Jabba The Hunt Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Does anyone actually agree with me that guns should be banned? *cough*keyan*cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Odin Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 um, nope I don't think so. Guns=population control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 I look at guns, murder, and war like this... Nature has balance... If the rabbit population grows, the foxes will be able to feed more young, less young foxes will die, and the fox population grows. But then the foxes are eating too many rabbits, the rabbit population declines, and because there's not enough food, so do the foxes. Now, I have no idea if foxes eat rabbits, and I'm well aware that it's more complicated then that, but that is the basic idea. Nature's balance to man was, initially, animals... But then we figured out how to kill 'em before they killed us, so there goes that. Then we had virii and bacteria, but man became skilled in the medicinal arts, and that ceased to be as large a factor. The only thing left to kill us off in large masses is war... But with world peace and globalization becoming a larger part of the human perspective, even then is on the decline. The human race is rapidly outgrowing the earth... Think of living conditions in overpopulated countries like China, and imagine those same conditions in Europe and North America. Until mankind has the technology to colonize and terraform other planets, we need war to keep our numbers down. It might suck for those involved, but it sucks for the fox and the rabbit too. JIHAAAAAAAAAD!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Do you realize that the entire population of the world could fit comfortably into the state of Texas? Add to that the fact that developed countries are aborting and contracepting themselves into what will soon be a major population decline, and it's clear we have no need for war to keep the population under control. Besides, wars kill off a negligible percentage of the population. Even factoring in murders and more "personal" kinds of "war," it still doesn't make much difference. However, I still like the idea of space exploration and eventual colonization being a major part of our efforts today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 The percentage may be negligible now, but tack a few generations worth of people onto them, and it becomes a more significant figure. The death toll (civilian and military) for World War II was 55 million... Now, let's assume an average of 2 children per person... Some might have had more, some might have had less, and that their children were the same. The current world population is sitting in the 6 and a half billion range right now... Assuming the 2 child average, in 7 generations (roughly 175 years from, say 1950), those 55 million war dead would have increased the world population by close to 7 billion (and before you argue that they won't all live, I accounted for people dying at age of 80). It's hard enough to find a job now as it is... Imagine technology 125 years from now, where machines have replaced even more of the workforce then they already have, then add that 7 billion to the close to estimated 14 billion that'll be already competing for half as many jobs... Even half that figure, 3 billion people... Half our current population! Imagine if something like this had happened in the late 1700's. Half of us wouldn't be here right now... And people back then had more kids! (I mean, what else did they have to do? ) If you ask me, it's time for WWIII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabba The Hunt Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 The world population will increase, gm crops will allow us to grow our food in more confied circumstances, we will build up, believe me the world can support many times the current population, and the comericalisation of space is estimated to be about 20 years away, so within the next 100 years we should see the colonisation of space, and i expect it to be very much like the colonisation of america. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 My point wasn't that the world was in danger of running out of resources in the immediate future, but that war can have a significant impact on population. And I seriously doubt the colonization of space is less then even 200 years away, and that it'll be like the colonization of America. Moving into space requires advanced technology for people to simply exist, let alone survive for any length of time. You can't just hop in the boat and go.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyan Farlander Posted June 4, 2004 Share Posted June 4, 2004 Originally posted by Nitro The percentage may be negligible now, but tack a few generations worth of people onto them, and it becomes a more significant figure. The death toll (civilian and military) for World War II was 55 million... Now, let's assume an average of 2 children per person... Some might have had more, some might have had less, and that their children were the same. The current world population is sitting in the 6 and a half billion range right now... Assuming the 2 child average, in 7 generations (roughly 175 years from, say 1950), those 55 million war dead would have increased the world population by close to 7 billion (and before you argue that they won't all live, I accounted for people dying at age of 80). Except you forgot to take into account that a child requires two parents. That means your example counts on each person having four offspring, not two. That is way above average for the people in question. As a matter of fact, if each person fathered or mothered two children, the population wouldn't grow at all; it would remain exactly the same. And actually, it would shrink, because many of those would die before they reached the age where they could have children. And still others would choose not to have children. And even if your numbers were accurate, if you used your growth formula on the people who survived and compared that to this number, which you would have to do, it would still be a negligible percentage. Actually, it would be an even smaller percentage of the population than just the 55 million were at the time of their deaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoom Rabbit Posted June 5, 2004 Share Posted June 5, 2004 Originally posted by Nitro I look at guns, murder, and war like this... Nature has balance... If the rabbit population grows, the foxes will be able to feed more young, less young foxes will die, and the fox population grows. But then the foxes are eating too many rabbits, the rabbit population declines, and because there's not enough food, so do the foxes. Now, I have no idea if foxes eat rabbits, and I'm well aware that it's more complicated then that, but that is the basic idea. Nature's balance to man was, initially, animals... But then we figured out how to kill 'em before they killed us, so there goes that. Then we had virii and bacteria, but man became skilled in the medicinal arts, and that ceased to be as large a factor. The only thing left to kill us off in large masses is war... But with world peace and globalization becoming a larger part of the human perspective, even then is on the decline. The human race is rapidly outgrowing the earth... Think of living conditions in overpopulated countries like China, and imagine those same conditions in Europe and North America. Until mankind has the technology to colonize and terraform other planets, we need war to keep our numbers down. It might suck for those involved, but it sucks for the fox and the rabbit too. JIHAAAAAAAAAD!!!! Interesting point. However, your model doesn't take into account the possibility of the rabbit obtaining firearms himself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabba The Hunt Posted June 6, 2004 Share Posted June 6, 2004 Its not the rabbits you should be worried about, its the dolphins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zargon Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Originally posted by Jabba The Hunt The world population will increase, gm crops will allow us to grow our food in more confied circumstances, we will build up, believe me the world can support many times the current population, No it really can't, food is not the only issue, you are over simplifying things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabba The Hunt Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 How so? Theres food around, thats ok, theres enough space to live, so thats ok. Disease etc only shortens life so no problem there. Wheres the issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitro Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 Think social issues. There's more to live then survival... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zargon Posted June 23, 2004 Share Posted June 23, 2004 Originally posted by Jabba The Hunt How so? Theres food around, thats ok, theres enough space to live, so thats ok. Disease etc only shortens life so no problem there. Wheres the issue? the environment and they way that we have to produce things, IE renewable and non-renewable fuels, keeping the climate in its natural state, still having ANIMALS around People are not the only concern on the planet:rolleyes: This is why they make people take classes OUTSIDE their major to graduate here in the states.... not that it really helps much anways Originally posted by Flying Beastie Heck, most of the time the perp knocking over a 7-11 doesn't even fire; the gun's there as a psychological prop to freak out the shopkeeper. Showing up in a suit of plate-mail, wielding a broadsword and bellowing Welsh battle-cries at the top of your lungs works just as well. Heck of a lot more fun too. . . Untill he pulls out a sawed off and makes a canoe out your head You cannot effectively battle guns in this day and age with anything buy other guns, and plasma rifles, but those wont be out in service for 15-20 years in the US Military(no, really...I'm SERIOUS). THe right to bear arms was created SPECIFICALLY to mean firearms, albeit flintlocks and un-rifled cannons, but still. The 2nd amendment wasnt created for hunting, it was mean to allow us to rebel against an oppressive government that could come into power, and you cant rebel against the military with non-automatic highpowered rifles, you need assualt weapons, grenades, LAW's, etc......... I want a TOW-loaded Humm-Vee myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flying Beastie Posted June 25, 2004 Share Posted June 25, 2004 It's all about "shock and awe" though. By the time the poor clerk has finished wetting himself at the sight of an armoured berserker charging out of the night, bellowing Welsh imprecations, and possibly astride a foaming horse, you should already be close enough to use the sword (or better yet, a spear from horseback) to knock his weapon away. Bonus points if you smash through a window rather than using the door, 'cause doors are for wusses and philistines. Besides, with modern tech, plate-mail can be made bulletproof. Heck, look at the designs for modern flack vests --it's just medium-coverage plate-mail with cloth over it to hold it together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zargon Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 your face cannot be made bulletproof besides, I would shoot you in the back after you left, having a 7.62 cal sniper rifel behidn the desk as well:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.