World population

Anthropology, Economics, History, Sociology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: World population

#81  Postby natselrox » May 08, 2010 6:23 pm

LIFE wrote:How about education. There's a correlation between overpopulation and education. And it's a long-term solution.

ETA: Just noticed Jan proposed something similar.


I think you mean 'inverse correlation'.
When in perplexity, read on.

"A system that values obedience over curiosity isn’t education and it definitely isn’t science"
User avatar
natselrox
 
Posts: 10037
Age: 109
Male

India (in)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: World population

#82  Postby LIFE » May 08, 2010 6:25 pm

natselrox wrote:
LIFE wrote:How about education. There's a correlation between overpopulation and education. And it's a long-term solution.

ETA: Just noticed Jan proposed something similar.


I think you mean 'inverse correlation'.


Yes, sir!
"If you think education is expensive, try the cost of ignorance" - Derek Bok
"Words that make questions may not be questions at all" - Neil deGrasse Tyson
User avatar
LIFE
Site Admin
 
Name: Bernhard
Posts: 7152
Age: 40
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#83  Postby amorrow » May 08, 2010 6:28 pm

aspire1670 wrote:
amorrow wrote:
Jan wrote:The population would likely be reduced if all the women around the world had free access to secular education and total control over their reproductive organs, including contraception and abortion on demand.


I married the most accomplished and privileged female that would have me. I have one offspring - a female - and she is thriving. Tell me: where I have erred? Where have I engaged in gender snobbery?


Stalking women?



I assert that I have not stalked people and neither did I harass them. However, the make the best move: to put your hand upon a piece, make your move and let go, you should probably look at the *entire* chessboard - the entire context. Some have perceived such as themselves being singled out and such as a violation of their privacy and lah-de-dah. As Lincoln put it: you cannot please (or, did say "fool"?) all the people all the time. Feh.
User avatar
amorrow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andrew Morrow
Posts: 53
Age: 59
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#84  Postby amorrow » May 08, 2010 6:31 pm

Jan wrote:The population would likely be reduced if all the women around the world had free access to secular education and total control over their reproductive organs, including contraception and abortion on demand.


Bravo. But how to get there in a timely fashion? That is not easy. I am doing what I can in my limited lifetime. Again: http://www.thermo4thermo.org/ . Am I here to destroy the world or preserve the best about it?
User avatar
amorrow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andrew Morrow
Posts: 53
Age: 59
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#85  Postby Sityl » May 08, 2010 6:35 pm

amorrow wrote:
aspire1670 wrote:
amorrow wrote:
Jan wrote:The population would likely be reduced if all the women around the world had free access to secular education and total control over their reproductive organs, including contraception and abortion on demand.


I married the most accomplished and privileged female that would have me. I have one offspring - a female - and she is thriving. Tell me: where I have erred? Where have I engaged in gender snobbery?


Stalking women?



I assert that I have not stalked people and neither did I harass them. However, the make the best move: to put your hand upon a piece, make your move and let go, you should probably look at the *entire* chessboard - the entire context. Some have perceived such as themselves being singled out and such as a violation of their privacy and lah-de-dah. As Lincoln put it: you cannot please (or, did say "fool"?) all the people all the time. Feh.


Slightly OT, but I liked reading that cause it was like an acid trip or what a schizophrenic might say when channeling stream of consciousness. I was gonna suggest maybe it was like that because the writer speaks in a different language, but (s)he's from the US.

I didn't understand anything, but it's like reading the jaberwocky. It doesnt HAVE to make sense to appreciate it.
Stephen Colbert wrote:Now, like all great theologies, Bill [O'Reilly]'s can be boiled down to one sentence - 'There must be a god, because I don't know how things work.'


Image
User avatar
Sityl
 
Name: Ser Sityllan Payne
Posts: 5131
Age: 39
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#86  Postby natselrox » May 08, 2010 6:36 pm

LIFE wrote:
natselrox wrote:
LIFE wrote:How about education. There's a correlation between overpopulation and education. And it's a long-term solution.

ETA: Just noticed Jan proposed something similar.


I think you mean 'inverse correlation'.


Yes, sir!


Just acting smart, you know! *adjusts collar*
When in perplexity, read on.

"A system that values obedience over curiosity isn’t education and it definitely isn’t science"
User avatar
natselrox
 
Posts: 10037
Age: 109
Male

India (in)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#87  Postby Emmeline » May 08, 2010 7:19 pm

amorrow wrote:
Jan wrote:The population would likely be reduced if all the women around the world had free access to secular education and total control over their reproductive organs, including contraception and abortion on demand.


I married the most accomplished and privileged female that would have me. I have one offspring - a female - and she is thriving. Tell me: where I have erred? Where have I engaged in gender snobbery?

I didn't say you had.
Emmeline
 
Posts: 10401

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: World population

#88  Postby amorrow » May 08, 2010 7:32 pm

I know what I am in the mood to do: I wanna tease ya. I want say that in those videos, the red-haired person is been a mean bully and that we should yank her license to practice medicine and lah-de-dah, etc. But that is waste of time. She is a good guy. She is smart and she is trying to help. Let us at least settle on that. OK?

What does progress look like? Let me assert that progress looks like transparency. It looks like

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society

Does that make Dr. Brin a voyeur bad guy or something? I jerk off. I have a daughter on his planet and she is 16.5 years old and her father is declaring that he jerks off and lah-de-dah. I leave her the hell out of this. I want truth than remains after all of this other hubris and sophomoric B.S. I want a plan that the "spirit" of JFK can cringe with jealousy about. I want to eclipse the Apollo Space Program with something *useful*.

ILS. ILS. ILS. If my faculties serve me right: bingo, bingo, bingo.

My 16.5 year-old daughter might still be off-limits, but my mother is not. She is still alive, living independently and only her info only recently came online:

http://ngb.chebucto.org/C1935/35-concept-hbr-hm.shtml

My mother is nee Laura Marie Kenny. Bingo. Irish Roman Catholic Bingo Box as if it were her own uterus from which I emerged. Dwelling 366, Family 370. Ha ha ha.

http://www.mmplasticsinc.net/images/lar ... go_box.jpg
User avatar
amorrow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andrew Morrow
Posts: 53
Age: 59
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#89  Postby aspire1670 » May 08, 2010 8:15 pm

amorrow wrote:
aspire1670 wrote:
amorrow wrote:
Jan wrote:The population would likely be reduced if all the women around the world had free access to secular education and total control over their reproductive organs, including contraception and abortion on demand.


I married the most accomplished and privileged female that would have me. I have one offspring - a female - and she is thriving. Tell me: where I have erred? Where have I engaged in gender snobbery?


Stalking women?



I assert that I have not stalked people and neither did I harass them. However, the make the best move: to put your hand upon a piece, make your move and let go, you should probably look at the *entire* chessboard - the entire context. Some have perceived such as themselves being singled out and such as a violation of their privacy and lah-de-dah. As Lincoln put it: you cannot please (or, did say "fool"?) all the people all the time. Feh.

:jawdrop:

Perhaps you should appeal your convictions? All of them. :lol:
psikeyhackr wrote: Physics is not rhetorical pseudo-logic crap.

I removed this signature at the request of another member.
aspire1670
 
Posts: 1454
Age: 71
Male

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: World population

#90  Postby amorrow » May 08, 2010 8:40 pm

aspire1670 wrote:
amorrow wrote:
aspire1670 wrote:
amorrow wrote:
Jan wrote:The population would likely be reduced if all the women around the world had free access to secular education and total control over their reproductive organs, including contraception and abortion on demand.


I married the most accomplished and privileged female that would have me. I have one offspring - a female - and she is thriving. Tell me: where I have erred? Where have I engaged in gender snobbery?


Stalking women?



I assert that I have not stalked people and neither did I harass them. However, the make the best move: to put your hand upon a piece, make your move and let go, you should probably look at the *entire* chessboard - the entire context. Some have perceived such as themselves being singled out and such as a violation of their privacy and lah-de-dah. As Lincoln put it: you cannot please (or, did say "fool"?) all the people all the time. Feh.

:jawdrop:

Perhaps you should appeal your convictions? All of them. :lol:


Toché! You are sooo amusing. Let return to the matter at hand: what does *real* progress look like? You tell me: is this progress or is this just being mean?

http://knol.google.com/k/elizabeth-morgan
User avatar
amorrow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andrew Morrow
Posts: 53
Age: 59
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#91  Postby aspire1670 » May 08, 2010 8:48 pm

amorrow wrote:

Toché! You are sooo amusing. Let return to the matter at hand: what does *real* progress look like? You tell me: is this progress or is this just being mean?

http://knol.google.com/k/elizabeth-morgan

Image
psikeyhackr wrote: Physics is not rhetorical pseudo-logic crap.

I removed this signature at the request of another member.
aspire1670
 
Posts: 1454
Age: 71
Male

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: World population

#92  Postby amorrow » May 08, 2010 8:53 pm

aspire1670 wrote:
amorrow wrote:

Toché! You are sooo amusing. Let return to the matter at hand: what does *real* progress look like? You tell me: is this progress or is this just being mean?

http://knol.google.com/k/elizabeth-morgan

Image


Wait. That is just fiction. Try some fact. Here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kncQ_rLjf50

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcRN-GQXAtE

Do we just say "boo hoo" or do we investigate the crap out of those errors and at least *learn* something? Let me pose it this way: we already paid tuition...why not at least go to class? What are you afraid of? That your mind will be informed and thereby impregnated with knowledge that you did not already have? Huh? How did Goodman put it in the "Big Lebowski?"...

The Dude: He's fragile, very fragile.
Walter: I did not know that.

http://www.billionquotes.com/index.php/The_Big_Lebowski

That or thereabouts. I prostrate myself before you now. Please! Tell me something that I do not already know and you will find it in my manuscript promptly. Please.
User avatar
amorrow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andrew Morrow
Posts: 53
Age: 59
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#93  Postby amorrow » May 08, 2010 9:31 pm

aspire1670 wrote:
amorrow wrote:
aspire1670 wrote:
amorrow wrote:
Jan wrote:The population would likely be reduced if all the women around the world had free access to secular education and total control over their reproductive organs, including contraception and abortion on demand.


I married the most accomplished and privileged female that would have me. I have one offspring - a female - and she is thriving. Tell me: where I have erred? Where have I engaged in gender snobbery?


Stalking women?


I assert that I have not stalked people and neither did I harass them. However, the make the best move: to put your hand upon a piece, make your move and let go, you should probably look at the *entire* chessboard - the entire context. Some have perceived such as themselves being singled out and such as a violation of their privacy and lah-de-dah. As Lincoln put it: you cannot please (or, did say "fool"?) all the people all the time. Feh.

:jawdrop:

Perhaps you should appeal your convictions? All of them. :lol:


Ha ha. Here is the man:

http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Kurt_Kumli

Well. He is no dummy, but all he could do was shovel me through the system. Feh. Let us try it this way.. I feel like a optician: Is this worse or better?

http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Alan_Winston
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Anita_Baldwin
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Ari_Cartun
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/B ... ist_Church
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Bob_Fraley
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Carly_Fiorina
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Chris_Karabats
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Chris_Morrow
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Cooltown
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Digital_DNA
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Elizabeth_Lee
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Elliot_Winslow
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Elmwood_Complex
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Hilary_Beech
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Joan_Baez
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/John_Hennessy
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Joyce_Uggla
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Julie_Kohl
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/LaDoris_Cordell
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Larry_Page
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Laura_McIntosh
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Laura_Wilson
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Lynne_Johnson
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Michael_Martello
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Paitence_Young
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Rebecca_Baum
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Sally_Lieber
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Scott_Vermeer
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Scotty_McLennan
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Sergey_Brin
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Stefan_Roever
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Steve_Jobs

Somewhere, inside something, there is a rush of greatness
Who knows what stands in front of us?
I fashion my future on films in space
Silence tells me secretly everything, everything

You are but a mosaic of atoms with a mind and your thoughts, nay, your ideas are but the product of complex neurological process. What would the adults of 1900 say about our nuclear arsenals? Oh, they would not them very much! The same goes for, say, modern chemotherapy. Is ILS really so very awful? Is it dumb? Does it create a false dichotomy in some way that escaped my attention? Let me suggest that we are species that is already distress. The fix is somewhat obvious and the objective is to make the fix as professional and trustworthy and gentle as possible. Again, I suggest that even a well-educated population seems likely to result in unsustainable levels of population.
User avatar
amorrow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andrew Morrow
Posts: 53
Age: 59
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#94  Postby amorrow » May 09, 2010 4:45 pm

I do not want to change the subject, but I want to pose what I think is a similar question about rationalism. When it comes to designing a rational constitution for a nation, should you design into that constitution any mention of the family unit. The reason I bring that up is because the U.S. Constitution does not mention the notion of "family", but the Irish constitution does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituti ... mily_units

I would suggest that it is irrational to try to enshrine the notion of the family unit into a national constitution. In the USA, we have the State structure that we leave that matter to. U.S. States have family law court structures. Of course, in the US, we have the two-level system of Nation and State, so am I merely playing a shell game? Is it rational that Ireland has this in their national constitution?

Article 41.1.1˚ of the constitution recognises the family as “the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law” and guarantees its protection by the State.

Is it rational to have such wording in a national constitution? I suggest that Ireland does so because of its religiosity about the Roman Catholic church. Is the notion that it is strictly rational or irrational a false dichotomy?

The reason I bring this up because I realize that, at first, ILS does not sound rational, but I continue to assert that if you can operate the lottery in a trustworthy way, then you end up with a better overall quality-of-lief for the entire society. The infertile are simply glad to be alive at all and that life has meaning in itself anyway. That current system strikes me as *ever* stabilizing world population not so much because so many people are so very busy with their satisfying education and careers that they have no time for children, but rather because they are so uncertain about the future quality-of-life of our society that feel it is unkind to have children in that situation.
User avatar
amorrow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andrew Morrow
Posts: 53
Age: 59
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Infantile Lottery Sterilization

#95  Postby amorrow » May 09, 2010 5:37 pm

Please ignore the following two lines because I started a second thread in the "Nontheism" forum but it was merged back into this one.

I started a thread about a week ago here:
social-sciences/world-population-t6200.html

In this thread, I want to talk about a scary-sounding thing. When you were born, your father emitted about 300 million spermatozoa and only one of them was you (the rest were possible siblings, etc.). I have been working on an idea called Infantile Lottery Sterilization (ILS) that, while at first is sounds abhorrent, I would suggest is progress in human civilization, but I admit that it is *not* obvious at first. When you were created, there were 300 million of the things that were human and alive and only one survived. That is a rational description of what happened (without getting into the rest of the details). That process was mindless but deterministic. You parents did not have to make the choice of "Which one?".

The essential premise of ILS is that a lottery (a the sort of "Bingo box" that U.S. State lotteries for cash use) is a rational basis for such scary-sounding decision making. One historic fact that I recently noticed was that a son-in-law of Oliver Cromwell, Henry Ireton,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Iret ... _and_death

"Ireton's regiment was chosen by lot to accompany Cromwell in his Irish campaign."

How could they ever have made such a decision "by lot"? How could you ever rationally decide to simply let the process of what went on in your mother's uterus to simply proceed without actively choosing which spermatozoa to use (Of course, I am aware that such is simply the natural easy way, but I bear with me). While, to the best of my knowledge, a U.S. Army-style decision is *not* to make such a decision as what went on with Ireton to be done "by lot" because we think that an experienced human administrator will make a better decision, could we allow a trustworthy lottery to make such an important decision as which humans we might find the need to subject to compulsory sterilization?

I would imagine that an ILS system would have to look like a U.S. Lottery for cash, which uses a clear plastic "Bingo Box" filled with numbered ping pong balls. Is that *really* a sort-of mindless "god" that could be trusted with such an otherwise hearth-wrenching decision? Could such a system really become a "rationalist's version of god"? Please let us not talk about it sounding like eugenics. I want to talk about how you would otherwise make a rational decision. I want to talk about how you might allow a Bingo Box in very controlled circumstances to become a mindless benevolent dictator that we might all be able to acclimate to. I have a web site about some of my (less than half-baked) ideas at

http://www.thermo4thermo.org/

Ireton's fate was that he died on campaign, but since it was done by lottery, there was nobody to blame. It resulted in a overall stable system. What I am trying to explore is what else can be done by lottery that can rationally result in a stable, trustworthy system and does not rob life of its meaning. I consider gambling to be vice, but I especially want to take into consideration religious people who might otherwise insist that such decisions can only properly be made by a human (or god-like) mind.
Last edited by amorrow on May 09, 2010 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
amorrow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andrew Morrow
Posts: 53
Age: 59
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: World population

#96  Postby aspire1670 » May 09, 2010 8:54 pm

Image
psikeyhackr wrote: Physics is not rhetorical pseudo-logic crap.

I removed this signature at the request of another member.
aspire1670
 
Posts: 1454
Age: 71
Male

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: World population

#97  Postby amorrow » May 09, 2010 9:37 pm

aspire1670 wrote:Image


I have thought about that. It is ugly, but what if some place like Haiti just got much worse and the USA withheld aid until they finally caved and say "OK, we will try ILS for 20 years." Or I dunno, maybe Iceland. I think it would have to be at a national level and it think it is just cowardice and stupidity (and maybe religion) that keeps anybody from trying. If the USA were to use some proposition like that (coercion, tough love or whatever you want to call it), I do not think that it would necessarily have to be because of racial prejudice or evil. Could such a system be developed in some place like the USA such that it works but the USA itself is to spoiled and wimpy to actually try it on itself but some other country could say, without coercion: "Thank you for the invention and the technology. You are too silly-ass wimpy to try it on yourselves but we are, as a society, more rational and we recognize that the system works. We will voluntarily try it upon ourselves." I think that it is valid to question: how did the USA invent its national constitution or nukes or the Apollo space program? It is because they have the attention span and the guts to try. A lot of things have to work out correctly and be not corrupted, but please ponder that it still might be possible to construct a stable, trustworthy system that actually works.

If I recall correctly, an elite Roman unit was part of the encirclement at the Battle Cannae and managed to, as an elite unit, hack its way out of the trap, maybe including Scipio Africanus leaving the rest of the Army behind to perish. They got out because they basically had a plan (and better training, equipment, leadership, etc.) and stuck together and got out of that mess. I guess my question is: is there any peacetime system that you can trust? Hospitals? Universities? (Obviously yes, so the question is: how did they make the such systems trustworthy?) You know, that is, by design, balanced, stable, fair and transparent and thereby trustworthy? Are the police in your country corrupt? Do your judges take monetary bribes? If so, then I can understand how you might see the situation at hopeless. I live in country where the leadership clean and the system if fair and I assert that we can get there from here. Is a game of Bingo always rigged and a cheat (I do not mean that they do not make a profit, I mean where it is corrupt). Can you run such a Lottery that is not corrupted? I assert that you can. I assert that you can design a system with checks and balances and transparency where cheating is unlikely to succeed.

Again, return to the door handle on the exit door of the jetliner....why do not more cuckoo people just go an pull it to go off to some sort of nirvana and take a bunch of other people with them? They do not. I am not talking about overt terrorism. I am talking about cuing people for stability. Why do they not go crazy more often? How did they get people, even crazy people to almost all of the time just sit in their seats and let the jetliner proceed on its way? Let me suggest that such does not happen by accident. It is by design. It is by rational, godless design. My reaction in relation to ideas about effective population control are: I gotta get me some that and that will be really sweet. ILS is just my best idea in that department. So far.

I am going to curate "rationality" over at

http://wiki.rational-skepticism.org/ind ... e_articles

for a while. Please! Challenge me when you might suspect that I am just playing shell game (or whatever). Tell me when I am just some Las Vegas scam or a Nazi or facile science fiction or whatever. It is not my intention to declare by fiat what is rational and what is not. It is my intention to get you, dear reader, to see such for yourself or perhaps to prove me to that I am wrong with your trite one-liners. I expect that Dawkins would approve of my approach and I admit that I am inspired by his latest book. I am inspired by having met him, but I intend to best him. I do not intend for my species to slop off into a really low quality-of-life for its residents in the not-so-very-distant future. Well, not on *this* planet anyway.
User avatar
amorrow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andrew Morrow
Posts: 53
Age: 59
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#98  Postby amorrow » May 10, 2010 3:32 am

Durro wrote:A pig in a dress is still a pig.


I conclude that "pig in a dress" is but a trite and facile one-liner. My intention with ILS is not good genetics (eugenics), it is good population dynamics. It is stability which is rational and, I suggest, progress.

Here is some free advice: Drive safely and if you have any children, please ensure that their vaccinations are up-to-date. Ignoring ILS for a moment; is that advice rational? If it is, then that alone does not make ILS rational or progress, but such is my intention. It may be that to help get ILS going, it will be administered by a special group of childless (or who have perhaps only one or two children), voluntarily sterilized people who have been determined to be trustworthy. They are unlikely to become some sort of permanent priesthood: they are just going to get the process going. They are rational, trustworthy people who care enough to say "OK. Me first."
User avatar
amorrow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andrew Morrow
Posts: 53
Age: 59
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#99  Postby amorrow » May 11, 2010 4:47 pm

I am going to continue on this idea over at

http://wiki.rational-skepticism.org/ind ... e_articles

In particular, I am working on a Rational Affirmation

http://wiki.rational-skepticism.org/ind ... ffirmation

which is just an attempt to affirm rationalism about anything. It is possible to say that some important historical events and some important human behaviors are either rational or not rational.
User avatar
amorrow
Banned User
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Andrew Morrow
Posts: 53
Age: 59
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: World population

#100  Postby Corneel » May 11, 2010 5:32 pm

Apart from the ethical problems already highlighted, the main problem is that countries were ILS could be applied mostly don't need it (low birth rates) and in those that need it (high birth rates), it would be difficult to apply.
"Damn it! Why am I arguing shit on the internet again!?"
"'cuz sometimes you just need a cumshot of stupid to the face?"

(from Something Positive)

The best movie theme ever

Ceterum censeo Praesidem Anguimanum esse demovendum
User avatar
Corneel
 
Posts: 1754
Age: 49
Male

Country: Mali
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Social Sciences & Humanities

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest