I think that the earth is becoming overpopulated and policies like China's two kid maximum are not bad ideas.
I'm not against that. I'll see a (presumably)single Mom walking down the street with several kids to her side, one in a stroller (and most likely one in the oven) and wonder if it's REALLY a good idea for her to keep popping out kids. There are other scenarios where this crosses my mind as well, but this is the most recent. _________________ "Dread it, run from it... destiny arrives all the same."
I think that the earth is becoming overpopulated and policies like China's two kid maximum are not bad ideas.
I'm not against that. I'll see a (presumably)single Mom walking down the street with several kids to her side, one in a stroller (and most likely one in the oven) and wonder if it's REALLY a good idea for her to keep popping out kids. There are other scenarios where this crosses my mind as well, but this is the most recent.
Except that's not the case in the US.
Quote:
The total number of babies born in the U.S. last year was 3,941,109. That’s 37,388 fewer babies than were born in the U.S. in 2015, which represents a 1% decline.
The number of births tends to rise as the population rises, so statisticians like to make historical comparisons by calculating the general fertility rate. This is the number of births per 1,000 women considered to be of childbearing age (between 15 and 44).
In 2016, the U.S. general fertility rate hit a record low of 62.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. In 2015, the general fertility rate was 62.5.
Another useful statistic is the total fertility rate. This is an estimate of the total number of babies that 1,000 women would have over their lifetimes, based on the actual birth rates for women in different age groups.
In 2016, the total fertility rate for American women was 1,818 births per 1,000 women. That’s the lowest it has been since 1984.
In order for a generation to exactly replace itself, the total fertility rate needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women. The U.S. has been missing that mark since 1971 (though the country’s population has grown due to immigration).
I think that the earth is becoming overpopulated and policies like China's two kid maximum are not bad ideas.
I'm not against that. I'll see a (presumably)single Mom walking down the street with several kids to her side, one in a stroller (and most likely one in the oven) and wonder if it's REALLY a good idea for her to keep popping out kids. There are other scenarios where this crosses my mind as well, but this is the most recent.
Except that's not the case in the US.
Quote:
The total number of babies born in the U.S. last year was 3,941,109. That’s 37,388 fewer babies than were born in the U.S. in 2015, which represents a 1% decline.
The number of births tends to rise as the population rises, so statisticians like to make historical comparisons by calculating the general fertility rate. This is the number of births per 1,000 women considered to be of childbearing age (between 15 and 44).
In 2016, the U.S. general fertility rate hit a record low of 62.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. In 2015, the general fertility rate was 62.5.
Another useful statistic is the total fertility rate. This is an estimate of the total number of babies that 1,000 women would have over their lifetimes, based on the actual birth rates for women in different age groups.
In 2016, the total fertility rate for American women was 1,818 births per 1,000 women. That’s the lowest it has been since 1984.
In order for a generation to exactly replace itself, the total fertility rate needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women. The U.S. has been missing that mark since 1971 (though the country’s population has grown due to immigration).
It's ok, negative 37388... we have a net positive migration in the millions. We're good
I think that the earth is becoming overpopulated and policies like China's two kid maximum are not bad ideas.
I'm not against that. I'll see a (presumably)single Mom walking down the street with several kids to her side, one in a stroller (and most likely one in the oven) and wonder if it's REALLY a good idea for her to keep popping out kids. There are other scenarios where this crosses my mind as well, but this is the most recent.
Except that's not the case in the US.
Quote:
The total number of babies born in the U.S. last year was 3,941,109. That’s 37,388 fewer babies than were born in the U.S. in 2015, which represents a 1% decline.
The number of births tends to rise as the population rises, so statisticians like to make historical comparisons by calculating the general fertility rate. This is the number of births per 1,000 women considered to be of childbearing age (between 15 and 44).
In 2016, the U.S. general fertility rate hit a record low of 62.0 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44. In 2015, the general fertility rate was 62.5.
Another useful statistic is the total fertility rate. This is an estimate of the total number of babies that 1,000 women would have over their lifetimes, based on the actual birth rates for women in different age groups.
In 2016, the total fertility rate for American women was 1,818 births per 1,000 women. That’s the lowest it has been since 1984.
In order for a generation to exactly replace itself, the total fertility rate needs to be 2,100 births per 1,000 women. The U.S. has been missing that mark since 1971 (though the country’s population has grown due to immigration).
It's ok, negative 37388... we have a net positive migration in the millions. We're good
I hope we keep missing that mark. its same line they keep telling the Japanese to have more kids for the good of the economy. But I bet even if the economy goes down the quility of life will sky rocket
I agree we are overpopulated I'm not for an authoritarian governments telling the people how many kids they can have instead I'm for goverments who support upward mobility through education and health care. The biggest deterrent for someone having kids is them being informed and working towards a diploma/goal.
The biggest deterrent for someone having kids is them being informed and working towards a diploma/goal.
Being informed would include not teaching abstinence, but instead real sex education. Also having birth control and access to abortion widely and easily available, while empowering women generally, is extremely significant in keeping unwanted pregnancies down.
The biggest deterrent for someone having kids is them being informed and working towards a diploma/goal.
Being informed would include not teaching abstinence, but instead real sex education. Also having birth control and access to abortion widely and easily available, while empowering women generally, is extremely significant in keeping unwanted pregnancies down.
Real sex education, free health care, debt free education all these thing I could get on board with but I think we should still have a ban on late term abortion after 24 weeks. If we are going to make a woman have baby she has decided she doesnt want after 24 weeks the government better be there to assist her with the basics of what she needs
My hot take: Atheists are like millennials, constantly offended. Just live your life man.
Huh. It'd be interesting to see how you could corroborate such a generalization. If anything, it more aptly describes the atheist's adversary, today, and throughout history: the religious...the original snowflake SJW. Challenges to the prevailing orthodoxy got a bunch of people put to the stake/stoning pit/iron maiden/sword. Galileo, one of the all-time greatest minds ever produced by our species, was exiled for literally offending the church.
What's also odd about your take is that "just live your life, man" works as a perfect word-for-word essential credo for atheism.
I'm definitely generalizing. I'm just saying that I notice that people who don't believe in a god are always offended that people who do mention God, for example getting offended when someone says thank god in post game interview. Why does that bother anyone?
As far as the rest of your statement, I don't disagree.
My hot take: Atheists are like millennials, constantly offended. Just live your life man.
Huh. It'd be interesting to see how you could corroborate such a generalization. If anything, it more aptly describes the atheist's adversary, today, and throughout history: the religious...the original snowflake SJW. Challenges to the prevailing orthodoxy got a bunch of people put to the stake/stoning pit/iron maiden/sword. Galileo, one of the all-time greatest minds ever produced by our species, was exiled for literally offending the church.
What's also odd about your take is that "just live your life, man" works as a perfect word-for-word essential credo for atheism.
I'm definitely generalizing. I'm just saying that I notice that people who don't believe in a god are always offended that people who do mention God, for example getting offended when someone says thank god in post game interview. Why does that bother anyone?
As far as the rest of your statement, I don't disagree.
I definitely share the same experiences with Ted. At least with liberal mainstream media and social networking sites, you can count on an atheist to jump on you for mentioning God. It's becoming a social norm in my view, and in my opinion will not belong in this thread soon enough.
Of course, this is just my experience and doesn't represent the state of the whole world (ie third-world countries).
Joined: 10 Dec 2006 Posts: 52654 Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 8:58 am Post subject:
Ted wrote:
My hot take: Atheists are like millennials, constantly offended. Just live your life man.
My hot take: That's one huge pile of steaming irony right there . . . not to mention inaccurate. _________________ You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:05 am Post subject:
Gellollo wrote:
Ted wrote:
Huey Lewis & The News wrote:
Ted wrote:
My hot take: Atheists are like millennials, constantly offended. Just live your life man.
Huh. It'd be interesting to see how you could corroborate such a generalization. If anything, it more aptly describes the atheist's adversary, today, and throughout history: the religious...the original snowflake SJW. Challenges to the prevailing orthodoxy got a bunch of people put to the stake/stoning pit/iron maiden/sword. Galileo, one of the all-time greatest minds ever produced by our species, was exiled for literally offending the church.
What's also odd about your take is that "just live your life, man" works as a perfect word-for-word essential credo for atheism.
I'm definitely generalizing. I'm just saying that I notice that people who don't believe in a god are always offended that people who do mention God, for example getting offended when someone says thank god in post game interview. Why does that bother anyone?
As far as the rest of your statement, I don't disagree.
I definitely share the same experiences with Ted. At least with liberal mainstream media and social networking sites, you can count on an atheist to jump on you for mentioning God. It's becoming a social norm in my view, and in my opinion will not belong in this thread soon enough.
Of course, this is just my experience and doesn't represent the state of the whole world (ie third-world countries).
I’m an atheist, and I don’t jump people for mentioning god. I think there’s a huge difference between that and codifying god through public institutions. It like the “war on Christmas”, where the two major oppressions are not putting up religious iconography on government property, and having employees say “happy holidays” to make everyone feel welcome, including Christians, and the prayer in school issue, where the point is just not having the school itself lead prayers, there seems to be a great sensistivity to anything that doesn’t ensconce Christian faith and faith in general in a position of privileged ubiquity, free to comment as it will but also free from dissent or comment about it.
As to the reference in this thread, we generally stop religious discussions both to respect the rights of everyone, it also because of the emotional nature such arguments end up being, with, ironically, the religious people often the most aggrieved at having their beliefs “attacked”. I personally have no issue discussing the subject, although I admit I’m not the one who comes away feeling offended. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
I think that the earth is becoming overpopulated and policies like China's two kid maximum are not bad ideas.
I disagree. The goal for most advanced economies should be to have more children and kill off the elderly after age 75.
I'm of the opinion that too many children are born into horrifying situations and also that too many people that have children are not ready to be parents.I 'm also of the opinion that the elderly (assuming they are cogent, able-bodied, etc) could take on a greater parenting role in society to help combat that.
However, I do see the merit to your view (though I would not want to kill off the type of elderly I just mentioned) and it's not that I'm against people having more children per se especially if the economy as a whole would benefit. I'm also in full support of assisted suicide. _________________ one dog goes that way the other dog goes the other way
My hot take: Social media has created a culture in which stereotyping and belittling people with different viewpoints (liberals, conservatives, millennials, vegans, atheists, evangelicals, whatever) has become a form of sport that is more important to people than discussing anything of substance. We live in a culture of outrage, and nothing outrages (and secretly delights) people more than the fact that people with opposing viewpoints are outraged.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:13 pm Post subject:
PayasoLoco wrote:
Glad to see this thread. Thought I was getting to the age were im becoming grumpy old man
You are. But so am I _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Sun Jan 21, 2018 12:13 pm Post subject:
ringfinger wrote:
The ridiculous “micro-“ everything culture has now spread to... micro-cheating. So yeah, I hate the micro- culture!!
*sigh*
Are you having a micro melt down? _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 16 Jun 2005 Posts: 40345 Location: Dirty South
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 7:48 am Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
My hot take: Social media has created a culture in which stereotyping and belittling people with different viewpoints (liberals, conservatives, millennials, vegans, atheists, evangelicals, whatever) has become a form of sport that is more important to people than discussing anything of substance. We live in a culture of outrage, and nothing outrages (and secretly delights) people more than the fact that people with opposing viewpoints are outraged.
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:30 pm Post subject:
Outrage has always flummoxed the comfortable. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 90306 Location: Formerly Known As 24
Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2018 2:22 pm Post subject:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Outrage has always flummoxed the comfortable.
Today, the comfortable are the outraged, and the outraged are comfortable.
Good turn of phrase, but nah. Most people outraged over the outrage are people who don't understand why things have to change. _________________ “We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum