Politics And Robots

[BULLDOG]

Looking to robots for affection seems to me merely one step closer to what the anti-human, or also known as the Environmental Movement, wants: save poor Mother Gaia from the virus known as human beings.


The true believers have sworn not to have children to save the earth.......and what could soothe them more than.....


View attachment 1119965

Nothing new about using machines for sex. Just check the night stand drawer of million of American women.

 

[PoliticalChic]

NO they will replace feminists women, leftist women, TDS filled women, man hating women, women who suffers from gender dysphoria.

Real men will prefer women who are mentally healthy prefer a loving family based relationship and avoid leftists at all times.

AI Overview

Yes, in many countries, including the United States, religious people tend to have more children on average than those who are not religious. This trend is observed across various religions and social groups.

 

[BULLDOG]

AI Overview

Yes, in many countries, including the United States, religious people tend to have more children on average than those who are not religious. This trend is observed across various religions and social groups.

Sex toys are nothing new

.

 

[JoeB131]

4.Obvious lie: "That is because for the last 50 years, Republicans/Conservatives/Corporate America have been systematically destroying unions and workers' rights."

How is this not True?

Has union membership declined in the last 50 years? Yup.
Who was in the White house during most of that decline?

5. Everybody knows they, Democrats/Fascisets are called the "tax and spend Democrats."
The NYTimes wrote this about the guy you called God, Jesus and the messiah...Obama
"But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.”

Taxing and spending isn't the problem.

Cutting taxes for the rich and then borrowing is.

A Borrow and Spend Republican is far worse.

 

[Sparker]

Many men are physically capable but would be incompetent as parents. Buying a bot seems less extreme than surgery. Both are much cheaper than parenting. If healthy sperm becomes rare, then the guys with bots may still have some. And later the bots will be forgotten as silly toys when electronics and electricity become much more expensive. Some guys will go back to the older tradition of sex with animals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Many men are physically capable but would be incompetent as parents. Buying a bot seems less extreme than surgery. Both are much cheaper than parenting. If healthy sperm becomes rare, then the guys with bots may still have some. And later the bots will be forgotten as silly toys when electronics and electricity become much more expensive. Some guys will go back to the older tradition of sex with animals.

I find a good deal of your ideas abhorrent.

Having children is becoming rare in the same proporion to the increase in popularity of socialism/Democrats.

And I do worry about it.


The more religious, the more children.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I find a good deal of your ideas abhorrent.

Having children is becoming rare in the same proporion to the increase in popularity of socialism/Democrats.

And I do worry about it.


The more religious, the more children.

.

And the more religious, the longer marriages last. I have the glorious privilege of knowing a couple who live a block away, who just celebrated their 70th wedding anniversary, in the same church in which they were married.

It's not at all unusual for young parents to attend Mass with three, four or five children. I think the couple I just mentioned had eight children. The walls in the homes of the older folks are completely filled with photos of their very large families!

I share the back three pews at church with a family of four generations!


.

 

[Sparker]

I find a good deal of your ideas abhorrent.

Having children is becoming rare in the same proporion to the increase in popularity of socialism/Democrats.

And I do worry about it.


The more religious, the more children.

I am more practical. Religion doesn't change what people are. Men who would stick it in a bowl of soup if it's warm but can't be bothered to change a diaper are not parenting material.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am more practical. Religion doesn't change what people are. Men who would stick it in a bowl of soup if it's warm but can't be bothered to change a diaper are not parenting material.

The more religious, the more children.
It's a fact.


AI Overview

Yes, religious people tend to have more children on average than non-religious people. This trend is observed across various religions and regions, with some studies showing a significant difference in completed fertility rates.

 

[JoeB131]

I find a good deal of your ideas abhorrent.

Having children is becoming rare in the same proporion to the increase in popularity of socialism/Democrats.

And I do worry about it.


The more religious, the more children.

The planet is already overpopulated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The planet is already overpopulated.

Straight out of the Leftist anti-humanity playbook.......and totally wrong.

That idea was put to rest long ago.....see what you think.


There are 6.8 billion people on Earth. Calculations show that if we wanted to make everyone in Earth live on a space that had the same population density as New York City, we could fit everyone in about 666,265 square kilometers, which is less than the size of Texas!.

Not only does that leave the other 49 United States open, but it leaves all the other countries clear and open, too. So, it is pretty safe to say that we have enough space, the entire world except Texas, to farm and ranch for our food supply.

Would water be a problem, though? It's calculated that we need 350 billion liters of water per day to properly hydrate 6.8 billion people. It seems like a lot, but the Columbia River alone could produce that amount in less than a day. By the way, the Columbia River is the U.S.’s fourth largest river. So, again, that leaves the rest of the world’s water supply open and ready to serve. So, we’re not really overpopulated." http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/10333...-have-the-population-density-of-New-York-City



“The United States, at over 330,000,000 people, has a population density of around 87 people per square mile. If that seems small, remember that the federal government actually owns about a third of this country’s land mass. Here are a few key comparisons: Mexico 166, Afghanistan 127, Brazil 64, Somalia 62, Sweden 59, Sudan 57, Russia 23, China 376, India 1,068, Bangladesh 3,015, Guatemala 420, Uganda 430, Canada 10. The world’s population density, excluding oceans and Antarctica but counting deserts, mountains, and other uninhabitable places, sits at around 142 people per square mile.” Is America Too Crowded?




2. If it comes down to the numbers the entire world’s population can fit in Texas. This has been said many times and when it comes down to basic math, it is true. Texas is 268,581 Square miles, if some amazing engineer were to design the father of all complexes; basically a China housing unit on steroids is the only thing that would work. The building would cover the entire state of Texas. Rivers, ponds, and creeks included; literally every square inch of Texas would be engulfed in this building. There would be one thousand square feet per person.

.... since most live in groups the average “apartment” should be a few thousand square feet. Whoever the engineer and architect are will have their work cut out for them. The Entire World Population can Sink into the State of Texas







3. The population of the world we will define as 7 billion. What is the density of a large US city, say New York City as a whole? Well, New York City is 790 square kilometers, and has a population around 8.3 million people, giving us a density of (8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷) about 10,500 people per square kilometer. Now granted, NYC is not the wide-open spaces, but it is a density that millions live with in a space-loving nation like the US, so it shouldn't be considered too packed.



So how much land would we need to house all 7 billion of us if we lived in such density? Well, we would need (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 8.3<EEX>6<ENTER> 790 ÷ ÷) 666,265 square kilometers. A big area, no? Well, let's look further...



Upon examining the US, we find out that Texas fits the bill nicely. In fact, Texas has 261,797.12 square miles of land, and that is (261792.12<ENTER> 1.602<ENTER> 1.602 × ×) 671,877.17 square kilometers! Which is, in fact, more than the area we need to house all 7 billion of us at typical New York City densities. Meaning every man, woman, and child living and breathing on the face of the Earth could fit in relative comfort within the land territory of the State of Texas.



The other 49 states: empty. Canada? A wasteland as empty as the northern extremes of Nunavut. Europe? Empty. Asia? Nobody home. Africa, Australia, South and Central America, all the islands? None left. The entire world outside of Texas contains not a single living, breathing person.



But how realistic is that? Surely water would be a problem wouldn't it? Well, let's find out... It is recommended that 50 liters per person, per day, be used as an adequate amount for consumption, sanitation, and cooking. That works out to (7<EEX>9<ENTER> 50 × 1<EEX>9 ÷) 350 billion liters of fresh water, per day, to keep all of us properly hydrated. That's a lot of water! Given there are 1000 liters per cubic meter, we need 350 million cubic meters of fresh water, every day. Yes, a large volume! But is it really?



Take the Columbia River, the 4th largest in the US, and the main division between the States of Washington and Oregon. The average outflow of water is 7,500 cubic meters per second. How long would it take the Columbia to give us our 350 million cubic meters of fresh water? Well, it would take (350<EEX>6<ENTER> 7500 ÷) 46,667 seconds. Or (46667<ENTER> 60 ÷) 777.8 minutes. Or (777.8<ENTER> 60 ÷) just under 13 hours.



With just over half the daily average outflow of the Columbia River, we could meet the freshwater needs of the entire world's population. Now, that is a big pipeline to Texas, but if we could get everyone there in the first place, the pipeline is child's play!



To recap: so far, we can put every living person on the planet within the land territory of Texas, with density about equal to New York City (not just Manhattan; all 5 boroughs). And we can give them all adequate water with just over half the water from the Columbia River.



But what about food? Clearly that is of concern! Well, apparently 300 square meters will feed one person for one year. Since a kilometer is 1000 meters, we could feed (1000<ENTER> 1000 × 300 ÷) 3333 people per square kilometer. We'll call it 3000 people per square kilometer to make things even. And that means (7<EEX>9 <ENTER> 3000 ÷) 2,333,333 square kilometers to feed everyone.



The total farmland in the US is about 922,000,000 acres. There are 247.1 acres per square kilometer, so that is (922<EEX>6<ENTER> 247.1 ÷) 3,731,282 square kilometers. Hey, that's more than 2,333,333! In other words, the farmland in the US could feed everyone!



So what have we ended up with? Well, every person in the world could live inside of Texas without overcrowding. We could all have water with just the Columbia River alone. And we could easily feed ourselves with just the farmland within the US as it exists.



Canada. Mexico. Alaska. Central America. South America. Europe. Asia. Africa. Australia. Greenland. All the islands. All the oceans. The Great Lakes. All empty, devoid of people. No need to farm or live there.



Now that we have the numbers, are we really overpopulated? I would argue a resounding "NO" and I think any who say otherwise are simply not adding it up.

WASLOT: Slot Online Terpercaya dengan Game Terlengkap



4. I don't know anything about the claim, but I will do the math for you. Using the square mileage you gave for Texas: 1 square mile = 5280 x 5280 square feet = 27,878,400 square feet. So 268,581 square miles = 7,487,608,550,400. For simplicity say 7.5 x 10^12. That divided by 7 x 10^9 is indeed over 1000 square feet per person. So if we made one giant one-story compound over Texas, land, water, and all, we would each get a 1,000 square foot unit. In 1984, it was proven by the economist Thomas Sowell that the entire world population (4.4 billion at the time) could live comfortably in the state of Texas. He wrote “Every human being on the face of the Earth could be housed in the state of Texas in one-story, single-family homes, each with a front and a back yard. A family of four would thus have 6,800 square feet- about the size of the typical middle-class American home with front and backyards.”(Carter 99) According to more recent research on the topic, all of the world’s 1997 population (5.84 billion) could fit on the small Island of Bali in Indonesia.(Stiefel 98)

....if we assume a world population of 6.7 billion, all the people in the world could fit into Texas and occupy an area of ~1,118 sq. ft. each.
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=51292




But anytime you decide to leave.......don't let me stop you.

 

[JoeB131]

There are 6.8 billion people on Earth. Calculations show that if we wanted to make everyone in Earth live on a space that had the same population density as New York City, we could fit everyone in about 666,265 square kilometers, which is less than the size of Texas!.

Except that where people live is not just where they reside. It's the food to feed them.

If everyone eats like an American, it takes 1.1 to 2.5 acres of farmland to support them.

So multiply that by 8 billion people (not the 6.8 billion you cited), and that requires, let's lowball it - let's say 8 billion acres of farmland. Of course, the world only has 3.7 billion acres of farmland.

Of course, most people in the world don't eat like Americans. A lot of them are on the brink of starvation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Except that where people live is not just where they reside. It's the food to feed them.

If everyone eats like an American, it takes 1.1 to 2.5 acres of farmland to support them.

So multiply that by 8 billion people (not the 6.8 billion you cited), and that requires, let's lowball it - let's say 8 billion acres of farmland. Of course, the world only has 3.7 billion acres of farmland.

Of course, most people in the world don't eat like Americans. A lot of them are on the brink of starvation.

Seems that you will never realize how fatuous the beliefs and aims of the Left are....

.....and how neatly you fit into same.


Advice? Stop attempting to be clever and knowledgeable .....that is not the role you were born to fulfill.

 

[JoeB131]

Seems that you will never realize how fatuous the beliefs and aims of the Left are....

.....and how neatly you fit into same.


Advice? Stop attempting to be clever and knowledgeable .....that is not the role you were born to fulfill.

Sorry, some crank self-loathing person really has no advice to give me.

 

[Sparker]

The more religious, the more children.

Farmers have more kids because they need farm workers. In urban and suburban life, children are expensive liabilities that require childcare and time off work. Many couples do the math and figure they can't afford children with both adults working full time. Farmers tend to be more religious than urbanites. Some religions try to boost reproduction or ban contraception to boost their membership and revenue.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

The planet is already overpopulated.

.

Translation -- "I believe everything my TV tells me".




.

 

[JoeB131]

.

Translation -- "I believe everything my TV tells me".




.

I don't have to.

Since 1900, the world population has increased from 1.6 Billion to 8.2 Billion today.

Tell me how that is sustainable?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

I don't have to.

Since 1900, the world population has increased from 1.6 Billion to 8.2 Billion today.

Tell me how that is sustainable?

.

Tell me how it's NOT sustainable. You're the one who made that assertion.




.

 

[JoeB131]

.

Tell me how it's NOT sustainable. You're the one who made that assertion.




.

If everyone in the world ate like an American, we'd need 8 Billion acres of farmland.

The world only has about 4 billion acres of farmland.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

If everyone in the world ate like an American, we'd need 8 Billion acres of farmland.

The world only has about 4 billion acres of farmland.

.

That's what you believe.




.