rats on a sinking ship: the aging/overpopulation thred

[LoathedVermin72]

Cancer is a sort of natural population control and we really shouldn't try to cure it.

Anyone who says this is a shithead and can fuck right off.

[BurtReynolds]

.

[Bammer]

*redacted

[LoathedVermin72]

Cancer is a sort of natural population control and we really shouldn't try to cure it.

Anyone who says this is a shithead and can fuck right off.

Whoa. I didn't say that. I've heard others make the argument. My mom died of brain cancer a few years ago.

I didn't mean you. I meant the people you've heard say it. That's really stupid. It's not like cancer only affects elderly people.

[BurtReynolds]

.

[Bammer]

I didn't mean you. I meant the people you've heard say it. That's really stupid. It's not like cancer only affects elderly people.

Go back and quote the whole quote. I'm serious.

I'm deleting my related response.

[LoathedVermin72]

Relax, Bammer. I was never saying you said it.

[Bammer]

Relax, Bammer. I was never saying you said it.

Understood but that's what the partial quote looks like.

[stip]

The US is actually in better shape then most rich countries because of all the immigration. No ones told the Republicans.

Actually, establishment Republicans know this well. Dubya tried real hard to get a guest worker program passed when he was president. The problem arose when you had the predecessors to the xenophobic Donald Trumps of the world pushing back.

But to answer this thread in general, you're absolutely right that in the short term, immigration is the solution, and by "short term" that probably means within our entire lifetimes. But in the long term, I'm actually quite opposed to any government effort to either encourage or discourage births, and the reason why is that it necessarily places a disproportionate burden on women. Let them decide on their own terms how many children they want to bear.

I don't know that i disagree, but children enter into a community and require resources from that community. Some sort of larger collective input into how large that community should be, what it can sustain, etc. is not unreasonable, is it?

[Green Habit]

The US is actually in better shape then most rich countries because of all the immigration. No ones told the Republicans.

Actually, establishment Republicans know this well. Dubya tried real hard to get a guest worker program passed when he was president. The problem arose when you had the predecessors to the xenophobic Donald Trumps of the world pushing back.

But to answer this thread in general, you're absolutely right that in the short term, immigration is the solution, and by "short term" that probably means within our entire lifetimes. But in the long term, I'm actually quite opposed to any government effort to either encourage or discourage births, and the reason why is that it necessarily places a disproportionate burden on women. Let them decide on their own terms how many children they want to bear.

I don't know that i disagree, but children enter into a community and require resources from that community. Some sort of larger collective input into how large that community should be, what it can sustain, etc. is not unreasonable, is it?

For the time being, adjusting rates of immigration should take care of this. Another point that I forgot to make is whether populations of any size are a problem to begin with. It's always struck me as something that sounds scarier than it really is.

[McParadigm]

Cancer is a sort of natural population control and we really shouldn't try to cure it.

Anyone who says this is a shithead and can fuck right off.

The second part (that we should avoid developing cures) is preposterous, but the idea that disease has served that function naturally throughout time certainly isn't.

It's not like cancer only affects elderly people.

Population limiters that only affect elderly people would barely be population limiters at all.

[Bammer]

Here again is my original post, in full, which got bottom-paged and is being taken wildly out of context by only being quoted partially:

I've heard arguments that:

- Cancer is a sort of natural population control and we really shouldn't try to cure it. All that will leave us with are a bunch more people living to age 90 (as opposed to like 70), straining resources and not contributing anything.

- The villain in the latest Dan Brown novel (Inferno) who, as I recall, wanted to wipe out like 1/3 of the world's population as a way to preserve human kind in the long run, wasn't actually such a bad guy.

[E.H. Ruddock]

Bammer,

We can't control what parts of your posts people choose to quote. I'm sorry they aren't quoting your full post, but if we had to go back and correct every post that didn't include a full original post, you guys would need to donate a shit ton more money.

[McParadigm]

Yeah nobody cares Bammer

[McParadigm]

I think the biggest problem with Bammer's "we need more cancer" proposal is that cancer is hard to use directively. There would be no process by which we could ensure appropriate control. It could over or under correct, in any given generation.

Sorry Bammer. Your idea is shit.

[Mine]

Here again is my original post, in full, which got bottom-paged and is being taken wildly out of context by only being quoted partially:

I've heard arguments that:

- Cancer is a sort of natural population control and we really shouldn't try to cure it. All that will leave us with are a bunch more people living to age 90 (as opposed to like 70), straining resources and not contributing anything.

- The villain in the latest Dan Brown novel (Inferno) who, as I recall, wanted to wipe out like 1/3 of the world's population as a way to preserve human kind in the long run, wasn't actually such a bad guy.

One could make the population control argument about homosexuality.

[McParadigm]

Unless the alternative is reading more Dan Brown novels. Then I'm all in favor of what I think we are all now calling The Bammer Cancer and Antisemitism Solution.

[Bammer]

[LoathedVermin72]

It's not like cancer only affects elderly people.

Population limiters that only affect elderly people would barely be population limiters at all.

This is what I get for not quoting the whole post, I guess.

All that will leave us with are a bunch more people living to age 90 (as opposed to like 70), straining resources and not contributing anything.

[McParadigm]

It's not like cancer only affects elderly people.

Population limiters that only affect elderly people would barely be population limiters at all.

This is what I get for not quoting the whole post, I guess.

All that will leave us with are a bunch more people living to age 90 (as opposed to like 70), straining resources and not contributing anything.

I was aware of the original post. I was following up your thought with another reason Bammer's Solution doesn't add up.

Cancer doesn't only effect old people, so it won't be culling the cream at the top the way he intends + diseases that primarily affect old people would be a shitty way to control population, anyway = Bammer's pro-cancer platform doesn't work.

His Zika virus mandates, I'm still interested in.