Science and/or Nature...

Post Reply New Topic

Populations are generally kept in check by limiting factors - often, food limitations. I don't particularly like the idea of a self sustaining population that works because as many humans that are born are starving to death.

Limiting population size is very easy. You simply cull the unwanted excess. The population continues to grow not because we can't do this, but because we won't. Eventually this will change.

Is this an eenie meenie miny moe recommendation or do you favor blond Aryan types?

His notion of "culling" ( a polite word for murder on a mass scale) would, if implemented, spark a civil war which would kill a lot of people. Well, I suppose, that is a kind of population control.

More likely, people with a stake in the future of a few children, or likely to limit their reproductive inclinations. Fortunately we can have all kinds of sexual fun without making babies. The U.S. has reached natural stasis. All of our population increase or most of it, anyway, is from immigration both legal and illegal. In Europe, with the exception of the Muslim sub population birth rates have declined below replacement level. You might think of that as auto-culling. Cull the children prior to their birth or conception.

ruveyn

Right. The policies that would be necessary to enforce population limits would likely be disastrous. However, based on general social trends (as ruveyn mentioned, prosperous, developed nations have birthrates that are actually below the replacement level) population is probably going to level off anyways. It is better to let the "problem" of overpopulation solve itself. The best we can do is to improve the economic conditions and standard of living around the world.

Naah. I prefer dark hair...

Seriously, though, I'm saying that the human race will be culled eventually - one way or another. Would it not be better to do so with some intelligence rather than for it to happen randomly because the population becomes unsustainable? I'm not in any hurry for a cull. I'd probably qualify for the gas chamber on at least two counts, even though I won't be reproducing anyway.

The one absolute paradox, how does something come from nothing, is my greatest fear. 6000 recorded years of searching for the answer and making excuses beckons. When you see the whole of the worlds as flat like paper you see that the universe is too delicate to take on occupancy. As times smear downward like a spectrogram from our universal plane, the trail becomes unbreakable. To know the power Ex Nihilo and introduce a non time-conforming source of creation is to lacerate the the planar structure of our universe and expose it to the multiverse nullifying space time will leilsaconvir* as though moving through a fourth dimension expanding outward ceaselessly all that is never was.

Could you translate the above into English? Thank you.

ruveyn

I believe Kekekeke is referring to the origin of the universe. The question is actually rather silly - the universe did not "come from nothing". The real question is what existed before our current universe.

Many religious arguments state God must therefore exist as the prime mover - the means by which the universe came into being. They don't answer the entirely reasonable follow-up question of where God came from, preferring to demur with something about God always existing or being outside time, completely missing the point that if this can be true for God it can also be true for the universe.

Even if our reality came from another multiverse or perhaps is a function of a hidden analogues plane that serves like circuits in a radio and our world is it's sound. Even beyond our constructs of time and physics and matter where maybe unknown energies are inactive, unmoving and spread out the length of our "known" universe-- the question still remains, even if it is invalid given it's circumstance. But that's unnecessary, beyond what we will ever observe is irrelevant to the fact that science and the "God" within us all need only define and break the physical barriers that we are confined to and convinced of.

Since multiverses are theoretical fantasies at the moment I am curious about how these breakages can be effected.