The most frightening web site ever
Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:33 pm
go to The world pop clock projection and hit "refresh" every 5 seconds. 
Mon Dec 15, 2003 10:43 pm
wow...
Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:27 am
Now that is scary
Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:26 am
Problem: Doesn't take in account that I person dies every 11 seconds and one is born every 5 seconds..... Wait:freak: 
That's still damn scary.
That's still damn scary.
Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:21 pm
thats freaky!
Wed Dec 17, 2003 6:27 pm
and when a huge bomb explodes, and hundreds of people die? Would be scary when you see it running backwards
Wed Dec 17, 2003 7:06 pm
more forum wh0res!
Wed Dec 17, 2003 9:25 pm
I thought that was bulis post counter;) 
Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:10 pm
Originally posted by Weasel Meat
I thought that was bulis post counter;)
lol!
Wed Dec 17, 2003 11:29 pm
Originally posted by buliwyf
more forum wh0res!
LOL Seems someone is feeling a bit jealous?
Thu Dec 18, 2003 3:36 pm
Originally posted by Weasel Meat
I thought that was bulis post counter;)
hilarious!
Thu Dec 18, 2003 4:07 pm
Not a high enough projection for bulis post count. 
Thu Dec 18, 2003 5:03 pm
Although that is a bit scary the truth behind those numbers is even scarier.
In western 1st world nations populations have pretty much leveled or are even in decline. In rural agrarian societies children were an economic asset, In an urban hi-tech society they are a burden. The only reason most nations we consider 1st world nations climb or even just maintain is thru immigration from 2nd and 3rd world nations.
No, unfortunately a significant majority of those numbers you see clicking up are at the bottom end of civilization. The majority are being born into poor 3rd world countries with little to no medical care, little to no food, little to no education, little to no.... well you get the idea.
Interestingly enough this is a sign of evolution in action. In 1st world nations we have excellent health care, long life expectances and a very low infant mortality rate. therefore population pressures are very low and we do not breed fast.
On the opposite end of the spectrum life is brutal and shorter, you die of diseases that do not even exist in most western nations (except in labs of course), and as many as 2 out of 3 children die at birth (thats a shocker extreme number, its not that bad most places). you really need to breed like mad to keep up to sustanance or expansion levels.
Now postulate the second setting with aid from the first. The first feels guilty and sends food, medicine, medical care, "peacekeepers". What does this lead to? the fast breeding population is able to expand rapidly in an ecological and societal niche that is unsustainable. Now in an area where there was a small group of poor people barely getting by now there is a shitload of poor people barely getting by.
Little tribute to Sam Kinnison here. "Do you know why the people in Ethiopia are starving? BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT! MOVE! MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS!!!"
I don't know about you but I can spin many probabilities involving extremely large, fast breeding, poor populations that involve war, famine, and all other kinds of fun stuff! I have a hard time thinking up good things this can lead to though.
So in one way while it is nice to "give aid" to the people suffering these "horrible" conditions, a conscience salve if you will, we are only making bad problems infinitly worse.
So there is pretty much three choices here. Ignore it. Give to the whatever fund and vote legislation to actually make the situation worse, or make fundamental changes to world that allows these conditions to exist. I know what I prefer, what about you?
In the spirit of WWII and Battlefield there is a fourth option.
Extermination.
I don't want to live in a world with Einsatzgruppen but I am sure that the majority of the people that were alive at the time did not want that either. Do not think it cannot happen.
And on that note:
Thanks! and have a great day!
In western 1st world nations populations have pretty much leveled or are even in decline. In rural agrarian societies children were an economic asset, In an urban hi-tech society they are a burden. The only reason most nations we consider 1st world nations climb or even just maintain is thru immigration from 2nd and 3rd world nations.
No, unfortunately a significant majority of those numbers you see clicking up are at the bottom end of civilization. The majority are being born into poor 3rd world countries with little to no medical care, little to no food, little to no education, little to no.... well you get the idea.
Interestingly enough this is a sign of evolution in action. In 1st world nations we have excellent health care, long life expectances and a very low infant mortality rate. therefore population pressures are very low and we do not breed fast.
On the opposite end of the spectrum life is brutal and shorter, you die of diseases that do not even exist in most western nations (except in labs of course), and as many as 2 out of 3 children die at birth (thats a shocker extreme number, its not that bad most places). you really need to breed like mad to keep up to sustanance or expansion levels.
Now postulate the second setting with aid from the first. The first feels guilty and sends food, medicine, medical care, "peacekeepers". What does this lead to? the fast breeding population is able to expand rapidly in an ecological and societal niche that is unsustainable. Now in an area where there was a small group of poor people barely getting by now there is a shitload of poor people barely getting by.
Little tribute to Sam Kinnison here. "Do you know why the people in Ethiopia are starving? BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN A FUCKING DESERT! MOVE! MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD IS!!!"
I don't know about you but I can spin many probabilities involving extremely large, fast breeding, poor populations that involve war, famine, and all other kinds of fun stuff! I have a hard time thinking up good things this can lead to though.
So in one way while it is nice to "give aid" to the people suffering these "horrible" conditions, a conscience salve if you will, we are only making bad problems infinitly worse.
So there is pretty much three choices here. Ignore it. Give to the whatever fund and vote legislation to actually make the situation worse, or make fundamental changes to world that allows these conditions to exist. I know what I prefer, what about you?
In the spirit of WWII and Battlefield there is a fourth option.
Extermination.
I don't want to live in a world with Einsatzgruppen but I am sure that the majority of the people that were alive at the time did not want that either. Do not think it cannot happen.
And on that note:
Thanks! and have a great day!
Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:52 am
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
Interestingly enough this is a sign of evolution in action. In 1st world nations we have excellent health care, long life expectances and a very low infant mortality rate. therefore population pressures are very low and we do not breed fast.
Interesting perspective indeed. I never really looked at it that way, but it's quite logical
