I don't see why religion has anything to do with this, although I applaud this man for his take on religion. Homosexuality is natural - everything occurring on this planet is natural. Nature makes no mistakes, it dictates and changes trends. In this case, we are overpopulating the planet, our sperm count is dropping, and more developed nations are becoming asexual or homosexual. Look at Japan, it's a very populated nation, but they can't get their kids to marry, let alone have children - The Japanese youth is addicted to sex toys. It's all natural trend which may or may not revert, and only the feeble minded would bring religion and a 3000 year old book written totally out of context to an argument like this.

On a side note, my wife went to church about 6 months ago while she was visiting PA, and the main topic of the sermon was about how church men don't have sex with their women because they are addicted to porn.

Talk about hypocrisy...

In short, I know my homosexual neighbor is real and has feelings; I don't know if God exists, let alone worry about how God feels.

Euthanasia to deal with overpopulation would probably look more like this:

Add this to the list of dumb things I've heard today.

If the overpopulation problem were so bad that governments had to resort to killing people off, the LAST fucking thing they would do is create death roller coasters.

I pray that Dog will strike down every fundy (of all religions) at once. Takes care of overpopulation, wars, and many, many other wrongs of the world. Can you imagine the rational society we could build?

Probably caught in a city that is overpopulated with pigeons... and released near the border with a neighboring country on a day with a helpful breeze.

Random explosions do create things and order, they created my nephew and my niece.. Random explosions are whats to blame for overpopulation.

I guess when you come from a country with an overpopulation problem, the extreme loss of life isn't really that absurd.

"Hey! 480 people just died in the last 30 minutes from a crazed, homicidal replicating robot! Looks like the police department has a couple of job openings! Verah nice!"

They must've received the memo.

P.S. this was the first clip i ever posted, i think.

The other day someone wrote a letter to my local paper about how Muslims are breeding more than anyone else. The gist was that Muslims will take over the world simply by overpopulating it with their own culture.

I'm not worried about that at all. You know what would happen to the majority of Muslims from highly devout nations if they started trying to take over America? They would start only going to Church on holidays, not really pray anymore and basically just sit around watching TV like most other Americans.

Hey...we do seem to be having an overpopulation problem. Lets just hear this guy out.

>> ^mgittle:

>> ^Sniper007:

A widely held but incorrect view. Limited global population MUST be the desired outcome or humans will exceed the carrying capacity of the Earth. Relying on the promise of new technologies is a naive recipe for possible disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity
If you want to talk assumption, you're assuming that maximum relative wealth is the desired outcome. Pretty selfish, eh?
Baby boomers leaving the workforce is really only a problem because of Social Security and health care costs and an unbalanced worker to retiree ratio. That ratio will change over time and we'll probably have a period of austerity as it changes back to something resembling equilibrium. The baby boom being correlated with economic growth/decline is really not proof that increased population causes increased wealth. There are many other factors involved which have nothing to do with population.
Wealth is obviously not directly tied to population, or the United States wouldn't have vastly higher wealth with such a relatively low population density compared to the rest of the world. If you mean overall world wealth, perhaps that's true, since more people = more work = more promises to pay back debts, but when you're talking about a closed loop system, it's all relative. So, if you take the view that more world population means more poor people for rich countries to exploit, that would be true, but then you also have to assume infinite resources and an undamageable environment.


If there is a carrying capacity for the earth, humanity has not even come close to it. I'd say the limit is somewhere in the hundreds of trillions, based on the fact that it only takes 1/5 of a acre to feed an entire family a vegetarian diet. This is not a theoretical figure, it is currently being done. I'd say the earth is grossly underpopulated based on the obscene amount of lawn space (and golf courses) in existence.

Just drive somewhere (anywhere) for 10 miles, and tell me how much un-utilized, or under-utilized SPACE you see in your immediate vicinity. I'm not talking tilled, fertilized farmland. I'm talking empty parking lots, front lawns, abandoned buildings, etc. All those places need some human who is willing to engage in the proper behavior and responsibly utilize that space. The world is not overpopulated with bodies. It's 'over populated' with the wrong mindset and work ethic.

I didn't mean to imply that maximum relative wealth is a desired outcome. It is not.

I do agree, population growth is certainly NOT the only ingredient needed for an increase in sheer economic wealth. Though, for the families who engage in it, it can be the very definition and 'object' of their wealth and their increase in quality of life (though it may lead temporarily to a decrease in economic abundance). But the question of how to increase monetary wealth for most of the world is an entirely vain one that ought not to be entertained as it is relying on to many insidious assumptions.

It is sufficient to recognize that large families are NOT a plague, and go on living your own life as best as you know how. As to that discussion, ethical standards cannot be philosophically advanced by empirical data. Philosophy is inherently and necessarily theoretical.

I live in Pennsylvania where there is a vast overpopulation of deer. I've had a deer in my side yard. People here are smart enough to bring everything in side when they see a deer, let alone if there is a fawn present. How those people could leave pets outside is beyond me.

Side note: If that was my dog, I would have taken my baseball bat to the deers legs and bled that fucker slowly and ate its kid in front of it.

This is a unique discussion, because the solution is so self evident. Anyone who believes that overpopulation is a real problem, and behaves according to that belief, will remove themselves from the gene pool. Those who believe that overpopulation is a myth will quite literally rule the world. It is inevitable: the myth is self refuting.

Evolution has spoken. And if your not into evolution, go read Genesis 1:28.

Oh, and for a 'common sense' test, just drive through the country side. Though you may think that "'most' of the planet has been 'cleared' for human use" (is a golf course overpopulation?), consider the vast stretches of land that is not being used for food production or habitation. Also consider the massive amount of land that is 'lawn'. I mean for crying out loud, how the hell can the world be even close to over populated when you've got so much freaking space so close to home that is SO USELESS. Dig up your lawn and plant a GARDEN if you think the world is overpopulated. Oh, but no, the only solution is to convince others that they shouldn't procreate, or pass some law, or something. Give me a break.

Hurray for the overpopulation myth. Lets all adopt a one child policy, and follow China into a bright new future.

Overpopulation is not a myth; it is a very real and obvious fact.

And I am always suspect of someone who bashes environmentalists in one breath, and turns around to defend nuclear power--probably the dirtiest and most dangerous forms of power in existence--in the next breath.

Wasn't it the environmentalists who stood opposed to off-shore drilling?

Wasn't it the conservatives like Sarah Palin and John McCain who chanted "drill baby drill?"

Is that a myth, too?

Don't get me wrong... I think she's right. It might not be a problem I'll see in my lifetime, but overpopulation can definitely be a problem.

And yes, she is beautiful as well as intelligent, I'd love to spend my life with someone like her without ever having the goal of procreating. >> ^lore_weaver:

>> ^HugeJerk:
I want her to not have my babies.

Oh, and this. QFT.
Just because she's hawt and has a seksy accent, doesn't make her right