NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
I disagree, of course. When contraception and abortion are illegal in a lot of places and there's no sex education it's hard to cite cyclists for contributing to overpopulation!
That's an absolutely ridiculous theory. By that logic, we should all kill ourselves right now (in a sustainable, carbon-neutral manner of course) so as to avoid the impact of our lives on the world. I'm shocked that's what a Wharton school student wasted his time on.
humans living long lives doesnt contribute to overpopulation in a significant way because (most) humans dont reproduce throughout their entire lifespan. the two biggest factors in human overpopulation are the age at which humans give birth and the amount of children they have. these two factors are most significantly seen in under developed countries.
Well, I guess if you could find a self-sustainable way to raise a bunch of kids, then go ahead and have them.
The Amish still do it, and there's plenty of other areas that seem to have 5-10 kids per family and don't even have a car, let alone a TV.
The parenting I usually scoff at are the types that think buying 2-3 mortgages worth of offroad, motor-toys are the proper ways to raise a children.
"Oh dear, killing Bambi will scare our child for life, but running it over with a Polaris Grizzly will make it all seem oh so wonderful."
Living longer most definitely does contribute to overpopulation. 6 billion people living 80 years eats more resources than 6 billion people living 60 years. At any given moment, there will be more people alive because people who would have died 10-20 years ago are still alive, eating food, consuming energy, and doting on their grandkids. EVen worse, older people tend to contribute less to the economy, so you've got a smaller percentage of the population working to support the economy, including all those old people.
I made two different population groups and tracked their total population over the course of 90 years. Both groups originally consisted of 100 people.
Group A: gave birth at 15 years old, had 4 children and died at 60 years old.
Group B: gave birth at 30 years old, had 2 children and died at 90 years old.
So group A represents a population that doesnt live as long, but produces more children, and gives birth at a younger age than group B.
After 90 years the total population of group A reached 25,400,
and after 90 years the total population of group B reached 300.
hrmm... it's weird... but it doesnt seem like living longer makes much of a difference when you compare it to the effects of responsible child birth.
Now, if you look back to my original post where I said "humans living long lives doesnt contribute to overpopulation in a significant way". Please make a note of the word 'significant.' While I don't disagree with you that people living longer lives has an effect on the overall population, I do hold my ground on the fact that it doesnt make a 'significant' difference.
Note: I know the math thing is a little messy, but try and plug in the numbers yourself if you dno't believe me. Also, this math assumes some pretty ideal situations, but I think it makes the point.
Clearly, cyclists are more sexy and thus have more occasions to reproduce. Your sexiness is ruining the environment for future generations. Shame on you all.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
That's so stupid.
I've got a better theory
What about bicycling looking so nerdy that it impairs people's ability to get laid. Surely the resulting lack of population should result in a population offset.
I have to disagree with your statement Dak, "Population has little effect on the environment." Population has a dramatic effect on our environment and it's resources. The states represent 3% of the world's population, but use 25% of the world's resources. Any rise in our population increases our use of the resources. Another way I like to look at it is, for each child born in the US it's like having two or more children in just about any other country in the world. It's probably like having a family of 10 for Ethiopia for example.
One very large flaw I see with the study is that it doesn't take into account keeping sedate people alive in their "golden" years. It's incredibly expensive keeping people alive with machines, medicines and doctors. Something that can be mitigated by being healthy and active.
um, yeah User1. I said little effect compared to industry and development. The facts are that, per capita, which means PER PERSON, developing countries are doing less damage than developed countries. That's all I'm saying, and i'm relaying the number I found, and ... and, I really don't care. We could also talk about how meat eaters do more damage to the environment, due to animal farming, clear cutting rain forests for grazing and farting. But those numbers are probably (a loose term) insignificant compared to the energy used to light up Christmas trees and the skylines in major metropolitans. Longevity is hardly an impact compared to the assholes that drive SUVs, I have no numbers to back my statement up, but my reasoning is pretty sound.
I do my part, the best I can, and I relate most to people that do theirs.
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
