An addictive and challenging simple math puzzle game3.97 / 5.00 15,386 Views
And so it dreamt.3.81 / 5.00 8,471 Views
Help Eddie get his watermelon so he can finally spend a nice and relaxing day at the beach3.76 / 5.00 4,888 Views
At 1/26/13 01:47 PM, 372 wrote: Lets get this straight, in the united states the people are supposed to be the government. It is a means for us to protect ourselves. If the population is that big of an issue, that it might cause the "collapse of society" then a more humane solution should be found. If the government considers enforcing a law to limit how many children people are aloud to have, then In my opinion this government is no longer is no longer acting in the interests of their own people. An empire will never hold a greater importance then that of the people which are apart of it.
Surely, by your own definition, the government setting a population law would be the people taking it into their own hands in the most human fashion. As opposed to say a mass culling, which would be the inhumane option.
At 1/27/13 04:11 PM, HikarutheHedgehog wrote: Do you have any idea how expensive it'd be to wipe out entire countries?
what? insignificant people in the ghettos scrounging through trash to recycle so they can have money or begging? I am not talking about whole countries just certain cities in said countries that are a problem to the in this situation. due to the high population density drone strikes would be excellent, then cordon of the area and FOS then go through the area with fire.
And do you have no fucking sense of morals? Also, how is mass murder ever a good solution? It would only cause more problems.
if it means to extend the existence of the human race its worth it and its only a problem if its the UN or some butthurt idealist.
I could maybe get behind a TWO child rule, as long as it ain't enforced with killing the extra children or anything like that.
At 1/27/13 04:12 PM, AnotherOtto wrote:At 1/26/13 01:47 PM, 372 wrote:As opposed to say a mass culling, which would be the inhumane option.
Where's the fun in picking the non-genocidal option?
You live on such a tiny island, at least Gilligan explored his! You're just drawing a tiny circle around your mud hut and saying everything outside it is totally gay.
At 1/27/13 04:11 PM, HikarutheHedgehog wrote: Do you have any idea how expensive it'd be to wipe out entire countries? And do you have no fucking sense of morals? Also, how is mass murder ever a good solution? It would only cause more problems.
Actually, nuclear weapons are said to be so plentiful they could destroy everyone on Earth twenty times, but of course, that isn't morally right.
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
At 1/27/13 12:43 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: what part of dense population don't you understand? plus its alot more than just the blast that kills there is the force and pressure to take into account and a single drone carries up to a dozen projectiles take that 100+ then times it by 12. then there is debris, deaths by injuries etc.
thats how you population control a third world country.
Youd only get that many kills if you asked them to kindly stand still in a big huddle. It seems to me like you know nothing about weapons.
in my opinion, one child policy should not be adopted. the government should not intervere with the population size.
one obvious effect of the policy is aging population due to low birth rate. more resources need to be spent relatively on healthcare and the poportion of work force decreases.
At 1/27/13 04:06 PM, squidly wrote: Simple economics lesson also says that more kids = more financial burden, but not everybody's a genius.
is it really that simple? i have forgotten most of my economics, but i am sure that there is a thing called human capital. with larger population size, people tend to benefit from one another with zero cost (postive externalities), which in turn contribute to economic growth through human capital accumulation.
Yeah, I make no sense.
At 2/2/13 11:21 AM, BumFodder wrote: Youd only get that many kills if you asked them to kindly stand still in a big huddle. It seems to me like you know nothing about weapons.
if you target a ghetto with high population density and use a drone, which can carry 1-12 missiles, on average with a blast radius of 125M or 400ft and thats thats the blast then you have to take the pressure of the shock wave which is enormous on the human but because a significant pressure change like that instantly kills the human body, then you take in variables like other buildings being hit with people, fires from the strike, and violence from the confusion and afterward. drone strikes are very effective in heavily populated areas like I said earlier.
the Pentagon has done studies on it scary enough.
At 1/26/13 01:26 PM, WirelessBrain wrote: What are your opinions on this? Really , whats the point of having a noisy shitmachine (also known as a baby)? We already have 7 Billion of us sucking Earths resources why do we need more?
I don't think people would simply accept that policy everywhere. I'll take Austria as an example. If I remember correctly, the amount of Austrians is decreasing heavily to the point, where there are more immigrants than Austrians.
There's also the information, that every 5th person in this world is theoretically Chinese.
I would say "no" here, but that doesn't mean that they should start havin' mass-orgies or something.
But I believe, that 2 children in a family are enough.
if anything Purge the third world countries with booming populations it wouldn't be great but it would be the right thing to do to if we want to continue our species.
At 1/27/13 04:06 PM, squidly wrote: Simple economics lesson also says that more kids = more financial burden, but not everybody's a genius.is it really that simple? i have forgotten most of my economics, but i am sure that there is a thing called human capital. with larger population size, people tend to benefit from one another with zero cost (postive externalities), which in turn contribute to economic growth through human capital accumulation.
Human capitol only works if the humans have something to do.
The problem with the world now is that it's exhausting most of its resources - there aren't enough jobs or money to go around to paying them, especially in the regions with the most excess population (Africa, China, India, etc.)
Cook the over-weight, feed the starving of the world
realize there's too many starving people and KILL THEM TOO!
"Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven" - John Milton
A government trying to lower the population by a child policy might as well cut out the middle man and start exterminating the undesirable populations.
Even the most righteous, logically sound individuals are subject to poor reasoning skills and deluded mindsets.
At 2/2/13 05:41 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: if we get rid of some of the population we can use the extra space to grow more food and other things.
The problem with that is that the climate in alot of third world does not allow much for growing crops and livestock already overgrazed the vegetation there.
At 2/2/13 06:07 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:At 2/2/13 05:41 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: if we get rid of some of the population we can use the extra space to grow more food and other things.The problem with that is that the climate in alot of third world does not allow much for growing crops and livestock already overgrazed the vegetation there.
its not hard to fertilize and build irrigation canals, that would loosens and enrich the soil right up. all we need to do is get rid of the useless people inhabiting said area.
You're just buttmad because you can't find anyone with low enough standards to receive that batch of white pussy shit you call cum from you, and your ever only option of getting any kind of kids anytime is adopting a fucking cat and wear a bag over your head so it doesn't have to see that mongoloid disgusting face of yours. Preferably a plastic bag, so you can suffocate before poisoning the gene pool.