India and China - Growing too fast?

[The Dark One]

^ When you put it like that' date=' the whole planet would be better off without humans.

[/quote']

 

It really would honestly. We've had a worse impact on earth than a good one (however I don't fully believe the "Global Warming" theory).

 

True that.

 

I think George Carlin really nailed it in his sketch. XD

 

The whole planet wouldn't be better off without humans. The whole planet doesn't care. It will adapt. Hell, compared to some of the volcanic activity that has happened in the past (I mean far back), what we're doing to the air is nothing. Earth will pull through anything and everything that we can do to it or on it. The part of the equation that might not pull through is the human life aspect. By destroying the environment as we know it, we're only destroying ourselves. Earth doesn't care.

 

However, I do agree that we need to give China it's chance to get through the industrial age, while perhaps speeding up the process a bit. If we can pressure China into slowly implementing laws regarding the environment, and to keep upping the restrictions, they'll be doing fine in no time at all. However, at some point there's going to have be that overhaul, where China stops using Fossil Fuels, polluting, etc. And no matter where or when that happens, that's going to be big and painful. In a way it seems best to get it over with now, but seriously, the U.S. as yet to go through said overhaul, we can hardly expect China to. =]

[「tea.leaf」]

^ True that.

 

Maybe the planet needed processed petroleum products, you know? Like, "HOLY CARP, I has black stuff under my skin. D:<" And then we came along, took it out, and made fantabulous things with it.

[Static]

Subjective matter is subjective.

[Cyber Altair]

>.>

 

there is only one thing to do:

 

Start buying condoms, it's actually cheaper >.>

[Huntar!]

Are they growing too fast? Or are we growing to slowly? That is the question we must ask ourselves.

[Willieh]

Are they growing too fast? Or are we growing to slowly? That is the question we must ask ourselves.

 

That's a bad question to ask ourselves.

 

When it's deduced to a couple countries vs. the rest of the world, it's obvious that the problem originates from that of the singled out countries. We are growing at a normal pace, and they are raising their population like hamsters or some sheet.

[Huntar!]

what gives us the authority to say that we are growing at a good, or stable rate? Maybe the Indians and Chinese believe that they are growing at a stable, steady rate, and we are growing too slow to keep up.

[Willieh]

what gives us the authority to say that we are growing at a good' date=' or stable rate? Maybe the Indians and Chinese believe that they are growing at a stable, steady rate, and we are growing too slow to keep up.

[/quote']

 

Sorry. But majority rules.

[Static]

what gives us the authority to say that we are growing at a good' date=' or stable rate? Maybe the Indians and Chinese believe that they are growing at a stable, steady rate, and we are growing too slow to keep up.

[/quote']

 

Sorry. But majority rules.

 

Except not really. That's some Ancient Greek Political Bullshit right there.

[Huntar!]

Last time I checked, the Chinese and Indians were the majority.

[Willieh]

Last time I checked' date=' the Chinese and Indians were the majority.

[/quote']

Last time I checked, the total amount of people in the rest of the world (other than China and India) outweighs the number of people in China and India.

 

@ Static: It's common sense. Of course majority rules. It's the way almost every government is set up. (Except for communism in which place the Government rules everything; which I really don't feel like debating with you about.) Look at the way a court room is set up. You have a jury. They decide. :/

[Static]

Last time I checked' date=' the Chinese and Indians were the majority.

[/quote']

Last time I checked, the total amount of people in the rest of the world (other than China and India) outweighs the number of people in China and India.

 

@ Static: It's common sense. Of course majority rules. It's the way almost every government is set up. (Except for communism in which place the Government rules everything; which I really don't feel like debating with you about.) Look at the way a court room is set up. You have a jury. They decide. :/

 

That's Westernized Thinking' date=' Comrade[/quote']

 

This is not an argument of government, its an argument of whether or not numbers are important. They're not, through western perspective, power is much more relevant than numbers, efficiency reduces the need for numbers, so that power can be obtained with less of them. Power is beyond majority. Its also important to think about the first thing you countered, perception is relevant, you can count a Chinese life as equal to 5 other persons, and that makes the Chinese outnumber the rest. However, power is the key determiner in determining what is right, and when power is handed to a democracy, then the numbers are applied.

 

Everything is shot around in that horribly crafted paragraph, but you get what I mean.

[Huntar!]

eh.. you have a point, but not for long... since every second, 5 people are born, 2 chinese, 1 indian, and the other two are randomly assorted throughout the rest of the world. ...

 

This is a stupid arguement over who has the majority rule to decide if China and India are growing too fast...

 

 

Maybe in the chinese view of things, if the rest of the world just caught up, then there would be no 'too fast'.

[Willieh]

^ You seem to have thought this out very well. But you fail to realize that power is nothing. Impact is more or less how i look at what's important. You are supposed to look at things as to which one will effect or change our world the most. Power is just a term. Power doesn't even exist unless you are talking about physical strength and ability. Power is a hypothetical existence we use to describe people that are nine feet up their own asses.

 

I look at things the way one might look at things if he was a mix between a marxist and a republican. I look at it for the greater good and I don't stop to think about the small population that might catch the shitty end of the deal in this scenario.

 

This wouldn't necessarily mean an ethinicity, or a religion, or an economical standpoint, but just the amount.

 

The masses are much more important than the individual.

 

Learn this.

[Static]

^ You seem to have thought this out very well. But you fail to realize that power is nothing. Impact is more or less how i look at what's important. You are supposed to look at things as to which one will effect or change our world the most. Power is just a term. Power doesn't even exist unless you are talking about physical strength and ability. Power is a hypothetical existence we use to describe people that are nine feet up their own asses.

 

I look at things the way one might look at things if he was a mix between a marxist and a republican. I look at it for the greater good and I don't stop to think about the small population that might catch the shitty end of the deal in this scenario.

 

This wouldn't necessarily mean an ethinicity' date=' or a religion, or an economical standpoint, but just the amount.

 

The masses are much more important than the individual.

 

Learn this.

[/quote']

 

That is only true in societies that are Democratic, where the majority are brainwashed into that mentality. As if the King of Siam is worth less than two of his peasants in his own domain, and this can be replaced with many powerful men / less powerful men in our world.

 

Saudi Prince vs 2 Arabs residing in Saudi Arabia.

George W Bush vs 2 in service Secret Service members.

Hitler vs 6 million Jews in the Nazi Eurpoe era.

Tyrannosaurus Rex vs 2 baby triceratops.

[Willieh]

^ You seem to have thought this out very well. But you fail to realize that power is nothing. Impact is more or less how i look at what's important. You are supposed to look at things as to which one will effect or change our world the most. Power is just a term. Power doesn't even exist unless you are talking about physical strength and ability. Power is a hypothetical existence we use to describe people that are nine feet up their own asses.

 

I look at things the way one might look at things if he was a mix between a marxist and a republican. I look at it for the greater good and I don't stop to think about the small population that might catch the shitty end of the deal in this scenario.

 

This wouldn't necessarily mean an ethinicity' date=' or a religion, or an economical standpoint, but just the amount.

 

The masses are much more important than the individual.

 

Learn this.

[/quote']

 

That is only true in societies that are Democratic, where the majority are brainwashed into that mentality. As if the King of Siam is worth less than two of his peasants in his own domain, and this can be replaced with many powerful men / less powerful men in our world.

 

Saudi Prince vs 2 Arabs residing in Saudi Arabia.

George W Bush vs 2 in service Secret Service members.

Hitler vs 6 million Jews in the Nazi Eurpoe era.

Tyrannosaurus Rex vs 2 baby triceratops.

That was a joke right? Seriously...What is communism? Your entire political view is that the mass should be brainwashed to be how the government wants them.

 

You ignored the key of my argument. My argument was that the mass is more important than the individual.

[Static]

^ You seem to have thought this out very well. But you fail to realize that power is nothing. Impact is more or less how i look at what's important. You are supposed to look at things as to which one will effect or change our world the most. Power is just a term. Power doesn't even exist unless you are talking about physical strength and ability. Power is a hypothetical existence we use to describe people that are nine feet up their own asses.

 

I look at things the way one might look at things if he was a mix between a marxist and a republican. I look at it for the greater good and I don't stop to think about the small population that might catch the shitty end of the deal in this scenario.

 

This wouldn't necessarily mean an ethinicity' date=' or a religion, or an economical standpoint, but just the amount.

 

The masses are much more important than the individual.

 

Learn this.

[/quote']

 

That is only true in societies that are Democratic, where the majority are brainwashed into that mentality. As if the King of Siam is worth less than two of his peasants in his own domain, and this can be replaced with many powerful men / less powerful men in our world.

 

Saudi Prince vs 2 Arabs residing in Saudi Arabia.

George W Bush vs 2 in service Secret Service members.

Hitler vs 6 million Jews in the Nazi Eurpoe era.

Tyrannosaurus Rex vs 2 baby triceratops.

That was a joke right? Seriously...What is communism? Your entire political view is that the mass should be brainwashed to be how the government wants them.

 

You ignored the key of my argument. My argument was that the mass is more important than the individual.

 

I disagree, though I find the "leading" tactic you used in that last sentence to be an excellent usage of written language.

 

What relevance are the masses when they are not given the right to speak? In America, majority is relevant, because that is where power is given to them. Do you really think that we can apply this to every place in the world, ones where kings and Tyrants have a trained elite ready and able to force the majority of the civillian's back into what the king wants them to do?

 

That's what I'm trying to say. Oh, and on the Communism thing, it is not brainwashing to accept what is the truth, that you are no more a man than any other man no matter what the circumstances. It is not brainwashing to be given a decent way of thinking that helps everyone else as much as it helps you.

[barsam]

Grows fast and the world isnt gonna get bigger. Over population is the cause of destruction aswell

[「tea.leaf」]

Grows fast and the world isnt gonna get bigger. Over population is the cause of destruction aswell

 

Start by killing the less productive then: mentally/physically/emotionally disabled and the terminally ill!

[Deucalion]

They have, to an extent, the right to life. However, to speed things up, euthanasia should be made legal everywhere, ditto for abortions (before 24 weeks, only though. After 24 weeks, the foetus's brain has evolved enough for conscious thought, making it human and deserving of human rights.) A one child policy would be enforced, and there would be a serious fine for breaking it. I'd also make contraception and sex ed much better taught at schools.

 

Ah, if I was dictator of the world.

[Static]

Grows fast and the world isnt gonna get bigger. Over population is the cause of destruction aswell

 

Start by killing the less productive then: mentally/physically/emotionally disabled and the terminally ill!

 

You forgot the persons who are not capable of accepting the fact that society needs to change drastically, to a more Utopian style existence, darwinists, the peitous, and the overly self aware.

[「tea.leaf」]

Grows fast and the world isnt gonna get bigger. Over population is the cause of destruction aswell

 

Start by killing the less productive then: mentally/physically/emotionally disabled and the terminally ill!

 

You forgot the persons who are not capable of accepting the fact that society needs to change drastically' date=' to a more Utopian style existence, darwinists, the peitous, and the overly self aware.

[/quote']

 

You can't kill everyone at the same time; baby steps, baby steps.

[Static]

Grows fast and the world isnt gonna get bigger. Over population is the cause of destruction aswell

 

Start by killing the less productive then: mentally/physically/emotionally disabled and the terminally ill!

 

You forgot the persons who are not capable of accepting the fact that society needs to change drastically' date=' to a more Utopian style existence, darwinists, the peitous, and the overly self aware.

[/quote']

 

You can't kill everyone at the same time; baby steps, baby steps.

 

Sterilization of the general public. We don't need to kill anyone, just only let certain people have children, and of course, euthanizing the elderly goes without saying.

[「tea.leaf」]

Grows fast and the world isnt gonna get bigger. Over population is the cause of destruction aswell

 

Start by killing the less productive then: mentally/physically/emotionally disabled and the terminally ill!

 

You forgot the persons who are not capable of accepting the fact that society needs to change drastically' date=' to a more Utopian style existence, darwinists, the peitous, and the overly self aware.

[/quote']

 

You can't kill everyone at the same time; baby steps, baby steps.

 

Sterilization of the general public. We don't need to kill anyone, just only let certain people have children, and of course, euthanizing the elderly goes without saying.

 

Of course.

 

Although, I still want to be able to have orgies though... >..>

[Static]

Grows fast and the world isnt gonna get bigger. Over population is the cause of destruction aswell

 

Start by killing the less productive then: mentally/physically/emotionally disabled and the terminally ill!

 

You forgot the persons who are not capable of accepting the fact that society needs to change drastically' date=' to a more Utopian style existence, darwinists, the peitous, and the overly self aware.

[/quote']

 

You can't kill everyone at the same time; baby steps, baby steps.

 

Sterilization of the general public. We don't need to kill anyone, just only let certain people have children, and of course, euthanizing the elderly goes without saying.

 

Of course.

 

Although, I still want to be able to have orgies though... >..>

 

You would still be able to, you just wouldn't be able to get a facial with them. ;)

 

And of course, the intelligent part of the public would not be sterilized, and by no means would sexuality be removed.