Most troubling news in the US of A

[Bubbles]

in canada calling someone a jap or chinaman are racist slurs. even if you are referring to the country as a whole.

maybe if we didnt have the history of all the chinese people that died building our rail ways and how the term chinaman was used derogatorily during that time.
the same goes for the term jap, we have a history that includes all the japanese immigrants being rounded up and put into concentrations camps during WW2.

jap maybe.

chinaman. hell no.

thats like saying calling a mexican Mexican is racist.

[Ikku]

Perhaps we should remember (even though I was the one who brought it up) that it's not words that are racist, but the person using them with a certain intention that is racist.

[wgToonces]

What is anything?

[AbbyRoad]

in canada calling someone a jap or chinaman are racist slurs. even if you are referring to the country as a whole.

maybe if we didnt have the history of all the chinese people that died building our rail ways and how the term chinaman was used derogatorily during that time.
the same goes for the term jap, we have a history that includes all the japanese immigrants being rounded up and put into concentrations camps during WW2.

jap maybe.

chinaman. hell no.

thats like saying calling a mexican Mexican is racist.

your argument is weak
how about some supporting points?

Mexican is the proper title for someone from Mexico.
chinaman and jap are not the proper terms for people from those countries. so i do not see the comparison at all.

[weedguru_animal]

its geographically/society specific, andria. I live with a chinese chap, and he takes zero offence from me referring to his 'chinaman blood'...you are well aware of how much i adore words, and the power they hold. Both positively and negatively...Its just a case of me personally, needing to show some awareness of this fact, when i express myself. I have known many japanese who feel zero angst at been called 'a jap', as i have known plenty of chinese, who take zero offence, at me calling them 'the chinaman'. Whilst these terms can cause offence, in certain areas/countries, i tend to steer clear of them. The areas and countries, NOT the terms. The power of a society to affect and infect a creature mentally and emotionally, in terms of patriotism/nationalism, enthralls me. For instance... by blood, i am half sicilian, half english. I find it hard not to defend both groups! But at the same time, i am openly vicious towards massive portions of English and Sicilian. Yes, that is just me. and if anything, ikku's words, not bubble's, which are ALWAYS mainly silly and playful, have reminded me, that I should carefully consider the audience i am addressing...

[JokersAce]

Regardless of China being able to bankrupt the US, or not, as the case may be, they'd still fuck you at war. It'd be a fucking massacre. Imagine, the only nation able to call up a million man army within an hour? They'd be in america within 1 day and your rivers would run red.

History has proven that the nation with the best trained, armed, and led men are always the victors in battle. I can give countless examples where technologically more advanced forces beat the odds against superior numbers. History repeats itself. It may also be interesting to say on a tactical side that China does not even posess the ability to invade America, as their navy is virtually nil in comparison to most Western countries (let alone America's).


Regarding economics, the problem can best be resolved through increased taxation, something impossible to do in America, despite the fact that our tax rate is extremely low in comparison with most nations.

C+I+G+Xn = GDP
C= consumption, I = investment, G = government spending, Xn = net exports, GDP = Gross Domestic Product (how much the nation is producing within a given year)
The government spends more than it recieves, and it recieves only through taxation... when spending is greater than taxation, there is debt. One could level off the debt by decreasing spending as opposed to raising taxes, but when government spending decreases, job loss results ( it decreases GDP, as increases in GDP means more things are being produced, meaning more firms are hiring workers to produce), causing a whole fuckload more problems which I don't feel like going over... but considering that the government is essentially the biggest employer in the country (IIRC), it is extremely problematic as it could result in recession or depression. But hey that's capitalism!

[cutthecashflow]

Ikku, Google Thomas Malthus and you will see that population is just a trend. Countries like India will eventually level off as have the US and Western Europe (if you read the entire theory you will understand). China puts restrictions on the number of children that individuals can have, so what may seem like a lot of people now, will seem like much less in say fifty/sixty years (a long time to us, but a very short time in terms of other studies). If Africa was not plagued by a large amount of diseases they too would be on par with India and other countries that seem to have a large population growth. In fact, Africa does have a high birth rate, but there mortality rate is much higher than the rest of the world, hence keeping their population in check.

I imagine in the future (long term) that the population will eventually begin shrinking rather than increasing. Granted this will not occur for a significant time, it will still happen.

[Ikku]

CTCF I don't see what point you're trying to make. Yes populations follow trends and the trend is typically a logistic curve that levels out at the carrying capacity. What my point is is that the carrying capacity is NOT a constant factor, eventually we use up too many resources and the carrying capacity drops. This will lead to rapid population shrinkage. Even if it's not too rapid, think about what population shrinkage means. The birth rates are either going down or the death rates are going up, and it's not going to be the birth rates that are effected.

Also at this point, the US has not leveled off in population growth. And the US is not going to restrict the amount of children its citizens can have like China. There's a lot of things to consider, but I'm positive that humanity will have a lot of problems crashing down on it in the next hundred or so years and a LOT of those problems can be linked to overpopulation.

[weedguru_animal]

fuck...those last few posts have truly strained my vodka drenched mental faculties...and still, although I like to conclude that I have understood everything perfectly clearly, i am in no position to confidently add to the debate...but please, people, keep it up, as even though I am sodden with russian spirits, i am damn sure that this information will prove exciting and useful to my more lucid mind...if i ever find it.

[Blunt Docta]

holy shit man, i just learned ALOT about how the world really is, thank you guys

[cutthecashflow]

CTCF I don't see what point you're trying to make. Yes populations follow trends and the trend is typically a logistic curve that levels out at the carrying capacity. What my point is is that the carrying capacity is NOT a constant factor, eventually we use up too many resources and the carrying capacity drops. This will lead to rapid population shrinkage. Even if it's not too rapid, think about what population shrinkage means. The birth rates are either going down or the death rates are going up, and it's not going to be the birth rates that are effected.

Also at this point, the US has not leveled off in population growth. And the US is not going to restrict the amount of children its citizens can have like China. There's a lot of things to consider, but I'm positive that humanity will have a lot of problems crashing down on it in the next hundred or so years and a LOT of those problems can be linked to overpopulation.

I guess I have no idea what point I was trying to make either. When I made the initial reply I was in between a bottle of Stoli and Black Label, but that is no excuse. To the subject at hand. I understand the logic you are presenting in your debate, but I don't think I agree that the birth rates will remain high along with an increase in the worlds overall mortality rate. Technology plays a large role in this logic. With the increase in information and technological services the ability to perform everyday functions becomes more and more efficient. This allows developed countries to perform more work with less resources (humans). Factories are run by robots, farms are run by massive machinery, and an entire company in California can be run by an individual who is computer savvy in Nebraska.

Naturally, countries that are in the transition process from the third world sector to that of a global power almost always undergo massive population growth. For example, India today is seen as a rising world power that has recently undergone the transition from that of a third world country. Hence the massive influx of newborn Indians into this world. The same thing occurred in the United State during the Industrial Revolution.

The United States population is currently not on the decline, but it will be in the next 15-30 years as the "Baby Boom Generation" begins to die off. The average number of children per household under 18 in the United States is currently 1.86. I do not know off the top of my head what this number was fifty years ago, but I can guarantee you that it was much higher than the current mark.

Likewise, evolution plays a large role in keeping the world population in check. This may sound callous and cruel, but if it were not for diseases like AIDS, malaria, African Trypanosomiasis, Cholera, and many others, then the world would be completely overpopulated today. Naturally the strongest will survive and this is the case with any animal, be it the honey bee or human beings.

As far as depleting our resources, well yea we have been burning through just about everything with no thought of the consequences, but recently the thought process has shifted to going green, recycling, and putting back into the environment what we take out of it. Granted, resources such as oil cannot be replaced, but human beings have survived in the past without gasoline and I am pretty sure that the increasing technological progress being made in the world today will provide us with an answer when that day comes. Hell I imagine governments from around the world have large amounts of think-tanks headed by renowned scientists thinking about this issue right now. However, the theory is quite simple, as Colin Campbell, the head of the depletion centre, said: "It's quite a simple theory and one that any beer drinker understands. The glass starts full and ends empty and the faster you drink it the quicker it's gone."

Actually now I have completely gone off topic and climbed a little too far out on the limb, but either way I don't share the same fears as you do about overpopulation. It is not something that is going to slow down anytime soon, but it is not something that needs to be feared. Could this be a devastating issue for some parts of the world? Yes, most definitely, but will it be a large issue for Westernized nations? No, I don't think so. Countries that follow similar logic to that of the United States have the ability to trade and market on a global level, while limiting the number of people that will be allowed into the country legally. These figures can be determined through a simple regressional analysis upon which I probably place too much confidence, but statistics is a science that we can narrow down to very very small alpha levels, hence increasing the probability that our science is correct.

I've gone on too long and most of it is rambling, but just a few thoughts from my corner of the world. I don't think your wrong Ikku and there are issues consisting of overpopulation that are detrimental to us as a planet, but stress kills and this is something to not get stressed out over.

[Ikku]

Birth rates in the undeveloped world will remain high because of the lack of education in those areas. The population will be poor and miserable, and continue to grow. Sure it may not directly effect us, does that mean we can ignore it and pretend like it's not a real problem? And let's also talk about the industrialized world...sure it's "going green" but just because we're in the process of trying to fix something doesn't mean we will be successful. That's being optimistic which is good, but we should prepare for the worst while hoping for the best. Carbon emissions will continue to rise. Even if that weren't true, even if we go green and fix it, the optimistic scenario for climate change still results in drastic reduction of diversity in the biosphere, ecological disasters, etc. At the same time, our energy is running out. These two problems go hand in hand, switching to clean energy sources should be our #1 priority, but even then it's too late to undo a lot of the damage that has been done.

Also, it's true the USA and other developed nations don't have to worry about population growth since we're at a pretty stable birth/death ratio. But we can expect to lose our dominance during the 21st century, if we really even still have any, since India and China massively outnumber us and will be more important on the world stage as well as more powerful with larger standing armies. So really, for the US to maintain its position in the world, needs MORE population growth, which is not going to happen thankfully.

Anyway I have no fear of the future, nor of death, and very very little stress. I actually have too little stress for my own good, I need more stress if anything so that I can get motivated.

[AbbyRoad]

TLDR


will make an attempt when im not hung over and grieving

[andriaSRH]

its geographically/society specific, andria.

Uh what?

I think you mean abby.

lol