|You're an anti-american swine!||critmass|
Jan 3, 2003 3:49 PM
|OH GOD, my paranoid mind is reeling. QUICK, I need a FOX fair and balanced soma fix!!!|
|Holy crap. Talk about paranoia||Kristin|
Jan 3, 2003 4:25 PM
|I like this statement, "The Earth is soon to become overloaded with people."
LOL. I think history teaches that population crisis' resolve themselves over time. My guess for the America's: Airborn virus. We are so germ crazy that its only a matter of time before ammune systems are non-existent. But any number of events will likely wipe out 10-20% of the population sometime in the next few hundred years. Its happened over and over again. Am I right?
|You're probably right.||czardonic|
Jan 3, 2003 4:36 PM
|Though I don't know how many will take comfort in this inevitable "resolution" to the problem.|
|So, could HIV be that virus?||cory|
Jan 6, 2003 9:20 AM
|It's not airborne yet, as far as we know, but it's constantly mutating, and in parts of Africa and Asia it's infected more than half of some populations (I read the other day that 90 percent of Thai prostitutes test positive; got no idea if that's true). Is this the first sign of the problem solving itself? Would it be smarter in the long run (looking down the millennia, not at next Tuesday) to let it run its course?|
|Heck, we don't need natural disasters for that...||Matno|
Jan 11, 2003 4:38 PM
|Birth control is taking care of it in the developed world. Even the United Nations now acknowledges that the greatest problem facing the western nations over the next few decades is population decline. Many countries, particularly in Europe, will have drastically reduced native populations in relatively short time. Some of them, like Germany, already have huge (and growing) immigrant populations (emigrant? I can never remember which is which!), and will continue to need them to fill job vacancies. Programs similar to Social Security will be in serious trouble if they don't. Imagine a whole generation of baby booming senior citizens with a drastically reduced younger population who can't afford to take care of them... Hey! That's happening here!|
Jan 6, 2003 7:54 AM
|Interesting but it reminds me of one of my (3) NY resolutions which is to try to get as much of my "news" from alterative sources. I'm not completely versed in the nuances of the TCA of 1996 but my sense is that it hasn't lowered my costs and that my choices have not necessarily been improved because of it. That was the argument for it, right? More choice, better service, lower costs. It'd be interesting to see if anyone on the board could argue it's merits because I'm all ears.
Another thing to thank Bill Clinton for I suppose.