Well, we're getting there then!

I protect myself from aids the best I can, but every now and then I'll wank-dream of wild barebacking with van drivers in a car park.

AIDS stands for "Alright, I'm Dying Soon!"

I have an uncle who is HIV-positive and has been for a good 13 years or something. He contracted it from fucking a guy in a bathroom in Florida. True story. He has to take like 15 different medications a day. Pretty fucked up, but he doesn't seem too upset about it.

Not alwways controllable, unless they took some sort of drug or what have you to cause the 8 fetuses.

+1

At my job, I see so many pregnant mothers with 4 or more kids that they can barely control.

Just because you're married doesn't mean you can throw away all your condoms.

that is a bunch of bullshit. overpopulation is a social darwinist myth! the world can handle 48 billion people so long as we stop living greedy, wasteful and consumer based lives.. at the present rate of consumption however the rate is 2 billion.. its not the planet that can not handle the people, its the people who can not handle sharing with other people. there is no such thing as overpopulation, it is a man-made disaster :(

yeah thats working REAL well for china..

I'm sorry but I am simply just too special. It'd make more sense for unspecial people to die. China has so many people, every person probably has a duplicate. They should round everyone up, group them by similarities, and then just pick the best person in each group of similar people and kill the rest.

First of all, even if all of your figures are true there is still certainly such a thing as overpopulation. You say the world can handle 48 billion people? So then what does 49 billion people make? One billion too many people. Overpopulation.

And even if we can sustain more people right now simply by changing our lifestyles, why ignore the problem of overpopulation until it becomes unavoidable? If we do that, our response will have to be much more severe.

Also, you ignore human nature. Sure, more people would have more resources if the greediest cut back... but since when does that happen?

It makes mores sense tackling the problem facing the reality of it versus only striving for the ideal. If you try to get everyone to do a little, you have a chance. If you try to get everyone to do a lot at once, nothing will happen. Ultimately, the biggest steps to repair things won't happen until everyone feels the strain.

Also, penis.

... meaning AIDS doesn't work very well, but it looks real nice?

that is more nonsense. as human societies develop their birth rates DECLINE, so if we focus on development and balancing our consumption, then humans never will reach 48 billion in the first place. Our population is sky-rocketing in the developing world, and yet actually declining in the developed nations, just as a hundred years ago the birth rates in Europe and the United States were unbelievable. Again, overpopulation is a myth. It is an impossibility.

... do you actually believe what you're saying?

First of all, yes, demographics have shown that in some developed western societies birth rates have declined. Since when does 'declined' mean a decrease in population? Sure, people in these areas are pumping out babies at a decreased rate, but in most cases the population is still growing. It may not be growing as exponentially as it was, but it's still growing. And the places that have shown a decrease in population certainly don't mark a long or permanent trend, nor do they outweigh the areas with more growth. If a car going 100 mph on a road with a speed limit of 50 mph slows down and is now going 90 mph, it's still over the fucking speed limit and you're still in trouble.

But let's pretend that in every developed nation the population was actually steadily decreasing. As you noted, it's still skyrocketing in the developing world. Your plan is to counteract this by focusing on development of all of these areas? That shows little understanding of what the third world is. In our current economic and political set-up, it's impossible to develop the entire world. 'Developed' nations enjoy unprecedented wealth and comfort because of their dominance over the third world. We use their resources. The third world is largely trapped where it is as long as we remain on top. It's simply not possible to bring them up to our level of development, nor is it on the agenda.

"Overpopulation is a myth. It is an impossibility."
Comments like these make it hard to take you seriously. How is it impossible for there to be too many people for our limited resources, whether it be now or eventually? That's extremely possible, and in fact very likely, especially if things continue as they do.

tl;dr: penis penis penis penis penis penis

can somebody rep amerikangod? He's been my favourite poster in quite some time. At least he bothers making sure that he deserves a big ego.

there are so many things wrong here..

a) from The Times: "EUROPE’S population will continue to decline for decades even if birthrates improve significantly, researchers have calculated. Trends towards smaller families and later motherhood mean that there are too few women of childbearing age to reverse the decline in the near future, according to an Austrian study. The year 2000 marked a turning point, with the population’s “momentum” becoming negative; there will be fewer parents in the next generation than in this one.
At present 1.5 babies are born for every European Union woman, when two births are required for the population “replacement rate” to be maintained. Even if women started to have more children again, at younger ages, the tendency to population decline would continue for decades, as there would be too few potential mothers to make a difference.
so yes sir, as nations develop their birth rates decline below 2.0 and the over-all population declines. At the turn of the century the birthrate in Europe was as high as 7.0, as it is in places like rural India today, but today they are at 1.5! The trend is that as nations develop, birthrates DECLINE, so the logical conclusion (and observed reality) is that as under-developed nations develop, their natural birth rates also decline ;)



b) yes, every country can develop their infrastructures, their resource distribution, their public services, this is for the interest of the entire world. You mistake development for over-development, I am not talking about turning East-Africa into Santa Monica. Without development, as you called, 'third-world' nations actually consume MORE resources. In africa 70% of household fuel comes from wood charcoal, which is leading to massive deforestation. The solution? ELECTRICITY AND NATURAL GAS.. every 15 seconds a child dies from no access to drinking water, the solution? Water infrastructure.. these are not luxuries of the developed world, they are absolute necessities for human health!

c) overpopulation is a concept of unequal distribution of resources. If is simple math, if it is an observed phenomon that in in the developed world, birth and death rates reach an equilibrium (hence the potential even for population decline) then if there is an equitable distribution of resources, there will be no problems related to overpopulation. Overpopulation by definition is when a species or organism becomes to large a population for a given set of resources, but as I said, with humans this is a myth. We, unlike other organisms, have the ability to balance and produce resources on our own. We alter nature, so if we alter in in a beneficial way, we will not fall into overpopulation.
According to the U.N. Population Database, using the historically accurate low variant projection, the Earth's population will only add another billion people or so over the next thirty years, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline. Source: Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat, World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision, http://esa.un.org/unpp, Saturday, September 26, 2009; 2:57:15 PM.

as I said, social darwinism is evident in your perspective. So the 'third world' could never develop eh? what, are the negroids not worth it? So human beings die of preventable diseases because of the rule of natural selection? thats a bit insensitive if you ask me, the diseases are called preventable for reason. or should we just let people continue to die and let God sort it all out? Kyrie Eleison!

" and then it will begin to decline. "
you may feel a sting, that's just pride, fucking with you:

Has it?

I like it how your username is keeping it simple.

Yeah.

FYI for the Magic Johnson conspirator. I have 3 friends who have the HIV virus since the 80's. There all still here. All three contracted the virus from IV drug use. What's a real shocker is one of the women that's still here, her husband contracted full blown Aids and died in 94.

R.I.P. Barry..........

48 billion people=