/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4127464]

Hey /sci/ I need help with a Q my teacher gave me.

What can we do to slow down the excessively high birth rate and child mortality?

Anyone smart enough to help me out?

[Anonymous No.4127471]

Uh, I don't know, sterilize everyone ?

[Anonymous No.4127476]

true but need something more serious though

[Anonymous No.4127496]

Stop stigmatising cannabis.

Let the poor countries grow their own weed since cannabis seeds are the most nutrition thing ever and it grows under every circumstances.

Once the poor have enough to eat the birth rates will stabilise.

Up yours Monsanto!

[Anonymous No.4127502]

what high birth rate? most western countries are now below the replacement rate and china and india are heading rapidly in that direction right now.

[Anonymous No.4127505]

>>4127502
China has even problems not to fall under the 2.1 rate.
Still this >>4127496 .

[Anonymous No.4127509]

>>4127502

don´t know my teacher is kind of a retarded old guy. Guess he means Africa or some shit like that

[Anonymous No.4127516]

>>4127464

There are plenty of solutions. Genocide, sterility, much harsher and better enforced punishments for breaking one-child laws, food rationing, etc.

The REAL question is at what point do YOU (or your teacher) draw the line at "unacceptable"? Particularly in light of the fact controlling population now means reducing the advent of war and famine in the next generations to come.

[Anonymous No.4127523]

>There are plenty of solutions. Genocide, sterility, much harsher and better enforced punishments for breaking one-child laws, food rationing, etc.

Like this works so good on a long time scale.

[Anonymous No.4127525]

Eugenics is the answer. Only allow those with the best traits to reproduce, sterilize everyone else. The human condition will improve while at the same time fixing the population problem. We'll be killing two birds with one stone.

[Anonymous No.4127528]

>>4127516
thanks so much man! :)
But could youexplain a little more about solutions

[Anonymous No.4127533]

>>4127464
Education
Dude.

[Anonymous No.4127542]

>>4127523
First argument right out the gate is Reductio ad Hitlerum? Really?

>>4127528
Most first world nations have settled at about, say, a very modest growth rate close to 1.0. Right now the huge population growth is in industrializing areas, particularly in Africa, where new agriculture tech has created a population boom. If we're talking global pop the cheapest and quickest way (albeit, unfair to those in Africa) would be to concentrate pop control efforts there. Sounds cruel, but bear in mind all the perpetual wars that lack of resources has brought so far -- and may yet bring anew if global warming continues to fry arable land up.

[Anonymous No.4127543]

Dear OP.

We Germans tried to solve problems with eugenics too.
Then we realised it doesnt work.
People need to love in order to survive.
We did a whole lot of experiments to disprove that love was a basic need, we even tried to raise babies without showin them any love, they died.
We just were a little over rationalising.
Still, there are some solutions that could work and theyre even human.
Take cannabis legalisation for example.
Its a ''real'' solution. The seeds are extremely nutritious and the medical appliances are infinite.
Its realistic, it wont make people hate each other and no shit will be thrown back at you for being a heartless scumbag.

Sincerly,
Reinhard Heydrich

[Anonymous No.4127550]

>>4127542
>First argument right out the gate is Reductio ad Hitlerum? Really?
Because its the same thinking pattern, nothing wrong with showing someone how nazi his ideas are, see:
>Eugenics is the answer. Only allow those with the best traits to reproduce, sterilize everyone else. The human condition will improve while at the same time fixing the population problem. We'll be killing two birds with one stone.

[Cunt !rdCUNTjJsk No.4127554]

was there any evidence for fat people being sterile, thus those amerifats who indulge in high-HFCS food and fried foodstuffs having their reproductive ability quashed. the richer the third world nations become, the more they will suffer from this problem thus slowing the population situation.

also cancer rates caused by obesity.

[Anonymous No.4127564]

>>4127550
Why do you want people with demonstrably inferior genes to reproduce? Why do you think it's okay for people to doom their children to genetic predisposition to diseases outside of their control?

It seems cruel to me to bring a child into the world knowing that child will not only waste resources, but will also not contribute anything back. It's cruel to both the child and the society at large.

And you call me inhumane?

[Anonymous No.4127567]

Reduce food production. Reduce income and resources to out of control breeder populations. Destroy charity infrastructures.

[Anonymous No.4127576]

Okay OP fag here again (hihi)

thanks for the answeres, I´ll let my teacher think im a Nazi. But could anyone anwere this:

What factors have significant impact on population growth?

[Anonymous No.4127579]

>>4127576
>hihi
Stop that. This isn't Gaia Online, and you're not (I hope) a 14 year old girl.

[Anonymous No.4127582]

>>4127554
wtf, then why are Eurofags making fewer and fewer babies? If you're so quick to jump to "durr, fat people, durr, stupid Americans," you'd better have some actual evidence.

[Anonymous No.4127584]

>>4127576
wealth and education cause lower population growth

[Cunt !rdCUNTjJsk No.4127586]

>>4127576

happiness

moon cycle

lack of monsters

plentiful food and security

[Anonymous No.4127587]

No, I'm not a 14 year old girl, but anyway, I'm a penguin. Yes, the picture is of me.
someone who can answer the second question?

[Cunt !rdCUNTjJsk No.4127591]

>>4127582

i was asking for evidence myself bro, sorry if my tone came across a bit too anti-murkan, there's plenty of fatties over here in UK as well

[Anonymous No.4127595]

Raise women's education level.

[Anonymous No.4127599]

Education.
Universally available contraception.
Make access to food a universal human right instead of a mode of making money.
Put an end to all religious teachings which encourage having lots of kids.
Put an end to idiots who think shit like 'spreading their legacy' was ever relevant outside romantic thought.

Ordered from most to least likely.

>>4127509
Going by wiki's numbers we're still around .8% growth rate. It's not like we aren't contributing to the problem. Though it is mostly Africa and the Arab nations.

[Anonymous No.4127602]

>>4127564

What's an "inferior" gene? It seems that you have little to no knowledge of genetics. Just like any eugenicsfag anyway.

[Anonymous No.4127603]

>inferior genes
I dont even...
>will not only waste resources
Like the nations with the highest pop growth would consume a lot of resources.
>And you call me inhumane?
No, just not very constructive.

Why do these people breed so fast in the first place?
Ill answer you this question myself becasue you obviously dont know it:
Children are cheaper workers.
People in poor countries wont get hired once they passed a certain age, in order to survive they have to make a lot of children so they dont starve to death as a family.

You can break this cycle by establishing an infrastructure that allows them to live a human appropiate life.
Charities are shit because they kill any attempt to get autonom from the start.

Let them grow weed, help these people with educating them.

Problem solved.

Now you might ask yourself if this was the best solution why would anyone try to go against it?

There are no conspiracies that would be important to name that would have an interest in hindering these developments.
To understand how the world works you have to seperate the whole world into groups of interest.
What groups of interest are there that would promote a stigmatisation of cannabis?
The pharma industry, the oil industry and most importantly the millitary industrial complex.

Things are far more complex and take more effort to solve than cutting a niggas wiener. That happened before and take a look at the product. Vioence, unknowledge, hate...

[Anonymous No.4127610]

>>4127603
I don't get the "let them grow weed" part.

[Anonymous No.4127611]

>>4127564
>Why do you think it's okay for people to doom their children to genetic predisposition to diseases outside of their control?

Different anon.
That's the only part of your argument I agree with. People with highly likely heritable conditions should not reproduce. It's malicious that they damn their kids to face hardships they had to endure.

I don't support eugenics in the general population though, reduction in non-debilitating genetic diversity does not end well.

[Anonymous No.4127616]

>>4127567
>Reduce income and resources to out of control breeder populations.

One of our presidential candidates has 7 kids... just so you know.

[Anonymous No.4127619]

>>4127576
Just watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP6A1FD1
47A45EF50D

[Anonymous No.4127623]

>>4127602
Inferior genes are those that cause predisposition to certain genetic defects, such as down syndrome, autism, etc. There's a reason a parent with a disorder has a higher chance of passing it to their child than a parent without the disorder. It's called DNA and inheritance. And yes, these disorders are non-Mendelian, but that doesn't mean the presence of certain genes doesn't raise the chances of the child inheriting the disorder, regardless of if it presents in their phenotype.

And as far as first world countries consuming more resources goes, would you not agree that being able to live comfortably is something we should strive for everyone to be able to have? Why must we reduce the consumption of first world countries to bring third world countries out of poverty? The answer is that we do not have to. We can continue to consume and live comfortable lives while at the same time improving the lives of those who live in poverty, as long as there is not an overwhelming number of them.

[Anonymous No.4127625]

need more paraquat

[Anonymous No.4127626]

>>4127610
Encourage them to grow cannabis.
Cannabis can grow anywhere and its seeds are super nutritious.

They wont make you high and people all over the world ate them before the illegalisation of cannabis.

This would cause a whole wave of changings though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis#Ancient_China_and_Taiwan

The picture I posted before is a herb called thymus. You can make tea of it when your stomach hurts.
Stuff like this has less side effects tahn pharmaceuticals too.
But the pharma industry would be fucked (paradigm shifts) if people used traditional medicines more.

[Anonymous No.4127627]

Tell kids their penises will fall off if they have seks

[Anonymous No.4127630]

>>4127623
>We can continue to consume and live comfortable lives while at the same time improving the lives of those who live in poverty, as long as there is not an overwhelming number of them.
> to consume and live comfortable lives while at the same time improving the lives
>comfortable lives

mfw

[Anonymous No.4127631]

>>4127610
It's a fast growing crop.
The seeds are basically a super food.
The fibers also have a wide variety of industrial uses; everything from paper to clothing.

[Anonymous No.4127634]

>>4127611
>reduction in non-debilitating genetic diversity does not end well.
I agree with this, but I probably have a much wider definition of what qualifies as "debilitating".

A lot of people don't think the severely disabled should reproduce when it's an inheritable disability, but I go a bit further.

I do not believe families that have high rates of morbid obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure, etc. should reproduce either, and I come from this type of family.

I myself carry these inferior genes, and have made the conscious decision not to reproduce because I find it irresponsible. However, I do not trust in the public at large's capability to make the decision to do the right thing on their own. This is why I support eugenics.

I'm not some stormfront faggot who wants to kill all the black people, I just don't think people in general are smart enough to make the right decisions for themselves, for society, and for their offspring.

And if we could isolate genes responsible for "intelligence" or "stupidity" I would support eugenics on the basis of those too, but since we have not yet located those genes and cannot be certain they exist, I do not currently support eugenics on that basis.

[Anonymous No.4127637]

>>4127623
You are wrong on so many aspects. Please stop posting about something you don't know.

[Anonymous No.4127638]

>>4127630
What, are you not comfortable knowing where your next meal will come from, being able to lounge on your couch, having access to the internet?

I'm pretty comfortable with this sort of life.

[Anonymous No.4127640]

>>4127637
If you have a real argument other than "hurr durr you're stupid" then by all means, post it.

[Anonymous No.4127641]

We could slip infertility drugs into Big Macs and KFC.

[Anonymous No.4127643]

Birthrates will fall dramatically once global warming really kicks off. We don't have to systematically execute people, nature will do it for us.

[Anonymous No.4127648]

>>4127623
>Why must we reduce the consumption of first world countries to bring third world countries out of poverty?

That's a ridiculously broad statement to make. A ridiculous percentage of the first world's consumption is WASTE.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=earth-talk-waste-land

inb4 >popsci

[Anonymous No.4127654]

>>4127640
There is no such thing as a real inferior gene, you retard. "Inferiority" or "superiority" is heavily dependent on environmental conditions. Black people are more likely to have rickets, white people are more likely to have skin cancer. What skin is inferior? Besides, people suffering from autism - and I'm talking about real autism, not "hurr durr you like minecraft you're an autist" shit - or retards can be perfectly healthy members of a society if educated properly.

>There's a reason a parent with a disorder has a higher chance of passing it to their child than a parent without the disorder. It's called DNA and inheritance.

That's not how it works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recessive
Most of the genes you call "inferior" are actually recessive; healthy parents may very well have a child with a disorder. That's because dominant genes tend to disappear completely if they're "inferior". Recessive genes never completely disappear, and there's nothing you can do about that, unless you want to track the DNA of everyone on Earth. This is why eugenics doesn't work on a human scale.

[Anonymous No.4127665]

Wow, just wow.
Itt:
Eugenics and climate experts.

There are 2 ways to solve a problem:

-Solving a problem like a subhuman, totally emotionalised like a stoneage monkey

-Being progressive

You can take any perspective you want when you look at the world.
Take a perspective from which you are able to see things clearly so you can change things for the better.

A climate changers perspective (biblical endtimes) wont give you any space to change things nor does a eugenicists perspective (inquisition).
The educationers perspective allows you to take every person as equally valueable so everyone should be interested in participating since it would release the highest amount of energy possbile.

Thats the difference between being progressive, and counterproductive.

[Anonymous No.4127669]

>>4127634
Morbid obesity is a lifestyle disease in nearly all cases, heart disease is a catch all term, and heart failure is inevitable the longer we live. HBP is meaningless currently, there's far too many people with it for that not to send up at least a dozen red flags. Most obviously it doesn't account for past generations who had salt heavy diets but still lived healthy lives into their 70s and 80s.

I have my own problems which I won't be passing on, though even without them I wouldn't be able to justify bringing a child into the world with as fucked up as it is.

[Anonymous No.4127671]

>>4127654
Dolphins have the most complex nervous system of all the living beings on this planet, what makes them from this point of view the most inteligent being on the planet.
Should we start killing other creatures now even if theyre important for the whole ecological system?
Also, noone knows what dolphins need this inteligence for.
Who are you to decide which gene is superior in the first place?

[Anonymous No.4127678]

>>4127671
>Who are you to decide which gene is superior in the first place?
But... I'm not. What's your point?

[Anonymous No.4127680]

>>4127678
Wrong anon, sorry bro.
Good post tho.
Here have some tits.

[Anonymous No.4127682]

>>4127671
you are right

[Anonymous No.4127685]

>>4127654
>>4127654
> "Inferiority" or "superiority" is heavily dependent on environmental conditions.
In the biological definition, yes, you are correct. I should not have used the term "inferior," however I did so thinking it would be obvious I meant inferior from a human preference and suitability for society standpoint.

From now on I will call these genes "undesirable" instead, so there can be no misunderstanding.

>healthy parents may very well have a child with a disorder
I didn't say they couldn't. All I said was that non-healthy parents, who we know will probably pass on their undesirable and debilitating genes, should not be allowed to reproduce.

>What skin is inferior?
Neither, however, if you are a black person who has rickets or are a white person who has skin cancer, you should not reproduce. Some people have a higher chance of getting it than others, it's not just "black people will have this and white people will have this, therefore no one from either race should have kids".

[Anonymous No.4127686]

>>4127665
Being "progressive" simply means that niggers will fuck up your shit every time. How are you going to educate someone with an IQ of 65? Does not work.

>>4127671
Dolphins and humans are intelligent and they both murder their own species. They kill on porpoise.

[Anonymous No.4127688]

>read (about) the book Brave New world
>answer question according to book
>???
>Profit!

[Anonymous No.4127689]

>>4127685
>can be perfectly healthy members of a society if educated properly.
Certainly it's possible. Being disabled in some way does not rule out that you could contribute. However, the number of autistic or retarded people who contribute is far lower than the number who do nothing but be retarded or autistic and use up resources while returning nothing.

Therefore, from a statistics standpoint, it is not good to have these traits.

And as far as educating them properly goes, the amount of resources it takes, and the amount of dedicated personal teaching they need as compared to one regular child is obscene. The cost-benefit ratio is far too skewed. It would be better to spend that money and time educating people who are likely to actually do something with the education they're recieving.

We spend far more nowadays on educating special needs children than we do on gifted children, and I don't think that's really a good way for a society to treat its members with the highest potential.

[Anonymous No.4127691]

>>4127665
Only one word comes to mind when I read this, pretentious.

The silent majority of climate changers simply believe it better to error on the side of caution. It no sense to group them with doomsayers and conventional eugenicists.

[Anonymous No.4127693]

don't understimate this planet and the universe. and realize you are an ant.
we dont need to slow down high birth rate and child mortality.
realize you are an ant. wake up from the nightmare.
and find the way to cooperate each other.
and if you have the intelligence, it is possible to live forever. I say those aliens are living forever.
dont go to the infinite stupid world.

[Anonymous No.4127694]

>>4127689
>and there's nothing you can do about that, unless you want to track the DNA of everyone on Earth
Did I say that by my method we would eliminate any disorder? No. I did say that we would reduce how common it is, which is a positive goal. No one wants their child to be born with a disorder or disabled.

>This is why eugenics doesn't work on a human scale.
If you define eugenics as completely pruning humanity of a certain gene, then yes, but that's a rather foolish outlook on eugenics.

Lets say that "Bad Disorder Gene A" shows in the phenotype of 1/500 people, and another 1/500 people carry it recessively. If we stop those who carry it non-recessively from reproducing, we will have reduced the presence of the gene by half.

Why would you not want to do this if you could?

[Anonymous No.4127698]

>>4127686
>They kill on porpoise.

[Anonymous No.4127705]

>>4127693
>we dont need to slow down high birth rate and child mortality.

D-K effect strikes again.

[Anonymous No.4127706]

>>4127694
Because trying to control people's reproductive rights has, historically, a nonzero chance of getting you shot in the brain. I avoid hobbies with histories of brain-bullet interaction.

You can prevent out of control population growth most effectively with minimal negative social conquences with a mix of wide spread television and low-to-moderate paying jobs for females. No country with 50% household TV ownership and female participation in the workforce has a population growth problem.

I'd imagine broad penetration of internet access would be even more effective.

[Anonymous No.4127714]

>>4127691
It does in the contet of what perspective you want to take.

Fanatics arent able to change their perspective.
A free mind is only defined by that.

You can take any perspective you want.

Just rate the perspective on how much space for agility it gives you.

These end timers thought patterns are old as humanity.

In the 50s people were scarred that the world could slide into a new ice age.
Now theyre claiming the world will heat up like a motherfucker.
The fuck should I care when its inevitable?

I rather take the perspective that gives me some space so I can change things.

Scarring people all the time will help noone.
Actually people start to not believe it anymore since the evidence was totally engineered.
Wait till they have to release electric cars because everyone has a conventional car already and they cant sell conventional cars no more.

The factories are set up already, companies neeed to sell their products to pay the machines they are in debt for.

[Anonymous No.4127718]

>>4127698
It's a species, idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porpoise

[Anonymous No.4127719]

>>4127706
You sir, are my hero.

[Anonymous No.4127721]

The only sustainable growth is 0%. Right now, we are like those released reindeer on that secluded island. We're still growing, but ultimately this growth will lead to war and death of billions if nothing is done to regulate the number of people. By which means that should be done I don't know myself. People say through education and wealth, but that doesn't prevent Shaniqua and Tyrone from having 5 kids, so why would it prevent Mtengue and Mbala from having 10?

[Anonymous No.4127724]

>>4127721
How could someone think youre not a nazi?
What does ''Mtengue and Mbala'' makes so different?
Besides the fact that you are speaking in ''images'', a well known propagnda technique to make the stupid ''see'' what you mean with no need to have any substance in your argument, thats simply racist.

[Anonymous No.4127732]

>>4127721

>"When all the world is overcharged with inhabitants, then the last remedy of all is war, which provideth for every man, by victory or death." - Thomas Hobbes

But you are a moron. Draconian, impossible, immoral and moronic population control solutions are unnecessary. Places where reproduction is out of control have populations culled by famine, war and diseases in cycles as old as humanity, their populations will stabilize when they are illuminated by the light of civilization.. or at least, late night TV.

Hobbes was right. When there are too many people somewhere, nature takes care of it as they kill each other for food and fresh water. Africa has done it for longer then recorded history.

[Anonymous No.4127735]

>>4127724
I could have chosen said presidential candidate, or some neonazi dumbass who believes he can only save the white race by outbreeding the dark skinned. I chose the people I chose because RIGHT NOW they are rising the fastest in numbers among all people. Some decades ago it was the chinese and the indians. The race doesn't matter, the numbers matter.

also, LOL DAS RACIS.

[GL !Bgpe2HycPk No.4127736]

>>4127680
>>4127732
/sci/ is safe for work
Please delete these pictures.

[Anonymous No.4127738]

>>4127732
>But you are a moron.
Thanks, you too. I never said I want people to get sterilized and killed in order to control their numbers, shithead.

[Anonymous No.4127739]

Turn everyone gay with drugs. They get to have all the sex they want and no suffering occurs.

[Anonymous No.4127742]

>>4127736
< also eugenecists logic

[Anonymous No.4127745]

>>4127738
You suggested any solution is required at all, an idea so stupid you deserve ridicule.

Now go suck a million dicks.

[Anonymous No.4127746]

>>4127714
>Wait till they have to release electric cars because everyone has a conventional car already and they cant sell conventional cars no more.

This is possibly the most retarded conspiracy theory I've ever heard of. It makes no strategic sense for them to break out a technology which they took part in burying for 50 years.

Conventional car sales weren't declining, especially not considering the industrializing nations.

[Anonymous No.4127747]

>>4127671
we run this shit, we make the rules.
simple.

[Anonymous No.4127750]

>>4127732

>Draconian, impossible, immoral and moronic population control solutions are unnecessary.

>When there are too many people somewhere, nature takes care of it as they kill each other for food and fresh water.

I dont even advocate eugenics, but your argument fails horribly.

[Anonymous No.4127752]

>>4127747
More like finding rules.

Is this /sci/ or /pol/ or even /b/?

[Anonymous No.4127754]

>>4127745
Okay, you suggest nothing be done at all. So instead you support the suffering of billions to come. Why do you think china instantiated a one-child-policy? Because it's a ridiculous idea anything has to be done?

p.s. I can call you names too, faggot, shithead, dumbass, assfucker. What a nice discussion.

[Anonymous No.4127759]

This is what a eugenecist looks like, who makes the rules.
You fucking know its a valid point.
Cant control the pimples in your face huh?

[Anonymous No.4127760]

>>4127754
>Why do you think china instantiated a one-child-policy? Because it's a ridiculous idea anything has to be done?

In China they had a secret project.
One city did have no one child policy but liberty of breeding.

Guess which only city has no problems with growth rates.

[Anonymous No.4127764]

>>4127685
>All I said was that non-healthy parents, who we know will probably pass on their undesirable and debilitating genes, should not be allowed to reproduce.
But that doesn't work this way. Either their "unhealthiness" doesn't prevent them from having a long life and kids, meaning they can be contributing to society as well. Or they're too handicapped to last more than 20 or reproduce (in other words, who will fuck a guy with Down's?) and there's no need of any kind of law enforcement.

[Anonymous No.4127768]

Eugenics was practiced all over the world, not just in nazi Germany. Population control is practiced by the Chinese. The association between Hitler and reproduction control is simply retarded argumentum ad Hitlerum.

[Anonymous No.4127770]

>>4127747
>>4127686
It's like I'm on /new/ again! Sup Stormtroll and FAGGATRON_3000, how are you?

[Anonymous No.4127772]

>>4127760
So why did their population get to 1.5 billion people if liberty of breeding solves all problems anyway? Man, those chinese are some dumb fucks.

[Anonymous No.4127775]

>>4127689
>Therefore, from a statistics standpoint, it is not good to have these traits.

Don't ever use the word "statistics" without being VERY knowledgeable of what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.4127781]

>>4127764
>All debilitating conditions kill the people with them within 20 years
Not that guy but what the fuck...

[Anonymous No.4127782]

You >>4127768
read this
>>4127760

Watch this to rethink your one child policy thinking:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9kdQLQYT5w

Also Im German and Im the only one who made Nazi comparisations because its simply nazi to apply biological sytems or static systems to society. Germans did the exact opposite of chinas one child policy though.

inb4 gtfo naziscum

[Anonymous No.4127784]

There are some genetic conditions with high probability of serious illness being inherited, where eugenics is clearly the right choice. But this is on the level of 1 % of population, not really a large-scale eugenics programs as some here imagine.

[Anonymous No.4127786]

>>4127694
Except most disorders/undesirable traits are multigenic and triggered by a special combination of genes who are otherwise harmless when taken alone, so what you're suggesting won't work. Of course there are some rare monogenic traits such as drepanocytosis, but they're not worth being dealt with - at least not in such a large scale. Besides, people with drepanocytosis are immune against some diseases if I remember well (their blood is too crappy to attract mosquitos).

[Anonymous No.4127788]

>>4127782
Kannst deine Faschokeule wieder einpacken, niemanden interessiert's.

[Anonymous No.4127798]

>>4127760
>>4127782
Not that anon; I hear lots of claims but no numbers to back them up.

I'm quite curious how China has managed to fundamentally break mathematics.

[Anonymous No.4127810]

>>4127788
Lets stick to talking English brother.
Facsism is not racism.

Facsism is a goverment, racism is a social construct based on biological systems.

Fascism needs a supporting group of ant like people but will get these ant like people killed at the end and its heads too.

Racism is just one instrument to create a scape goat.

Knowledge, it works.

[Anonymous No.4127823]

>>4127798
What?
Did you just say you want further sources?

Theres a city in China where they had no child policy, they have a more stable pop growth.

[Anonymous No.4127827]

One child policy is widely supported among Chinese

http://www.pewglobal.org/2008/07/22/the-chinese-celebrate-their-roaring-economy-as-they-struggle-wit
h-its-costs/

[Anonymous No.4127828]

>>4127827
Even if its for shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9kdQLQYT5w

[Anonymous No.4127829]

>>4127760
>I once heard something and I repeated it without citing any sources
>I win the internet

[Anonymous No.4127832]

>>4127829
look here
>>4127829

[Anonymous No.4127834]

>>4127829
I mean here.
>>4127828

[Anonymous No.4127838]

>>4127828

Yeah, Id favor two-child policy, too.

[Anonymous No.4127841]

>>4127781
That was an example you dumbfuck

[Anonymous No.4127857]

>>4127838
Id favor freedom of choice and support of education.

[Anonymous No.4127878]

Everyone knows that educated areas tend to reproduce less. There are a number of theories related to this. Maybe because of your education you earn a higher salary and therefore can afford contraception. Perhaps it's because educated folk tend to have steady occupations and therefore more reluctant to interrupt it with a child. Or maybe educated people realize children stomp on dreams and they know they have a decent shot at them. Also in rural Africa there is no such thing as contraception, because there is no way to deliver such products there. So education and figuring out how to get contraception to rural countries and areas. Now child mortality rates would lower with education and contraception.

[Anonymous No.4127883]

>>4127464
End pooverty.

[Anonymous No.4127884]

>>4127878
How do you educate stupid people who refuse education?

[Anonymous No.4127887]

>>4127878

Also, we let an African tribe have some condoms, teached them how to use it, returned after a fucking month to see that they now had a shaman with a condom on a stick which would prevent you from getting babies.

This is why you need an educated civilization, not a tribe.