Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Optimum human population

Optimum human population
May 12, 2010, 10:40:29 PM
Quote
An ‘optimum’ population, in dictionary terms, is the ‘best or most favourable’ population. But a dictionary cannot tell the whole story. Best for what purpose, and best according to which criteria? For OPT, a green think tank, an optimum population means, at its simplest, a population size which is environmentally sustainable in the long term, affords people a good quality of life, has adequate renewable and non-renewable resources necessary for its long-term survival and consumes or recycles them to ensure it will not compromise the long-term survival of its progeny.

Few would argue with the statement that ‘population cannot continue to increase indefinitely’. But how do we define the limit? Using a tool called Ecological Footprinting*, which provides a snapshot of human ecological impact under given circumstances, it is possible to throw some light on this question.

http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.optimum.html

But, why suffer mediocrity = equality in human form? Violate everyone's human rights by identifying by age 25 the performance history and natural traits of each person which then gives us a Go or a No Go to work with. Go gets to have 2-3 children. No Go may not bear offspring. This adjustable process gets us our optimum numbers.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Optimum human population
May 16, 2010, 12:15:41 AM
No Go may not bear offspring. This adjustable process gets us our optimum numbers.

But all he wants are everyday low prices at Walmart for his obese wife and her 12 kids...

Re: Optimum human population
May 16, 2010, 12:25:20 AM
Quote from: scourge
Go gets to have 2-3 children. No Go may not bear offspring. This adjustable process gets us our optimum numbers.
If you want optimum, it would be better to use a spectrum instead of a dichotamy.

Re: Optimum human population
May 16, 2010, 01:20:31 AM
The evaluation is a shades of gray spectrum. The dichotomy is where the bar is set on this spectrum during an instance in time.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Optimum human population
May 16, 2010, 01:56:27 AM
The evaluation is a shades of gray spectrum. The dichotomy is where the bar is set on this spectrum during an instance in time.
Yes, I understood your original post.  You concede that once evaluated, people are lumped into a dichotomy.  I'm saying, instead of lumping them into a dichotomy, use a spectrum (most likely a discrete one).  Super geniuses that are ultra-productive should have more children than people who are only productive and smart.  People who are sociopaths should be treated differently (shot) than people who are merely lazy or who could be "fixed" (smacked).

If you consider this critique nitpicking, please resort to full blown ad hominem, not mere condescension.

Re: Optimum human population
May 16, 2010, 01:59:41 AM
Not at all that's a good point. I like to do the rough sketch or rough draft prior to fine tuning and plunging into details. I find starting at a street level view quickly loses sight of the bird's eye whole concept.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Optimum human population
May 16, 2010, 02:07:24 AM
Not at all that's a good point. I like to do the rough sketch or rough draft prior to fine tuning and plunging into details. I find starting at a street level view quickly loses sight of the bird's eye whole concept.
Fair enough.  When do I get to start nitpicking the details, though?  Or rather, when will it become productive to do so?

Re: Optimum human population
May 16, 2010, 02:19:30 AM
To an extent, World Eugenics remains an Open Source project. Thanks to taboo-laden liberal democratic humanism, Applied World Eugenics is a fully Open Source division, so contribute at will.
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Optimum human population
May 22, 2010, 01:29:06 PM
Our own young people, fresh out of high school or college, are unable to find employment. Along with older women, this demographic is the most underemployed strata of non-working, W.o.W playing-all-day deadbeats. Any correlation between this data and the tsunami influx of mass Third World migrant labor?

Quote
Increasing the number of young people and immigration to underwrite old age costs is unsustainable, leading to more and more older people who will need support. New immigrant citizens get old too.

http://www.ourfutureplanet.org/news/385-the-demographic-false-alarm-

Adjusted by growth, prosperity is a bell curve, not a constant incline as The Economist shills would have us believe:

Quote
You show how immigration is a cause of poverty and unemployment, but is favored by corporations because it creates new consumers. However, it seems to me that ideal consumers are those who are by ability placed into the upper half of the middle class, because these consumers buy what they perceive to be superior products, allowing competition on the basis of quality. How does immigration affect this?

Interview: Pete Murphy, author of “Five Short Blasts”
”The Revolution ends by devouring its own children” – Jacques Mallet du Pan, 1793

Re: Optimum human population
May 26, 2010, 03:38:58 PM
If you want to cull populations for an environmental agenda, it would have to be the richest 20% since they consume 80% of the worlds resources.

Re: Optimum human population
May 26, 2010, 07:57:54 PM
If you want to cull populations for an environmental agenda, it would have to be the richest 20% since they consume 80% of the worlds resources.
Let's start with the limounsine liberals.  I suspect they may be skewing the results.

Re: Optimum human population
May 26, 2010, 08:30:25 PM
If you want to cull populations for an environmental agenda, it would have to be the richest 20% since they consume 80% of the worlds resources.
Let's start with the limounsine liberals.  I suspect they may be skewing the results.

These stats may very well be out of order. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that there is a demographic discrepency in consumption and that the usual New Right environmental rhetorik might be shooting itself in the foot, since its obvious that the rich consume and damage more than the poor per capita. For instance, the Alberta Tar sands wouldnt be possible if major banks were  financing them. Sure, their using average Joe's money for it, but they make more in the end than Joe.