I'd hate to retort such a passionate proclamation. Well who am I kidding, I'll gleefully retort, and with equal passion.

George W Bush is as responsible for the death of her son as the very man that shot him. He himself shares responsibility for his death by choosing to go to war, and everyone who could have convinced him not to but failed, also shares an inkling of responsibility. Bush has to accept responsibility, whether it is good responsibility he can take in stride and accept, or not. The only way he can prove to me he has the balls is to look a mother in the eye, a mother who flatly does not buy his noble-cause idea. It's an act of character to face your means.

Tell me they're dying for democracy all you want, but I saw the evidence, and I see foul-play. I'm not sure why, probably because every single instinct tells me this, but I don't trust what Bush says, or anyone in his cabinet. This gut feeling that he's distrustworthy has been ingrained in my family heritage by fourty two liars that came before him. Maybe it's me, right? Maybe it's because I simply inherently don't trust politicians, and when one says something, especially a former oil business man, I look at it a bit scrutinizingly. Maybe it's just me, growing up with a father as a crippled Vietnam veteran who got his funding cut by Bush something like 6 times since the guy came to office. Maybe it's because my grandfather was a WW2 POW. Maybe the two of them raised me to be critical on war, to seek ways to avoid it before seeking ways to enter it. Maybe it's because I think war is evil before necessary. Add those two up, I don't trust politicians, and I think war should not even be considered as an alternative until every other resource has been exhausted. There you have it, why we disagree on whether the war was justified or not. No need going itno technicalities about this particular war or we'll be here a month.

But some things are funny. See, let me break down some more of my most basic principles. Tell me if this sounds familar, "The world is my country, all men are my brethren, and to do good my religion." Now that you know that (and possibly who said it) you know that I think the U.N. or some Inter-government Institution like it is necessary. The United States is not above the rest of the world, it's simply one of our cultural rules that we think we are. Democracy is by no sense a perfect government. Democracy is, in fact, the worst form of government, setting aside all forms of government tried before it.

No, the timid did not discover the new world, but who are the timid in this day and age, not those who dare raise their voice in dissent, that's one of the bravest things to do in any government. The timid sit and do nothing, and when the new world was being discovered, it was the timid that sat and did nothing while Indians were being slaughtered. I am a warrior in the same sense a you, but I would not die for this country, and I don't think the men over there are dying for a cause any nobler than a car-accident.

And what is your way of "helping the US", aside from joining the Armed Forces? Going to a Pro-War rally, and wrapping yourself in the flag? Is that how you pledge your loyalty to this country, MY country? Well, let me tell you something, going to a rally and saying "God Bless America" does not make you a patriot. Protesting and showing your displeasure with the government, that makes you a patriot, that shows that you appreciate what you have, and you don't want it destoryed, by some chicken hawk nutjobs.

And, while you're thinking of joining the Armed Forces, read this:

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Bush_cuts_...041503.htm'
(Don't say "Oh it's a commie veteran group." What they say is dead on.)

http://www.thenewstribune.com/front/topsto...p-4297561c.html


That's how your beloved sniggering President supports our troops.





You always beat me to it DoomedOne. Damn it.

gone

You are so daft. You do not know me, or what I think I have commited to my country.

If you have cultivated your life ever since you were eight, learning and grasping the concepts of our Great Yet Flawed Democracy, giving up half of your life so that you can better serve your nation, then will I take any of those statements against me.

Why, if you hate the US so and you think it is so flawed, why do you stay here? Go to Canada or Mexico or something. And if not it must not be to bad.

If being against the goverment isn't patriotic, would you say that the Americans who fought against the government for a better life to create America where not true patriots?

Patriotism: love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it. If someone burns a flag and goes to jail whilg saying that the country they used to love and believe in has to change, would that not make them patriots?

Patriotism: The act of being loyal to one’s country, especially in periods of national turmoil, such as war. However, there are many disagreements over what constitutes a patriotic person, exemplified over the burning of the flag. If patriotism is being loyal to your country and it's government, would that not mean that those who followed the orders of Sadam Husein when he was in power were patriots?

Also, you said "Typical of you anti war people to try and slam the blame on the one who you don't like.". If I join the American army to protect my country, get shipped off to an un-just war, and get shot to death, would the blame not even reach Bush? Could Bush not have stopped my death by retreating when he found out the whole reason he went to war wasn't in Iraq? I think the death of every US Iraq war soldier lays on his hands.

I was watching 60 minutes yesterday, and they were talking about the US military fundings. The US has spent so much money on submarines (which can't be used in Iraq and are now out dated, battle ships (all of the decomisioned after zero days of action, also outdated), tanks (Made useless by Stryker vehicles, are slow and are easy targets for RPGs), 41 different types of bombers (about a billion dollers for each plane, America owns hundreds though it is probably more, only 4 types were used in Iraq/Afghanastan), fighter planes (either zero of close two zero were used, the rest are soaking up taxpayer money to be kept in plane graveyards) and various other wepons and vehicles (even though ifantry troops are used much more in war), that if America used the war money, they could have bought their way out of the defeceit. They could also give money back to the taxpayers (alot of money) without even being close to the defeceit, researched alternative fuels, put many more people into schools, lowered university and colledge prices dramatically and could have made a much better ifantry strike force that would lose very little soldiers in battle.

Those are my views, and if you don't agree with them, please voice that. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion and would like to see people excirsizing that entitlement like we have done so in this thread. I hope my views don't make me seem any less or more of a good person to anyone that agrees or disagrees with me, because you should never judge a man by his political stance.

Ok....so far I regard this as a lesson ..learning more about America and politics..but PLEEASE, guys.....try to keep it free from personal remarks such as..






I think this thread is far too interesting to want it to be locked...so please , for my sake, be kind to each other.....




Oh..and Red......Very nice post!!

Well, I hate to say this but for hundreds of years the Europeans have not only existed attached to the other nations. They have suppressed them, kept them down.

I'm sure if the U.S. decided to get involved with everyone we'd end up streaming other nations food supplies to help our soldiers while the farmers and the rightful owners of that food die of starvation.

"Thousands of emaciated destitutes still roam the streets in the ceaseless quest for food, scouring dustbins and devouring rotten remains of castaway food and fruit. Rickety children clutching imploringly the tattered garments barely covering the bones of their mothers are seen in all quarters of the city." (Quoted in Manchester Guardian Weekly, U.K., October 15, 1943.)

"Whilst we learn on the one hand of the fear of alienating certain favoured sections of the property owning class, we learn that there was no such fear during the period of alienating those sections of the population with little or no property. Side by side with the blackest of black markets, dealing in the very life-blood of the poverty-stricken masses, there were "long queues of hungry workers waiting all night outside Government controlled grain shops in places like Bombay." (Manchester Guardian Weekly, U.K., January 15, 1943.)

So I have brought the topic to Famine and Imperialism.

I will agree that the blame falls on Bush's shoulders - but not all of it. As Channler pointed out, the Senate is just as responsible, and nobody joins the military with a "Never Die in War" guarantee, so I personally don't think that President Bush should be answering to a dead soldier's mother, though it would be a nice thing to do. And who's to say that the soldier didn't feel proud to die for his country, just as Channler said he would? while I wouldn't have wanted to die in a war I didn't believe in, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't. I wouldn't have joined the military - he would have, apparently.

The topic of patriotism came up. Channler, how is pointing out the flaws in the government not patriotic? I mean, it is excercising your freedom of speech to try and make the place you live in a better place, so telling Stargazey to move to Mexico or Canada was a very close-minded remark. Making this country a better place, is in fact every party's goal, they just have different views as to what is actually better.

One thing Jona, did you like President Clinton?

And those vets are better because they're VETS4BUSH. Look at that coward Bush's war record. Serving over in Alabama (Because those Southerners get awful dangerous), while John Kerry was serving on a swift boat in the Viet Cong.







I don't know you, you're right, but I do know one thing, being in the armed forces is not the only way to be a patriot.

That's the problem with the right wing, if you don't like what's going on, get the hell out. If you have a kid who misbehaves, do you say "Well, if you don't like living here, get out." You fix the kid, you make him better behaved, you make him smarter, you don't kick him out.



I will have to ask you to do one thing, Never say I hate my country.

His wife also owns Heinz Ketchup.

*snorts*

Sorry, that didn't have anything to do with the current topic.

Well, I guess Mr. Kerry wasn't as lucky then was he. Are we putting people down because they got off better than others?

Southerners do get awful dangerous, especially when it comes to racism.



It takes more work to make him smarter, more work equals more time. More time equals less time to spend on other issues. So why worry about the kid, if he doesn't like it, say.

"Too bad."

Does the kid go around with picket signs and say.

"I hate your tax laws."

I seriously doubt it.

So, If I don't like the government, at this particular time, I should leave?

I wouldn't know what you would do, I like the government.

gone

How does Bush justify taking 50 vactions in five years?

My Theory is:
They must have made a robot to run in office for him.



Actually, it's probably to meet those protesting mothers.

I found the number of vacations to be a lot less than 50.

That's a good thing, I like having discussions with people who dissagree with me, but on most forums, all I get is YUR GAY!!1 BUSH IS TEH GOD AND JESUS AGREES!!11!! YOU H8 JESUS!!1, so it is good to see civilized discussions about politics in a forum that nurtures our thoughts, opinions and ideas.

Let me define responsibility for you guys, just so you understand what I mean when I say Bush needs to accept responsibility for the soldier's death.

Responsibility is a two way street, and responsibility is shared, not kept, by everyone who did any one little thing to push something in one direction or another, to get the ball rolling toward this "event" that the said people are responsible for. It could be, say, making 40 million dollars for your company. To make this forty million dollars, you had to hire thirty-five guys to do whatever necessary to make that money. Now you learn one of them, in doing whatever necessary, was sued for attempted blackmail. You share responsilbity for his blackmail, because you ordered them to do whatever necessary. Now here's the thing, you just made 40 million dollars, and when the boss asks who's responsible, it was you, and you get to reap the rewards for being the one responsible for this, and therefore, you can take this "lawsuit" as an acceptible sacrifice. That is what responsibility means. Bush is responsible for that soldier's death, and he needs to accept that, and to me the only way he can convince me he's got the balls to look his means in the face and say, "I know what I'm doing here" is to go to that woman, look her in the eyes and tell her why her son died.

If it were Martin Luther King Jr in Bush's position right now I'd say the same thing, even if I thought it was a justified war I would say the same thing. You have to accept all the responsibility for the reactions that are caused by your actions, the good and the bad.

you'll find that I am not one to insult someone like that. If however I do insult someone it wil usally be over PM so the "public" doesn't get invloved. I too enjoy talking with peopl e who dissagree with me which is why im here now.

Some of my "best" friends here on the forum happen to be the people I don't understand. Like Stargazey or Doomed. I like those guys because of those reasons.


Call me Jesus freak. Someone who ties his political opinions in with what the bible says. Which is somthing I hope people will not like me less for.

Really? In that case, Jesus voted for Jonh Kerry. Hahaha! I win!

It's funny, I can't find a respectful debate in forums made specifically for debating but I can find one here. Heh, I remember once I was banned from a forum because I said the Over-Population thing is a lie and that this world produces enough grain alone to give every human being 3500 calories a day. Some people just hate the truth.

A good topic to discuss. As I think it was red or gamer brought this up earlier.

Famine and food production?

Though I think over-population may be somthing to consider in the maybe near future I don't think it should be a major concern now. People however will keep dieing because of lack of food because countries that can spare the food will not give it to them. We try though sometimes like that "Stop poverty" show they had awhile back. The money the collect though goes to only about 1/32 of the poeple who need it. Its going to take global comitment to work that out which is going to be hard with countries getting at each others necks.

Here's a case with Bolivia, a country that suffers with more starving people per capita than any other country. This country produces enough food to feed their population something like 5 times over, but such a large portion of their food is outsourced, and most of the remaining goes to the rochest 5% of the country. Over population is not the problem, it's simply lack of intelligent distribution. We have the food to make everyone on earth a fat pig.

Another myth is that in countries like India where the population is climbing drastically, it's because of lack of information about contraceptives or something, but it's not. The truth is, poor families have lot's of children as security investments. They tend to have lot's of children because that means more working hands, and it means when they're older there are better chances that some in the family will take care of them. These lower income guys aren't humping monkeys, they're trying to adjust to a very bad situation any way they can.

One of the biggest problems of famine and death in certain countries is due to their governments, warlords and donation thieves. On a program I saw a man was collecting things like beds and toys for third world countries in Africa, but when he got to Africa, donation thieves demanded they get a share and took many of the collected goods and supplies.

Another example was a warlord, Mohammad Farid Aidid, who used food as a wepon in the Somolian conflicts. He demanded his people to fight the Americans or else they will never be given their food.

and also there's large corporations that have helped create HIPC's (heavily indebted poor countries) by seemingly offering them aid. but instead they offer loans with ridiculous interest rates (like 300% no joke) and the countries can't even keep up paying the interest on the loans.

i eman it may not have direct correlation with food distribution, if a country has a fortune to pay of in loans, they will do whatever they can to scrape up some money.

I completely agree. Why would you give someone a loa if you know they can't pay it off and they'll die trying? Its insanity.

Jona, why'd you ignore my question?


Did you like President Clinton?

maybe because the topic changed from the war and bush to overpopulation?

Back on topic -

I don't think overpopulation is a problem at all. Just because people are starving doesn't mean that place is overpopulated. Usually lack of money and corrupt government are the reasons, not lack of food due to overpopulation.

like the poor farmers in India. Notice that no rich people are starving over there - because they have a better opportunity and more money. They bribe the government (believe it or not, a lot of government officials take bribes, even in the US) so that they can throw people out of their farms and clai it as their own, forcing families out on the street and giving the rich people more profit. This isn't a once every ten years kind of thing, this is quite frequent.

I must compliment you all for making very interesting posts from which much can be learnt and much can be considered....no hard-talk just sensible, good posts


Cake for all of you!!

alright, time for some definitions, then a post

Overpopulation- Value judgement reflecting an observation or conviction that a current environment cannot sustain its present population.

Carrying Capacity- The number of organisms an environment can support.
In the case of humans,however, carrying capacity is defined as the number of humans an area can support on a sustained basis given the prevailing technology.

So overpopulation is a relative term. But the term for carrying capacity helps us clear up part of the issue in determining whether the world today is overpopulated.

Everyone knows that populations grow exponentially (,2,4,16,256,etc), but it was once believed that food production grew in a linear fashion (1,2,3,4,5,etc). So a theory was developed by a man named Malthus that stated:

now this theory was believed as true until 1965 when Ester Boserup created her theory which stated :


or simply put, the as population increased mankind would develop a new method of agriculture that would yield more crops and thus produce enough food to feed the existing population.

This theory was put into play in 1944 with the launch of the Green revolution. This agricultural movement was started by the U.S. agency for international development to increase yields by using:

1)New crop cultivars
2)irrigation
3)fertilizers
4)pesticides
5)mechanization.

With the ultimte goal of eliminating hunger by improving crop performance.

Needless to say biotechnology was used to produce strains of crops that reacted better to fertilizers (i.e. produced more crops, instead of just creating more leaves) and that could be grown closer together by having a high resistance to pests and disease.

The green revolution was succesful, but it also had sideffects. for example it reduced the variety of crops that we eat, since it focused on creating just high-yielding cultivars. The Big 4 being : wheat, corn, rice, and soybeans.

And perhaps the biggest failure of the green revolution is that it faced huge transportation problems. they had the food to distribute but they could not distribute al the food before it went bad.

I'd say the world is not overpopulated, its jsut that we have not developed a system that can efficiently bypass the political system and deliver the food we have to those who needs it.

[/end rant]

Good post Megil..

I tend to think the world will never be over populated. Why?

Man,(human beings) from the beginning of creation (or whenever they evolved to you non-creation types) has learned and adapted to the situations and problems of the world. If what I said is true, by the time we have "crisis" trust me, their will be a billions brains working towards the same goal of... What do we do now!? Man will over-come

In fact, the world is the least of our worry's, before theres over population we are going to kill each other off. Mans Downfall. IMO

Thank you channler.

so you are in agreement with the Boserup theory then.

Err.. if thats what you said sure...

Remeber I'm just the un-educated hic from North Carolina where all we have is tobacco and... err... well thats about it.. Oh and trees too!

NC also has a large array of rocks and minerals. supposedly like the state with the largest variety.

we had a gold rush in Nc O.o

lol. k it offtopic i know. just beat me with a very soft pillow. I'll accpet that as my punishment

WHOA!! WE HAVE ROCKS!?!

Hehe, I'll stop now..

But yes, man will always overcome nature (IMO) but never each other

I disagree, I think man simply won't naturally become over-populated. It is extremely rare for any creature to overpopulate an area to the point of endangering itself. An exception is mold, but that doesn't really count because mold is outside the idea of habitat, or food chain. Human's exist within the food chain, and when animals become over-populated it is because of human intervention, in every case. When a crisis has occured, billions of minds will not be working toward the same thing. Animals have never learned to deal with crisis that threaten extinction, because either the crisis never came into full eclipse, or they became extinct. Man can't conquer nature, and the more it attempts tamper with said nature, to intervene, the more it faces nature's recoil. No, human invetion works like this, one step forward, three steps back. For every 10 million productive things humans have done, there are about 30 million negative things humans did "with the best intentions." Now, it's simply not in accordance with the laws of nature and evolution to exterminate by over-population. The Universe was smarter than that went creating the laws of nature.

and i disagree with your concept.

Yes there is a natural carrying capacity that an ecosystem can handle. and this capacity varies depending on the species. and all species of animals, including humans fit into this. the thing is that no species knows its own carrying capacity they simply keep doing what they are hardwired to do, and that is survive and reproduce.

Now this is what happens, it is all a system of cause and effect, checks and balances per say. Since the system is too complex to look at it in its entirity we will break it down to just a few variables, Primarily because its easier to understand, and secondly because I don't want to be typing for all eternity.

So let's now get technical shall we ^ ^.



Alright, so theres a graph. populations grow exponentially as long as there are enough resources available to support the population, aso assuming resources are infinite, growth will grow exponentially infinitely. this is shown by the blue line in the graph.

We do know that resources are not infinite, so there has to be a limit on resources meaning there has to be a limit in population size. now the black line shows the carrying capacity in a natural environment. the red line shows the exponential growth of a population, but if you not as it nears the carrying capacity growth begins to slow down until it stables out. now this is a very generic model. But it helps us see two things.

1) some organisms such as Bacteria(and you can even say when u see a later char the humans grow this way too) reproduce so rapidly that their growth overshoots the carrying capacity by great quantities. What then happens is that resources are rapidles depleted and the populations dies of until a bit lower than the carrying capacity. it then stabilizes there.
2) other organisms follow the logistic growth, and are usually large and slow reproducing animals (elephants, Whales, etc)

Alright so the part where population is "stable" is very generic and it really looks more like this


In this example we have hares(prey) and lynxs(predator). as prey population increases, you see an increase in predator population. this makes sense since there is more food available and can support a larger population of lynxs. Now as the predator population begins climbing, the prey population begins dropping for ovbious reasons(i.e. predation, and also a depletion of their food source, grasses and other plants), what happens next is that the lynx population begins to decline because the amount of prey has decreased and the amount available is not enough to maintain the current population, so we see fewer cubs living to adulthood, and some adults dying from starvation. Also another factor here is disease. Disease spreads faster when organisms are grouped closely together. the larger the population the greater the chance of interaction between individuals and more chance for the transmittence of an antigen.

This system of checks and balances stops populations from going way out of control, and does so by keeping raising and lowering the Birth and death rates.

So with the exception of microbes, most populations will never ever excede their carrying capacity. There are however times when nature changes the carrying capacity, say by a natural disaster and the populations numbers plummet, if not enough resources remain a population can entirely die out, and sometimes evena species. so species do do extinct naturally, it is not a solely manmade problem.

So no we leave the realm of wildlife and go into humans. This is a chart of the human population since 4000 BC.


as you see we have had a pretty constant population growing relatively slowly. it is however during the last 1000 years that the human population has undergone a population explosion. now if you tell me this is a solely natural accident then you are just thick headed. over the past 1000 years mankind has gone through the industrial revolution, the creation of machines, also great innovation in the world of hygiene and medicine. We have as mankind knowingly reduced, and sometimes even reduced the checks that keep our population under control. we have eliminated virulent disease, created machines to do work for us, letting us produce more than ever before. and with the development of genetics and biotechnology we have altered our diets, and in some cases overcome the genetic problems that plague our species.

No you saw the population cycle with teh hares and lynx. alright well here is a graph of birth and death rates of sweden and mexico.



Lets just focus on one of the two nations, Sweden. Tis phenomenon has occured only with humans, and is called the demographic transition model.

normally populations have high birth rates and high death rates. reason being that a family would have lots of children to ensure some survived to adult hood. alright, well thanks to technology and civilization we have managed to decrease the death rate, since we can extend lif with medicines, and also ensure that more children will live to adulthood. This causes family size to decrease since we no longer need to worry about most of the children dieing of. As long as birth rates exceeds death rate, populations will grow. We are now seeing a phenomene which is labeled the 5th step of teh transition model. This is happening in a few european nations where death rates exceed birth rates and we have a population decline. but I digress.

All of this is just to show that we as humans have succesfully increased the carrying capacity. the question is not whether we can keep it going forever becuase thats just not possible. the question is when will we push nature to the max and reach that final carrying capacity. When we reach this capacity, it is not to say we will all die out, but we will instead have a pretty constant population.

So doomedone, you cannot argue that mankind has not modified nature and in doing so, allowed our population to grow so large.

and with this I rest my case.

this is off topic and i dont want to get into this but, holy crap!!!! U guys really do alot of research for somthing that is only a Forum Disscusion!!

You have to know what your talking about before you go in and start giving speeches.

Well, from what I gathered then you don't disagree with me, it's simply unnatural for any species to over-populate, as in to threaten its own extinction. Think of it like this, as many people do. Bacteria eat everything in sight until there's nothing left and then they starve. Therefore, millions, possibly billions of species of bacteria go extinct everyday. Take your armpits, you sweat, then bacteria form especially evolved into eating your sweat. These bacteria are what produce the oder. Now if you don't go out to a location you'd sweat again and wait long enough for the bacteria to finish off your sweat, they'd die. They finish off the resources, but bacteria don't really apply to carrying capacity because they aren't evolve to sustain their own species. Most other organisms live specifically to keep their species alive, and everything is focused on that. Bacteria act as more of a ball-roller, keeping the cycle of life moving, therefore the idea of pushing themselves into their own extinction like they do is not unnatural. It's their job, to break down these nutrients for the organisms.

See, resources don't grow, they fluctuate, depending, really, on how many dead things there are. When a population exceeds its limits, then many will die of starvation, and their bodies broken down to create a new wave of nutrients that will travel through the cycle of life and up the food chain. You need the death to refill the food-chain. That's what makes it so unnatural to over-populate a species into a threatening point, at least threatening on the species as a whole.

bacteria are 4.2 billion years old. and you tell me they are not geared for survival -.- . yes theconsume most of their resource bbut very rarely do the have such massive die off that they die. besides bacteria are among the most succesful organism on this planet as far as survival.


and besides overpopulation doesn't mean that the species threatens its own existence.

That's a myth too.

I must tell you now, I was in a city with a population of millions, and not once did I see children working hard labor. You'll find it very rare compared to what books tell you.

I read a lot about how there are a lot of homeless people. Sure there are, Bangalore is comparable to Chicago in that figure.

India's has a yery young population, unlike the U.S. This big population is good because it ensures able workers in the future. The U.S and what some people like to call developed countries, have a lower birth rate. The population in our nations are becoming older. Sure, this might not happen for a while, but think about it. Do we have the young workers to meet the demands off all the jobs of the future. Our older population is taking a higher percent as we go on.

Oh, and about the monkey thing . . .that's just weird . . .



Wow, we immediately associate Indian farmers as poor.

Megil, the way bacteria work fill in a completely different niche in the cycle of life than other life-forms. Bacteria as a whole do not go extinct, but many different strands of bacteria go extinct all the time, and new forms evolve. What's you're left with are well broken-down nutrients. Obviously bacteria would be one the oldest life-forms on this planet because they hold up such a large, important pillar in the cycle of life.

Minque, how is that not what I said? They're investments, they have more children than the family can feed at the mean-time, but by the time they're like nine or ten they can start doing real labour.

What monkey thing?

every organism fills in an individual niche. and theirs is not entirely unique to them. bacteria are phtosynthetic, like plants, and others work as decomposers, a role shared also by fungi. so their niche isn't entirely different from that of any other organism.

the only thing i get that you are saying is that just becuase bacteria are prokaryotes, they are somehow exempt to the rules that are applicable to other living things?

Basically, not exempt, they have different rules. For other animals, the chief reason for them to survive is to continue the existence of their species, and in doing so they continue the existence of their habitat. Bacteria's job is to consume and split off. It's not because they're prokayotes as much as it's just because they're asexual really. This is what I mean, bacteria send a new wave of decomposed goods through the cycle (first into the soil, then into the trees, then into the herbivores, then to the carnivores). The resources available determine the population of the next species, therefore its bacterias main job to keep the entire habitat alive, not just their own species, though their own species survival does mean they will continue to consume, it's basically their job to threaten themselves into extinction by overpopulation. The more they do, the more resources are decomposed, and the more other life-forms can thrive.

Don't disrespect me with a duhr, by the way, I'm trying to explain something to you, you looked like you weren't getting it, so I made it simpler.

sory, i apologize fr that.

also corals, worms, algae, protists. all reproduce asexually as well. are they also following a different set of rules? Shoot plants reproduce asexually as well.

and bacteria can produce sexually, well nearly. bacteria can send the DNa into another bacteria, t ensure genetic diversity.

yes i agree bacteria play a ver important role in the decomposition of materials, and we would be nowhere without them. but it is not their decaying bodies that producse the next source of minerals. bacteria decompose extracellularly, sending enzymes outside their cell membanes and letting the enzyme breakdown the chemicals around them, the bacteria then absorbs the energy released through this decomposition. the chemicals used are just temporary and are then released back into the environment.

A perfect example of this would be the nitrogen fixing bacteria. they are the only organisms on this earth that can turn Nirtogen gas into nitrogenous compounds (ammonie, Nitrates, nitrite) the usually make Nitrates out of the gas by binding it to hydrogen moleculs that are gotten from breaking apart water molecules. the energy released from the water molecule is used by the bacteria, and the transforming of nitrogen to nitrate is simply the bacterias way of getting rid of hydrogen molecules. so its only as a by product the bacteria recycle nutrients. they don't ingest them then die and decompose.

Anyway, back on topic. The point is, and we'll both agree, it's not natural for an animal to threaten itself into extinction by means of over-population. Humans today, however, seem have more children the poorer they are because most developing countries have a system of labour, so more children increases the family's chance of survival. This means basically there are plenty of resources, they simply don't have the means of getting them. The tie in is that humans in developing countries follow a strange version of carrying capacity, where the carrying capacity humans have managed to develop could support billions more humans, and yet so many of us are starving.

yes we agree on that.

also developing countries would still be in the early stages of the demographic transitions model. meaning there would be a high death rate, probably and even higher infant mortality rating, this explains why poorer countries tend to have higher birth rates as well. since families must consider the high probability that most of the children will die from one reason or another, usually disease being the main agent.

actually, I said "poor" farmers to clarfiy, not to say that all indian farmers are poor.

Though most are.

I got one that may or may not work.

Sex-ed in highschool, do you think it should be taught or not? Do you think it should be the parents responsibility to teach sex-ed to their kids? Do you think abstinence needs to be teached only, not condoms, etcetera?

Me: The facts show in schools where abstinence was taught alone, that there was absolutely no change in how much students were having sex (they asked these question in anonymous surveys) and no change in the rate at which STDs and teen pregnancy spread. In schools that don't teach sex-ed at all, there was no change (as they are the control group) In the third party, which represents the majority of school in the United States, that taught everything from options if you get pregnant to abstinence, there was no increase nor decrease in the amount of sex (or at least amount students admitted in the survey) however, the spread of pregnancy and STDs went down considerably. This is one survey, and many more have been done, but generally the final result proven is that teaching abstinence does not work. Teenagers are horny, simply so. Therefore I am in favor of sexual education in school. In my opinion, it works, because herpies frighten me. I refuse to have sex without a condom because I was educated about herpies.

As much as i hate to agree with you doomed you are really right about this.

I mean, since now no one in the US believes the, "If you have sex before your married your going to HELL" thing eduacting people on the problems and disease's ascossiated (and solutions) with that is the best way to counter it.

BTW, can you tell me what schools this survey was done in? Cause.. uh.. the population of the schools really does matter.

Oh and there trying to get kids in sex-ed as early as kindergarden here im my school district. To me that is a BIG NO NO... You tell them that early and they start to want to experiment. Some kids are to young. I mean would you want your 5 year-old learning how to put on a condom!?