When will we start to cull humanity?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Kawasicki said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Murph7355 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

.... , only humans, unlike most other species are not as constrained by nature, as other species are.

Depends how you want to define "nature".

I'd say everything is confined by it.

I said not AS constrained by nature. Unless you can point me to a clinic where `animals' are developing measures to enhance `their' life spans beyond where they currently lie?

But those clinics you mention are entirely natural outcomes of human technological development. To not develop the tech to enhance our lifespan would be contrary to our naturally evolving adaptive behaviours.

You are correct, but I was being facetious,
My point was that animals `dont' have clinics, where they try to develop ways to circumvent the effects of nature on their species.
Only humans do that, and they have become so good at it, the global human population is increasing, whilst the populations of just about everything else on the planet are in decline.
What comes out the a*se of end of the global population, AFTER it has taken up, and consumed a global resource of any kind, is just what always happens,
When the `thing' taking up, and consuming those resources is colossal, then what comes out of its a*se end, can be nothing but colossal too.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Dr Jekyll said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No I dont. Especially as the BBC this morning, posted details of a report, which confirmed that the population of the UK is now rising at an even faster rate. But why let the truth get in the way of what is actually happening, not just in so called `civilized' countries but right across the world?

The report didn't have figures for Scotland, but did say that the increase for England and Wales over the last 10 years was 6%, compared with 7.8% for the 10 years before that.

The figures vary from county to county, and for Essex were 9.1%. but how some try to describe a 6% `increase' as a `decrease' in population is remarkable.
As I mentioned before the only thing that is `decreasing' is rate at which the global population is increasing. Only when we have a `single' death more than the total number of births across the planet, can the global population accurately be described as `decreasing'.

[Dr Jekyll]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No I dont. Especially as the BBC this morning, posted details of a report, which confirmed that the population of the UK is now rising at an even faster rate. But why let the truth get in the way of what is actually happening, not just in so called `civilized' countries but right across the world?

The report didn't have figures for Scotland, but did say that the increase for England and Wales over the last 10 years was 6%, compared with 7.8% for the 10 years before that.

The figures vary from county to county, and for Essex were 9.1%. but how some try to describe a 6% `increase' as a `decrease' in population is remarkable.
As I mentioned before the only thing that is `decreasing' is rate at which the global population is increasing. Only when we have a `single' death more than the total number of births across the planet, can the global population accurately be described as `decreasing'.

I didn't say it was decreasing. I took issue with your statement that the BBC report said the rise was at an even faster rate when it actually said the opposite.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Dr Jekyll said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

No I dont. Especially as the BBC this morning, posted details of a report, which confirmed that the population of the UK is now rising at an even faster rate. But why let the truth get in the way of what is actually happening, not just in so called `civilized' countries but right across the world?

The report didn't have figures for Scotland, but did say that the increase for England and Wales over the last 10 years was 6%, compared with 7.8% for the 10 years before that.

The figures vary from county to county, and for Essex were 9.1%. but how some try to describe a 6% `increase' as a `decrease' in population is remarkable.
As I mentioned before the only thing that is `decreasing' is rate at which the global population is increasing. Only when we have a `single' death more than the total number of births across the planet, can the global population accurately be described as `decreasing'.

I didn't say it was decreasing. I took issue with your statement that the BBC report said the rise was at an even faster rate when it actually said the opposite.

Point taken, but I take issue with those who try to make out that the global population, is decreasing, when in fact it is still `increasing' just at a lesser rate.
It seems they cannot discern the difference, between something that is increasing or decreasing.

[Kawasicki]

It’s impossible to circumvent the effects of nature on our species.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Kawasicki said:

It’s impossible to circumvent the effects of nature on our species.

Again you are correct, Nature `will' likely come up with a solution, to what our species is doing on the planet,
As pointed out before, nature's by its very nature, means it is also likely that the `solution nature comes up with, is `not' likely to be humane.
Soylent Green, anyone?