XPost: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt   
   fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: alt.society.liberalism   
      
   On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 Goo wrote:   
      
   >On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:41:20 -0200, dh@. wrote:   
   >   
   >>On Tue, 09 Dec 2008 Goo wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>Declining population means   
   >>>declining productivity, because the distribution of population changes:   
   >>>  you have too many old people and not enough young working people.   
   >>>   
   >>>But you're an ignorant fuckwitted cracker, and you can't possibly   
   >>>understand that kind of issue.   
   >>   
   >>    If you're right, Goo, I can see how it would have a bad impact.   
   >   
   >I am right.  You are an ignorant fuckwitted cracker, and you do not   
   >understand that kind of issue.   
      
       It's an easy enough concept Goober. You don't know if it's   
   correct or if there's more to it though Goob...you can't think in   
   depth about anything, and surely there are arguments the other   
   way that you're not aware of.   
      
   >>I'm sure there's a lot more to it than just that though.   
   >>   
   >>>>Thirty years ago people were worried that there were   
   >>>>already too many people on the planet. Now I'm guessing there   
   >>>>are more, and you're suggesting we're in danger of there becoming   
   >>>>too few?   
   >>>>   
   >>>>>The UN is concerned enough about this that they've pegged   
   >>>>>2050 as roughly the year in which the tipping point occurs.  Remember   
   >>>>>-- it only takes a few generations (all other things being equal) of   
   >>>>>low birth rates for this to happen.  As a rule, demographers agree   
   >>>>>this would NOT be a good thing for anybody.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>    It would have to be good for some people.   
   >>>   
   >>>No, it would not "have" to be good for anyone.   
   >>   
   >>    If not then it would almost certainly be a first, Goob, so it's   
   >>almost certain you're badly mistaken about that.   
   >   
   >It would not.   
      
       It would be good for some people Goober but as I pointed out   
   you can't think in depth enough to get a clue when it would be,   
   meaning you even suck at the basics of economics.   
      
   >>>>Why not the   
   >>>>population in general? Does it always need to be increasing?   
   >>>>How far can it go that direction? What about the people who   
   >>>>say there are too many already, and there have been for years?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)