child to reduce the 1.3 billion-plus population and cut unsustainable demand on resources.

and: ""But two decades of economic boom mean many middle class parents now earn enough to pay the fine to expand their family.
For those without cash and connections like the Luos, gruesome summary justice is meted out.

Sounds like money is also a motivation.
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (18) Oct 24, 2011
Surely, there MUST be SOME couples in Red China who are biologically unable to have a child, and who would love to adopt one.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (16) Oct 24, 2011
That is MONSTROUS and only proves how sadistic the Red Chinese have become in the treatment of their own people.

Some want to claim human rights are not inherent. That humans have no more an inherent right to life as an antelope.
I take inherent, unalienable rights as an axiom. Without intelligent, human perceptions then we are all animals and no rights exist.
BTW, quantum physics provides an analogy. The act of observation affects the outcome. Our perceptions do change reality.
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (6) Oct 24, 2011
It doesn't matter if you support this or not.
These are the results of what you advocate.


Well, I still consider population control with occasional incidents like this a better alternative for China in contrast to reproduction anarchy and resulting starving or neglected children. But if it would be up to me, Id cut out the forced late-term abortions from the means to enforce such policies. China has no restriction on abortion in general (as far as I know), so this may not be an artefact of one-child policy, but their abortion "culture".

"But two decades of economic boom mean many middle class parents now earn enough to pay the fine to expand their family.


Indeed, a fine is an ideal mechanism to ensure that the policy is aimed at the poor while leaving those better off with an alternative choice of simply paying the money of they want to.
ShotmanMaslo
2.8 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2011
I take inherent, unalienable rights as an axiom.


Even if we take unalienable inherent natural rights as an axiom, I still dont consider a right to procreate whenever someone wishes so to be among these rights. Only those that can take care of their offspring should possess this right, IMHO. You may believe that enforcing this logic in practice is prone to abuse and corruption, that is a valid concern.

But ideologically speaking, I dont see any reason to criticise population control policies. In fact, reproduction anarchy of the poor (as in Africa) is a great ethical wrong, IMHO.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Oct 24, 2011
Surely, there MUST be SOME couples in Red China who are biologically unable to have a child, and who would love to adopt one.

It's not their way.
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 24, 2011
WOW. . .sounds like CH is an anti-Sociialist as well as anti-Creationist.


Generally true on both accounts

That's impressive. By that, I suppose he is also a Conservative


A single word is insufficient to describe my social and political views, I never call myself conservative or liberal, democrat or republican.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2011
I still dont consider a right to procreate whenever someone wishes so to be among these rights.

Then you can't accept any human rights, like your life, to be inherent. The power in charge can take your life whenever it wants.

The new scourge for totalitarians, reproductive anarchy.
One hundred years ago this was called eugenics. Coincidentally the founder of Planned Parenthood was a eugenicist who thought there were too many black people.
CHollman82
2.2 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2011
Some want to claim human rights are not inherent. That humans have no more an inherent right to life as an antelope.
I take inherent, unalienable rights as an axiom. Without intelligent, human perceptions then we are all animals and no rights exist.


What is inherent is our DESIRE for certain things. We DESIRE security, we desire happiness, we desire freedom...

Desires are inherent, the establishment of rights follow from desires in intelligent social organisms. Make no mistake, we have no rights but the ones we grant each other.
CHollman82
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2011
Then you can't accept any human rights to be inherent.


Because they are not...

The power in charge can take your life whenever it wants.


This is a true statement.
ShotmanMaslo
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2011
What does right to procreate have with right to live? Why do you join the two? You can stop someone from procreation without killing or them or damaging their health.
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 24, 2011
Shotman, this is a religious argument you are in you just don't realize it. A lot of religious people, I have learned through debates about abortion, consider the act of PREVENTING a POTENTIAL human life to be equivalent with ending an actual human life.
CHollman82
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 24, 2011
In the latter days of the communist regime in Romania, people were not haveing children because they could not afford them under their oppressive communist govt.
But the govt was worried about under-population so it banned abortions and contraception.


Interesting if true.

A government is defined by those it governs... without a population to govern the government disappears. This might be an interesting tactic to use against oppressive governments, protest via abstinence... a nice non-violent way to deal with unjust rule.
georgesoros
1.8 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2011
The best idea for population control is to enforce a rule where anyone in the world, from any country, faces mandatory sterilisation if they don't have a degree by the time they're 25. Not only will this provide slower population growth, but it will also ensure that there is a strong incentive for people to become educated, plus in a couple of generations the human race will become much smarter and more thoughtful. It's a win-win idea.
paulthebassguy2
2 / 5 (12) Oct 24, 2011
Haha yes, George, that's a teriffic idea! Although, I don't see too many people agreeing with it, probably because they don't have degrees themselves, but in essence it's a great idea to think about.
OverweightAmerican
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2011
The best idea for population control is to enforce a rule where anyone in the world, from any country, faces mandatory sterilisation if they don't have a degree by the time they're 25.


Hmmm, the only problem I can see with this is that a lot of people still have children before the age of 25. Nonetheless though, it will still have the desired effect because inevitably there will be less children born overall to uneducated parents.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (18) Oct 24, 2011
The best idea for population control is to enforce a rule where anyone in the world, from any country, faces mandatory sterilisation if they don't have a degree by the time they're 25.


Hmmm, the only problem I can see with this is that a lot of people still have children before the age of 25. Nonetheless though, it will still have the desired effect because inevitably there will be less children born overall to uneducated parents.

How will the quality of the degree be validated? Graduates with high school diplomas can't read.
Devil is in the details.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (18) Oct 24, 2011
What does right to procreate have with right to live? Why do you join the two? You can stop someone from procreation without killing or them or damaging their health.

Children are a way of living forever.
Forcing people to not have children kill their family.
What human has the right to force another NOT to have children? Who do you trust with such power?
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (22) Oct 24, 2011
""Who do you trust with such power?""

You don't - not if you're smart. The world has a lot of present and potential tyrants who believe that it's their role to subjugate the people. . . .and force their will against the will of the people.
OK. . . .from MY own perspective, I have to agree with CH, in that a person's ability to procreate should be tempered by the money in his bank account, so to speak. One's earning power should be the benchmark for procreation. My apologies to Creationists, but that's the real world.
Pirouette
1.5 / 5 (23) Oct 24, 2011
WOW. . .sounds like CH is an anti-Sociialist as well as anti-Creationist.


Generally true on both accounts

That's impressive. By that, I suppose he is also a Conservative


A single word is insufficient to describe my social and political views, I never call myself conservative or liberal, democrat or republican.

Well, labels are not always accurate. Mandatory sterilization is obscene. . .savagery. . .can't find the words to describe it further.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (14) Oct 24, 2011
One's earning power should be the benchmark for procreation.

So what are you planning to do about it?
Pirouette
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 24, 2011
There's really not much you can do about. It's strictly voluntary. How many young girls get knocked up each year and the parents insist on his marrying the girl, even if he's not ready financially to support a wife and kid. He's stuck, and the kid is probably born into poverty, all because of sex drive and he can't keep it in his. . . . . .
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (17) Oct 24, 2011
There's really not much you can do about. It's strictly voluntary. How many young girls get knocked up each year and the parents insist on his marrying the girl, even if he's not ready financially to support a wife and kid. He's stuck, and the kid is probably born into poverty, all because of sex drive and he can't keep it in his. . . . . .

So why to the 'progressives' attack religious organizations that promote self-control? Every opportunity is taken by 'progressives' to weaken groups and parents who want to instill discipline into their children.
ShotmanMaslo
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 25, 2011
Because "promoting self control" has been shown to not work again and again. Why do "socialist" atheist progressive countries with comprehensive secular sex education like Scandinavia have lower rates of teen pregnancy and teen abortions than Texas?

So why do conservatives attack organisations that promote the right of women to have an abortion and affordable birth control such as Planned Parenthood? Contrary to their way, this way has been shown to work in practice.
CHollman82
1.9 / 5 (17) Oct 25, 2011
Mandatory sterilization is obscene. . .savagery. . .


In general I agree, but not in all cases. Locking a human up in a tiny cage is savagery, but I have no problem with the idea of incarceration... with freedom comes responsibility, The responsibility to not willfully damage the society that grants you that freedom. If you can't follow societies rules you should either leave that society or be forcefully removed from it (prison).

Likewise, if you cannot use your "right" to procreation responsibly in a way that is not detrimental to society you should leave that society or have that "right" taken from you. I don't consider it a right by the way, as soon as systems of social security are established and my PERSONAL income and well being are contingent on you not being a fuckup it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege, a privilege that can be taken away if it is abused to the detriment of society. Don't like it? Leave civilization, or deny welfare.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2011
There are those who have, essentially, LEFT society to enter into a primitive world where distance from "civilization" and social contact are ONE of the major factors for that person to prefer to stay in his/her new abode. People, along with their families, usually more than one child, have gone to the "hills" and out in the deserts to make a new life. They are self-sufficient, digging wells, utilizing modern tech such as solar panels, chopping wood and growing new trees, and growing their own crops and food animals to feed themselves.
That's admirable, and they have very little impact on the environment.
However, not everyone has that talent, nor would everyone wish to do it. Most people are too steeped in the "progressive" way of life. There are, indeed, SOME similarities between the city dweller who escapes from modern life to dwell in a primitive area, and the native in a third world country who has lived there from birth and knows nothing else.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2011
On the one hand, the former city dweller has knowledge of certain practices to enable his/her survival, as well as some knowledge of medical advancements. Equipped with these, he/she can also home-school the children and also teach THEM to be self-sufficient. Whereas, the native of Somalia who is stricken with poverty, for instance, usually hasn't a clue on modern tech for self-sufficiency. Thus, the native is at an extreme disadvantage, and it's not just because of poverty, the major part of his/her dilemma is IGNORANCE and, perhaps, superstition. Many people have come up from the depths of extreme poverty and have led successful lives. So, poverty is NOT in itself a major factor in the failure of a motivation towards success. Ignorance, laziness, superstitions, wars, and fear are some prime causes for bad results.
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (60) Oct 25, 2011
The following are some of FrankHerbert's sock puppets which he uses to double and triple 1-rate people he doesn't like, and to rate him self 5's to counter low ratings (he may have others);

FrankHerbert
PetiteAmerican
PaoloIlTipoBasso
Fagamemnon

It is clear that he actually is concerned about his ratings (!). I suggest everyone book-mark the following link to his recent postings, and 1-rate the crap out of him. He is a physorg troll extraordinaire, and generally rude toward other posters. :)

http://www.physor...activity

Better yet, send comment to physorg asking that the post-rating-system to be disabled, as they are abused constantly.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2011
So we can see that propagandist bullshit like this:

""Despite alarmist predictions, historical increases in population have not been economically catastrophic," notes David Bloom, a professor in the Department of Global Health and Population at Harvard."

-Will go the way of the blank slate and the piltdown man.

The good professor knows full well that his calculations do not include all the wars, famines, and plagues engineered expressly to limit growth.

Most glaringly, they do not include the vast family planning efforts and the ONE BILLION ABORTIONS which have taken place worldwide within the last 1 hundred years.
http://www.johnst...dex.html

-Why do you think that is? Is it necessary to disguise these programs as the freedom of women 'to choose' so that we do not realize they are in reality vital Efforts to reduce growth?

Of course it is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 25, 2011
most people are stupid.

But some are smart enough to have the power to decide if those stupid people can have children?
Who do you consider to be that omniscient?
You will never know. And you are powerless to do anything about it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (12) Oct 25, 2011
The following are some of FrankHerbert's sock puppets which he uses to double and triple 1-rate people he doesn't like, and to rate him self 5's to counter low ratings (he may have others);

FrankHerbert
PetiteAmerican
PaoloIlTipoBasso
Fagamemnon
Might be Time for the Ghosts to return. It IS halloween.

Spirits of the Deep! Can you hear me??

Wennschon dennschon
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2011
Sex is a very basic act, and those in poverty utilize it as a means of comfort, not just for pleasure. To alleviate the population explosions amongst third world people, they must be reeducated to understand basic and higher knowledge (ignorance), motivated to improve (laziness), provided with alternative beliefs such as learning good business practices (superstitions), learning that peacetime brings prosperity (wars), and learn to go boldly into the future while equipped with their new-found knowledge (fear). With all that, they would be less likely to forget or reject birth control measures once they are made aware.
Pirouette
2.1 / 5 (21) Oct 25, 2011
A pox on FrankHerbert's eyeballs, and that includes his many aliases. LOL
FrankHerbert
1.5 / 5 (62) Oct 25, 2011
That made me smile. You get a 5 pirouette.
emsquared
2.2 / 5 (13) Oct 25, 2011
The following are some of FrankHerbert's sock puppets which he uses to double and triple 1-rate people he doesn't like, and to rate him self 5's to counter low ratings (he may have others);

FrankHerbert
PetiteAmerican
PaoloIlTipoBasso
Fagamemnon

It is clear that he actually is concerned about his ratings (!). I suggest everyone book-mark the following link to his recent postings, and 1-rate the crap out of him. He is a physorg troll extraordinaire, and generally rude toward other posters. :)

http://www.physor...activity

Better yet, send comment to physorg asking that the post-rating-system to be disabled, as they are abused constantly.

Kind of hard to do anything but pity the guy. Pretty much exemplifies the "Forever Alone" meme face... and probably all of the other rage/troll memes, for that matter.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 25, 2011
Famine is a by-product of wars; plagues COULD be the result of famine, depending on the type of plague; wars can be motivated by the desire for a land-grab for real estate that lacks plague and/or famine. . . .or for resources.
Pirouette
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2011
Sorry, I have no pity for such a sourpuss who rarely contributes any valuable opinions :)
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2011
<<<<< is waiting for Ghost to appear within my mirror.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeyahhhhhh
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (58) Oct 25, 2011
Sorry, I have no pity for such a sourpuss who rarely contributes any valuable opinions :)


You could have stopped at sourpuss because it's not like you hold yourself to the latter qualification ;)
emsquared
2.5 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2011
Sorry, I have no pity for such a sourpuss who rarely contributes any valuable opinions :)

But on a human level, I mean, this guy has nothing better to do than sign in - rank rank rank, sign out, sign in - rank rank rank, sign out, etc. etc. etc. it's just the definition of pitiful, or pathetic. That's what makes him feel accomplished, or like he's correct or winning or something.

I can just picture the poor bastard sitting there hunched over his keyboard, smeared with cheeto dust or something, chewing on his lip, troll-faced thinking, I'm really getting this guy!! HAHA! And look how awesome I am! HAHA!

It just makes me glad I'm not him, or someone like him, I guess. And if that's not pity, I dunno what is.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2011
""-Why do you think that is? Is it necessary to disguise these programs as the freedom of women 'to choose' so that we do not realize they are in reality vital Efforts to reduce growth?

Of course it is.""

Ghost. . . .government has always used subterfuge to make people, especially women, think that they have been given a "right" to things such as abortion and the "vote". American women have been lulled into thinking that these "rights" are essential to their existence, but it is the Democrats who have legislated for these rights for women, only for the reason to KEEP Democrats in public office. Heck, nobody wants to get voted OUT of office. So they lie, cheat and cajole so that they can remain where they are in order to pass more ridiculous bills. Women, particularly Feminists, fall for it all the time.
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2011
emsquared. . . .I suppose you're right. But I still have no pity for such a lout.
FrankHerbert
0.9 / 5 (54) Oct 25, 2011
Emsquared come on. I wrote a program that does all that automatically. It's like an autopen :)
Pirouette
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2011
""It just makes me glad I'm not him, or someone like him, I guess. And if that's not pity, I dunno what is.""

Thought I detected a sigh of relief.
Pirouette
1.5 / 5 (22) Oct 25, 2011
Emsquared. . . . .this Herbert guy is persistent. He's either a masochist or he's looking for a date with one of us. . . .ya think?
Pirouette
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2011
Sorry, I have no pity for such a sourpuss who rarely contributes any valuable opinions :)


and FrankHerbert says: 'You could have stopped at sourpuss because it's not like you hold yourself to the latter qualification ;)
'

I do not enter a thread with the prime purpose of insulting and diminishing the stature of other commenters as Frank Herbert does, on purpose and possibly with thrills running up and down his leg. I prefer to just discuss the article at hand and leave personalities out of it. But, occasionally I will go on a defensive stance, as many have done in answer to the lout in question.
emsquared
2.3 / 5 (19) Oct 25, 2011
Emsquared come on. I wrote a program that does all that automatically. It's like an autopen :)

But the mentality is there, and that's what counts. You sad, sad thing.
LVT
1.3 / 5 (19) Oct 25, 2011
http://www.reuter...20111024

The next challenge: not too many people, but too few?
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 25, 2011
It's possible that FrankHerbert was set upon by bullies in grade school and based his life on those events. . . .and now is exacting vengeance on people in these threads whom he doesn't know nor knows anything about, while harboring ill will toward all who had nothing to do with his downhill progression of self hatred.
Pirouette
1.2 / 5 (19) Oct 25, 2011
LVT. . .do you think that's a pretty accurate assessment?

Hmmm... too few people is not likely to happen, unless you mean too few people to support those on welfare and Social Security
Pirouette
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 25, 2011
ok the article does mention that also. . . .BUT, unless there is future mandatory sterilization, I think mankind will keep on reproducing, especially if exhorted to do so. After all, it's not like it's getting a painful shot in the arm or a kick in the butt.
Noumenon
3.9 / 5 (64) Oct 25, 2011
The following are some of FrankHerbert's sock puppets which he uses to double and triple 1-rate people he doesn't like, and to rate him self 5's to counter low ratings (he may have others);

FrankHerbert
PetiteAmerican
PaoloIlTipoBasso
Fagamemnon

It is clear that he actually is concerned about his ratings (!). I suggest everyone book-mark the following link to his recent postings, and 1-rate the crap out of him. He is a physorg troll extraordinaire, and generally rude toward other posters. :)

http://www.physor...activity

Better yet, send comment to physorg asking that the post-rating-system to be disabled, as they are abused constantly.


Forgot another,... OverweightAnatolian
Nerdyguy
3.6 / 5 (16) Oct 25, 2011
Not sure which is more amusing: that an individual would dedicate so much time and energy to the activities Noumenon purports, or that another individual would spend so much time actually looking up all that data!

You guys both need to get laid.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (17) Oct 25, 2011
I do not enter a thread with the prime purpose of insulting and diminishing the stature of other commenters as Frank Herbert does, on purpose and possibly with thrills running up and down his leg. I prefer to just discuss the article at hand and leave personalities out of it.
You do seem to enjoy flooding about things like butterbeans and gossip and other inanities. Perhaps you would feel more at home in a chatroom or a facebook circle of friends?
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (60) Oct 25, 2011
Not sure which is more amusing: that an individual would dedicate so much time and energy to the activities Noumenon purports, or that another individual would spend so much time actually looking up all that data!

You guys both need to get laid.


There is no involved "data collection" necessary,.. just clicking one's screen name & activity shows who rated you,... less effort than your post.
Nerdyguy
3.5 / 5 (11) Oct 25, 2011
Not sure which is more amusing: that an individual would dedicate so much time and energy to the activities Noumenon purports, or that another individual would spend so much time actually looking up all that data!

You guys both need to get laid.


There is no involved "data collection" necessary,.. just clicking one's screen name & activity shows who rated you,... less effort than your post.


Yeah, I know, but I was going for laughs.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2011
Because "promoting self control" has been shown to not work again and again.

Socialist control is much more effective?
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (19) Oct 25, 2011
Sorry, I have no pity for such a sourpuss who rarely contributes any valuable opinions :)

But on a human level, I mean, this guy has nothing better to do than sign in - rank rank rank, sign out, sign in - rank rank rank, sign out, etc. etc. etc. it's just the definition of pitiful, or pathetic. That's what makes him feel accomplished, or like he's correct or winning or something.

I can just picture the poor bastard sitting there hunched over his keyboard, smeared with cheeto dust or something, chewing on his lip, troll-faced thinking, I'm really getting this guy!! HAHA! And look how awesome I am! HAHA!

It just makes me glad I'm not him, or someone like him, I guess. And if that's not pity, I dunno what is.


5
CHollman82
2 / 5 (21) Oct 25, 2011
The following are some of FrankHerbert's sock puppets which he uses to double and triple 1-rate people he doesn't like, and to rate him self 5's to counter low ratings (he may have others);

FrankHerbert
PetiteAmerican
PaoloIlTipoBasso
Fagamemnon

It is clear that he actually is concerned about his ratings (!). I suggest everyone book-mark the following link to his recent postings, and 1-rate the crap out of him. He is a physorg troll extraordinaire, and generally rude toward other posters. :)

http://www.physor...activity

Better yet, send comment to physorg asking that the post-rating-system to be disabled, as they are abused constantly.


Forgot another,... OverweightAnatolian


This guy is pathetic, even if he is using software to do this it's pathetic that he put in any effort or cares enough about ratings, what a loser.
Pirouette
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 25, 2011
I do not enter a thread with the prime purpose of insulting and diminishing the stature of other commenters as Frank Herbert does, on purpose and possibly with thrills running up and down his leg. I prefer to just discuss the article at hand and leave personalities out of it.

Ghost says: "You do seem to enjoy flooding about things like butterbeans and gossip and other inanities. Perhaps you would feel more at home in a chatroom or a facebook circle of friends?
"

No thanks, Ghost. . . .I like Physorg, but it was nice of you to suggest anyway. :)
CHollman82
1.6 / 5 (20) Oct 25, 2011
Forgot another,... OverweightAnatolian


This guy is pathetic, even if he is using software to do this it's pathetic that he put in any effort or cares enough about ratings, what a loser.


Every single one of your AE's gave me a 1 for that... you aren't fooling anyone, you're a giant faggot, and you should just kill yourself right now if meaningless ratings on an obscure website mean that much to you, you obviously have nothing better going on in your life.
Nerdyguy
3.9 / 5 (16) Oct 26, 2011
Forgot another,... OverweightAnatolian


This guy is pathetic, even if he is using software to do this it's pathetic that he put in any effort or cares enough about ratings, what a loser.


Every single one of your AE's gave me a 1 for that... you aren't fooling anyone, you're a giant faggot, and you should just kill yourself right now if meaningless ratings on an obscure website mean that much to you, you obviously have nothing better going on in your life.


Frankly, there's no place for this kind of nonsense in civil discourse, or civil society for that matter. I would recommend you seek counseling.
CHollman82
1.6 / 5 (19) Oct 26, 2011
Forgot another,... OverweightAnatolian


This guy is pathetic, even if he is using software to do this it's pathetic that he put in any effort or cares enough about ratings, what a loser.


Every single one of your AE's gave me a 1 for that... you aren't fooling anyone, you're a giant faggot, and you should just kill yourself right now if meaningless ratings on an obscure website mean that much to you, you obviously have nothing better going on in your life.


Frankly, there's no place for this kind of nonsense in civil discourse, or civil society for that matter. I would recommend you seek counseling.


As opposed to the guy who registers 6 accounts or more and spends all day gaming the stupid rating system? People who act ridiculously deserve to be ridiculed, or how else would they know they are acting ridiculously?
Nerdyguy
3.8 / 5 (15) Oct 26, 2011
"As opposed to the guy who registers 6 accounts or more and spends all day gaming the stupid rating system? People who act ridiculously deserve to be ridiculed, or how else would they know they are acting ridiculously?"

There is a difference between light ridicule, which I do believe would suffice for the stated aims. And, I agree with you that pointing it out is important. However, racism, gay-bashing, slander, etc., these have no place at all.
ShotmanMaslo
4 / 5 (16) Oct 26, 2011
Because "promoting self control" has been shown to not work again and again.

Socialist control is much more effective?


No, comprehensive sex education, affordable contraception and legal abortion is much more effective. Stay on topic please.
CHollman82
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 26, 2011
"As opposed to the guy who registers 6 accounts or more and spends all day gaming the stupid rating system? People who act ridiculously deserve to be ridiculed, or how else would they know they are acting ridiculously?"

There is a difference between light ridicule, which I do believe would suffice for the stated aims. And, I agree with you that pointing it out is important. However, racism, gay-bashing, slander, etc., these have no place at all.


Show me the racism... slander is subjective. If I think you're a loser it's not slander to call you a loser, it's an expression of an opinion. Gay bashing was unintentional, I used the word faggot as a general insult, I didn't consider the real meaning of the word. If you've seen many of my posts here I always defend homosexuals.
johnnyb74
3.9 / 5 (14) Oct 26, 2011
Homosexual isn't a race, tard.
CHollman82
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 26, 2011
Homosexual isn't a race, tard.


I didn't say it was...
CHollman82
1.7 / 5 (18) Oct 26, 2011
johnnyb72, johnnyb73, johnnyb74, johnnyb75, johnnyb76 are now down voting every one of my posts... rofl, what a goddamn loser.
johnnyb72
3.3 / 5 (16) Oct 26, 2011
Funny you didn't mention johnnyb71... I wonder why?
Nerdyguy
3.8 / 5 (16) Oct 26, 2011
chollman - yes I was referring to that word specifically, and in general to other forms of slander I've seen, not just yours.

The johnnyb stuff, wth is up with that? lmao
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2011
Homosexual isn't a race, tard.
Tard... Tard... Where HAVE I heard that expression before?

You is legion harhar. Dick.
paulthebassguy
2 / 5 (11) Oct 30, 2011
all those johnnyB posts are actually FrankHerbert. He has several. He also has OverweightAntonian, PetiteAmerican, and most funnily of all PaoloIlTipoBasso (a spanish version of my own name). He uses these to downvote anything he disagrees with and upvote all his own posts.
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2011
I'm considering writing a greasemonkey script to hide all rating-related content on this website to undermine his efforts...
Nerdyguy
3 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2011
I'm considering writing a greasemonkey script to hide all rating-related content on this website to undermine his efforts...


It's a valid idea. Better yet would be if PhysOrg would just turn it off. It is kind of pointless after all. If they really think it's necessary, they could make it a "like/dislike" system and avoid quite a bit of the seemingly random nature of the ratings.
PaoloIlTipoBasso
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2011
Paul, it's Italian.

Chris, you sure are not caring as hard as you possibly can, huh? Don't care so hard you gotta write a script because you can't stand looking at it. lmao.
CHollman82
2.1 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2011
Paul, it's Italian.

Chris, you sure are not caring as hard as you possibly can, huh? Don't care so hard you gotta write a script because you can't stand looking at it. lmao.


Nice spin, you should work in politics.
Pirouette
1.7 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2011
Dayum. . .I always miss out on the knockdown drag-out fights in these threads. CH. . .hope you're winning this round. It sure is a crowded Earth. . .LOL
Ethelred
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 01, 2011
all those johnnyB posts are actually FrankHerbert.
I don't think that is Frank. I don't get a lot of ones from him and those others have doing that. The rankings have been rather random towards me so far.

May I recommend that you report the sockpuppets as abuse. I don't see at as likely to get Physorg's attention BUT they do keep banning Quantum Conundrum, at least I think his Nanobonano Avatar has been banned.

The alternative is to create you own sockpuppets. That seems to be what stopped Zephyr-Rawa-Callipo from engaging in sockpuppet ranking wars.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2011
OK after looking over more of this disaster of a thread I see that Frank may be a puppeteer.

And it isn't necessary to log in and out to use sockpuppets. I am not going to tell those that can't figure it out how to do it though. It is bad enough here already.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2011
These logins are all sockpuppets and need to be banned by Physorg.

johnnyb72 | johnnyb73 | johnnyb74 | johnnyb75 | IVT |

And competent site would ban the person that created them as well.

Ethelred
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (53) Nov 10, 2011
These logins are all sockpuppets and need to be banned by Physorg.

johnnyb72 | johnnyb73 | johnnyb74 | johnnyb75 | IVT |

And competent site would ban the person that created them as well.

Ethelred


I don't think those are Frank's,.. although you would have to agree that your comment would have to apply to him as well.

Because of the use of the word "tard",.. I think it might be Vendicar. This guy is a true nut and has been banned from countless sites around the Internet and constantly calls people "tard". It could be Frank planting the phrase "tard" also I guess. Both trolls should be banned.
ArtVandelay
1 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
7 billion and counting,... should level off eventually.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2011
Both trolls should be banned.
There are rather a lot of trolls and cranks on the site these days. I don't mind a bit of crankery but it has reaching staggering proportions these couple of months. Some threads over half the posts are from them.

My problem with VD is that only half his posts are toxic. He makes a lot completely rational posts. I know you don't like some that I find rational but they are still rational. Heck even some of your political/economic posts are rational, to try to give an example of my point.

Even the spammers seem to hitting more often. YYZ and I seem to be the only people systematically reporting the parasites.

Join us in this endeavor Noumenon. Report the parasites.

Now if only reporting abuse worked with the Cranks. The only Crank that has been consistently banned lately is Quantum Conundrum and I suppose that might be because he occasionally freaks out and goes toxic. I don't see all of those I suppose.

Ethelred
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (53) Nov 13, 2011
It's interesting that the FrankHerbert set of sockpuppets rated the above two johhnyb7x set of sockpuppets 5's using multiple sockpuppets that I listed as FrankHerberts above. Why would he do this? Both sets are probably FrankHerberts. LOL.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Nov 13, 2011
Yes, I click on "report abuse" for any spam and any outright rudeness. I think the mod is overwhelmed though. The rating system is abused and should be done away with.