Gates $10B Donation - Page 3

On January 29 2010 18:02 Zorglub wrote: If this goes on, it will end in a tragedy

also these graphs are stupid. there is no third world, developing world and developed world. i dont like how all the data is lumped together... it is bad science and analysis

On January 29 2010 22:14 Currency wrote:

wow what a witty intelligent post

Do you guys even care about the population development and growth of LiquidPoker.net at all?



Yesterday 0.0014 +30%
7 day 0.001 -30%
1 month 0.00157 -25%
3 month 0.00183 +49%

On January 29 2010 18:02 Zorglub wrote: If this goes on, it will end in a tragedy

yeah bill gates and bob baker should have joined forces and donated $10 billion towards spaying and neutering underdeveloped countries

On January 29 2010 20:52 Baal wrote: Wow people are really dumb... poorere because of overpopulation?, yo somehow think that if you were to kill half of the african population they would wake up richier tomorrow? lol no. Less illness, more workforce, more technological advancement, less government spending etc, health = progress. Every country whent hey reach a level of civilization they realize that having kids is EV- as we can actually see today, so the solution is not imposing birth control on the 3rd world, that wont solve shit, what must be done is to bring the 3rd world to the 1st world as soon as possible, and Bill gates just helped them take one big step towards it

So overpopulation is never a problem? If an unlimited amount of people are sharing a limited amount of ressources, more people equals less for the individual. What if the developing world already surpassed the number of individuals their food production can sustain, would health and prosperity make any difference?

Is it even possible to eliminate poverty today? will it be easier in the future with even more poor people around?

On January 29 2010 22:47 Zorglub wrote: Show nested quote + On January 29 2010 20:52 Baal wrote: Wow people are really dumb... poorere because of overpopulation?, yo somehow think that if you were to kill half of the african population they would wake up richier tomorrow? lol no. Less illness, more workforce, more technological advancement, less government spending etc, health = progress. Every country whent hey reach a level of civilization they realize that having kids is EV- as we can actually see today, so the solution is not imposing birth control on the 3rd world, that wont solve shit, what must be done is to bring the 3rd world to the 1st world as soon as possible, and Bill gates just helped them take one big step towards it So overpopulation is never a problem? If an unlimited amount of people are sharing a limited amount of ressources, more people equals less for the individual. What if the developing world already surpassed the number of individuals their food production can sustain, would health and prosperity make any difference? Is it even possible to eliminate poverty today? will it be easier in the future with even more poor people around?

when did i claim that overpopulation wasnt a problem? i said that letting poor people die in the name of stopping it its just absurd and machiavellic.

The 1st world has already stopped growing in numbers even diminishing so we hve to bring this level of civilization and conciousness to the 3rd world.

oh and for the record we currently produce enough food in the world to feed us all, waste, lack of distribution and massive crop burns to control prizes among other factors are what cause hunger today.

On January 29 2010 18:23 SemPeR wrote: I'll jump on the bandwagon. saw this a long time ago. Basically convinced me that all of the world's problems could be solved by birth control. Or less fucking...but it's way harder to get support for that. Call me a prick, but I'd have no problem giving up the "joys of parenthood" for a terraformed Mars/Moon in my lifetime. I can adopt. Humanity's gotta get its shit in gear before the accidental nuclear holocaust / next 5mile wide comet. Just sayin'. =s

you would give up having a child to see mars terraformed? what the fuck?

how old are you

I'm sorry but LP is full of retards today I guess. Over population was more of a problem when we had 100 million people on the earth instead of our current 6.8 billion

why because of our knowledge of agriculture. There are still many places in south east asia where if farmers read a book they would learn how to get their crops to grow 3 times as much produce by calorie but they don't... why, because there is no pressure to. There is no need, they don't care. Pressure leads to innovation. Starving people are not a result of over population or the inability to supply people. It is the result of the poorest people not having the means.

If you put everyone in the world together. They would fit in the grand canyon. If you put everyone in texas and put them in 4 person families they would all have 100 square meters. Imagine if u create a 2nd floor, then u get 200sq meters, if u have 10 story apartments ... now we're living in luxury... and only in texas.

It's disgusting to see people on LP pontificate and have crap running out their mouths... i mean faeces , defecation spewing out ur mouths. Posting silly graphs ... saying "look at this number" and extrapolating wild theories thinking your are still talking rationally. Are you guys deliberately doing this? I mean how can you be so retarded??? I'm seriously having trouble with this. LP is a fucking disgrace. I used to think that generally people here would be smarter but you remind me of the class retard. Also and again, the more developed a country gets, yes the lower the population growth will be but these people aren't dying because of over population... we are far far far from that. (even farther considering the extra produce we could cultivate, those farmers will eventually face economic pressures to start cultivating their land better).

I am not certain what the Bill Gate's organization plans to do with the money. We don't have a well detailed guide do we? And if we did, we should use discretion and realize that things aren't always how they appear (for instance Haiti and historically at least most other emergency relief funds). Anyone quick to judge and anyone who doles out spiteful comments are or spin arguments in a judgemental manner when they haven't even taken 10 minutes to do some research about the validity of what they are saying... but they keep talking like they have conviction... these people, should be ashamed of themselves. The are the ignorant people who are keeping back progress. The world isn't black and white but in my mind people like them are the bad guys, not people unfortunate enough to be living with psychoses

On January 29 2010 23:03 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On January 29 2010 22:47 Zorglub wrote:   On January 29 2010 20:52 Baal wrote: Wow people are really dumb... poorere because of overpopulation?, yo somehow think that if you were to kill half of the african population they would wake up richier tomorrow? lol no. Less illness, more workforce, more technological advancement, less government spending etc, health = progress. Every country whent hey reach a level of civilization they realize that having kids is EV- as we can actually see today, so the solution is not imposing birth control on the 3rd world, that wont solve shit, what must be done is to bring the 3rd world to the 1st world as soon as possible, and Bill gates just helped them take one big step towards it So overpopulation is never a problem? If an unlimited amount of people are sharing a limited amount of ressources, more people equals less for the individual. What if the developing world already surpassed the number of individuals their food production can sustain, would health and prosperity make any difference? Is it even possible to eliminate poverty today? will it be easier in the future with even more poor people around? when did i claim that overpopulation wasnt a problem? i said that letting poor people die in the name of stopping it its just absurd and machiavellic. The 1st world has already stopped growing in numbers even diminishing so we hve to bring this level of civilization and conciousness to the 3rd world. oh and for the record we currently produce enough food in the world to feed us all, waste, lack of distribution and massive crop burns to control prizes among other factors are what cause hunger today.

So when do we stop, what if they keep getting many children because of tradition/religion and that is what makes them poor, do we just feed them as long as we can and them let them die when we can not feed them any more?

On January 30 2010 01:07 Steal City wrote: I'm sorry but LP is full of retards today I guess. Over population was more of a problem when we had 100 million people on the earth instead of our current 6.8 billion why because of our knowledge of agriculture. There are still many places in south east asia where if farmers read a book they would learn how to get their crops to grow 3 times as much produce by calorie but they don't... why, because there is no pressure to. There is no need, they don't care. Pressure leads to innovation. Starving people are not a result of over population or the inability to supply people. It is the result of the poorest people not having the means. If you put everyone in the world together. They would fit in the grand canyon. If you put everyone in texas and put them in 4 person families they would all have 100 square meters. Imagine if u create a 2nd floor, then u get 200sq meters, if u have 10 story apartments ... now we're living in luxury... and only in texas. It's disgusting to see people on LP pontificate and have crap running out their mouths... i mean faeces , defecation spewing out ur mouths. Posting silly graphs ... saying "look at this number" and extrapolating wild theories thinking your are still talking rationally. Are you guys deliberately doing this? I mean how can you be so retarded??? I'm seriously having trouble with this. LP is a fucking disgrace. I used to think that generally people here would be smarter but you remind me of the class retard. Also and again, the more developed a country gets, yes the lower the population growth will be but these people aren't dying because of over population... we are far far far from that. (even farther considering the extra produce we could cultivate, those farmers will eventually face economic pressures to start cultivating their land better). I am not certain what the Bill Gate's organization plans to do with the money. We don't have a well detailed guide do we? And if we did, we should use discretion and realize that things aren't always how they appear (for instance Haiti and historically at least most other emergency relief funds). Anyone quick to judge and anyone who doles out spiteful comments are or spin arguments in a judgemental manner when they haven't even taken 10 minutes to do some research about the validity of what they are saying... but they keep talking like they have conviction... these people, should be ashamed of themselves. The are the ignorant people who are keeping back progress. The world isn't black and white but in my mind people like them are the bad guys, not people unfortunate enough to be living with psychoses

Where are those silly graphs and wild theories? It is so easy to say "I want to save the world" but sadly it is not always possible, sometimes avoiding the tough questions will leave an even worse situation. Stating that overpopulation isnt a problem is rediculous, why do you think china has a one child policy? Some countries have too many people to support already and the problem is only going to get worse.

Overpopulation does not depend only on the size or density of the population, but on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources. I doubt we can keep on doubling the crop yields every 40-50 years like we double the world population.

zorglub to ur first post about when we should stop

a lot of people think that all human beings should have the right to the simple necessities and a little bit of education. The current state of things are a disgrace in a world of never before seen surplus. We are no where near not being able to fix these problems at little cost per capita. The only problems are ignorance and apathy and i'm guessing a lot of it has to do with people who comment on things like this with conviction that simply want to play devil's advocate and havne't put an hour of reading in.

As per china, their policies are highly controversial and not just for ethical reasons. Remember the recent thread about minimum wage. People of mild intelligence have known for decades that minimum wage laws cause way more hurt than good but they persist and are government implemented in far more developed countries than china.

finally ive created one of these big debate threads, ive been wanting to do this for months

China's one child policy is about dealing with inconveniences now instead of disasters later, sound logic if you ask me, yet the chinese are the only ones yet who did something to avoid the disaster looming ahead.

i'm not ur teacher

at least read 1 page so u know ur own argument then comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_child_policy

What!? How did we ever start talking about overpopulation in this thread? Well anyways here's a couple points. People in under developed countries have large families because the survival rate for new-born children is low so of course couples in under developed countries will try to have as more children compared to a developed nation couple. By improving the overall health of an under developed country, survival rates will start to increase, and couples will worry less about trying to have a lot of children. Another point is that overpopulation is not really a problem when it comes to the limited amount of resources we have. If we truly want to create a sustainable world we have to all have to consume less as individuals and consume more efficiently. This means not buying so much junk and eating so much food. If everyone lived like a typical American, it would take 3 earths to support the whole entire human race.

is it a bad policy, i dont know

could african countries right now realistically implement it (logistically speaking), probably not
might it do more harm then good, very possibly
is it a treatment of the symptoms and not the the main problems, most definitely
might treating the symptoms cause the country to heal enough to have a spill over effect that fixes the root problems, possibly

talking about something likely impractical and maybe not good for africa and certainly unlikely to be better than the current route (because of the logistics at the very least and government power of implementation)... is silly, don't waste time

and i'm tired of being people's teacher

no offense zorglub but ur exactly the type of guy i was talking about. I care about this thread but I'm going to treat people who comment on stuff that they haven't put a few minutes thought into as trolls and not respond from now on.

On January 30 2010 02:37 LikeASet wrote: What!? How did we ever start talking about overpopulation in this thread? Well anyways here's a couple points. People in under developed countries have large families because the survival rate for new-born children is low so of course couples in under developed countries will try to have as more children compared to a developed nation couple. By improving the overall health of an under developed country, survival rates will start to increase, and couples will worry less about trying to have a lot of children. Another point is that overpopulation is not really a problem when it comes to the limited amount of resources we have. If we truly want to create a sustainable world we have to all have to consume less as individuals and consume more efficiently. This means not buying so much junk and eating so much food. If everyone lived like a typical American, it would take 3 earths to support the whole entire human race.

more or less true. Can u believe we had 2 pages of people talking about overpopulation. So sad that LP seems completely braindead

mo' people mo' problems

On January 30 2010 02:37 LikeASet wrote: What!? How did we ever start talking about overpopulation in this thread? Well anyways here's a couple points. People in under developed countries have large families because the survival rate for new-born children is low so of course couples in under developed countries will try to have as more children compared to a developed nation couple. By improving the overall health of an under developed country, survival rates will start to increase, and couples will worry less about trying to have a lot of children. Another point is that overpopulation is not really a problem when it comes to the limited amount of resources we have. If we truly want to create a sustainable world we have to all have to consume less as individuals and consume more efficiently. This means not buying so much junk and eating so much food. If everyone lived like a typical American, it would take 3 earths to support the whole entire human race.

Yeah cause its not like it has anything to do with religion/tradition, as soon as people get rich they stop having kids, it like a natural law. If we share the ressources between an ever increasing amount of people, one day everyone will die from lack of food. It basic biology, it happens in nature all the time, when a species grow to big for the habitat to support, many die from lack of food or diseases.