Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 16:49:08 GMT 5
Birth and fertility rate is not the same. Fertility rate (the 2.33 children per woman) refers to how many children an average woman gets in her life, while the birth rate (the 38.3 births per 1,000 women) refers to the births in one year. You also divided by 10, not by 1,000, the actual number would be ~0.04 years annually per woman. But the 19.15 per 1,000 people did not only include men and women, but also children and older people, who don't get children, so multiplying by two and then dividing was no good method. The actual average fertility rate in the world is around of 2.5 children per woman, a lot lower than your estimate: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rate(2.5/0.04 yields like 63 years which sounds realistic as an global average lifespan for women, so my calculation was probably right) This doesn't change your message, I merely wanted to make a point about the calculation. Heh, I'm not really an expert on the study of population statistics. Thanks for pointing out the mistakes though, this is what happens if you post when you're really tired. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 5, 2014 17:08:27 GMT 5
No problem (I also sometimes make dumb mistakes, you can ask Vod on that).  |
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Sept 15, 2014 0:57:29 GMT 5
Reducing the male population would greatly increase the risk of inheriting malignant mutations due to inbreeding. H. sapiens already has a low genetic divetsity, especially in the regions outside of Africa.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 15, 2014 1:10:59 GMT 5
H. sapiens already has a low genetic divetsity, especially in the regions outside of Africa. Somehow ironic to read this when considering that these race/ethnicity supremacy debates have such a loud voice on the Internet. |
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Sept 15, 2014 2:40:54 GMT 5
I also think that this confused woman should be put in prison for inciting hate and spreading eugenic ideology.
Either she is a potential criminal of the worst caliber or an attention seeking troll, but I doubt the latter.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Sept 15, 2014 3:52:55 GMT 5
^That would be a violation of freedom of speech.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Sept 15, 2014 5:39:55 GMT 5
Sorry I come from a country where freedom of speech is limited in some areas.
As soon as something is violates the basic constitutional order, it can be infracted.
Demagogues endagering public safety are dangerous, and she is nothing but a demagogue. She calls for the "reduction" of a a specific group by 90%.She calls for physically harming that group.
What would happen if someone proposed to reduce a single ethnic group to 10%?
Maybe putting her into prison is too harsh but ehe certainly needs her braun checked.
She even claims that there will be no genetic problems and that she has asked experts, but this notion is cetainly false, especially at the reduction of males to 1%.
Reducing genetic diversity by nearly 50 percent in an already bottlenecked species is very dangerous(We have similar problems with cattle today, were single bulls father hundreds of offspring.The difference is that most of them are killed before they give birth or their own offspring is.Then a lot of these inbred cattle have serious health problems) . I think she has some major delusions.
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Sept 16, 2014 3:42:21 GMT 5
I looked something up, and her actions are punishable under local law, reaching from paying some money up to 5 years in jail.
I viewed and read more of her stuff, it reaches from dismissing arguments without proper argumentation against them to epic philosophycal trolling a la Socrates.
|
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Sept 16, 2014 14:38:21 GMT 5
This woman is unstable and likely has issues with her father and other male family members. It really is sad. What makes me mad these days are not just feminism. It's the rise of narcissistic women. God damn these self entitled pieces of crap, and the men that put their asses on a pedestal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 17:03:06 GMT 5
Reducing the male population would greatly increase the risk of inheriting malignant mutations due to inbreeding. H. sapiens already has a low genetic diversity, especially in the regions outside of Africa.While I completely agree with the rest of your post, the bolded part seems kinda questionable, as you can see a very wide range of diversity in humans simply by looking around in a large crowd. Can you share your source for that? |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 19, 2014 19:50:56 GMT 5
|
|
stomatopod
Junior Member
Gluttonous Auchenipterid
Posts: 182
|
Post by stomatopod on Sept 19, 2014 22:19:27 GMT 5
I think you mistake phenotypic variation for genetic variation. Humanity went through many population bottlenecks (Toba, LGM, and a variety of local ones. Then there are serious founder effects, as we liked to disperse pretty quickly. H. sapiens may be as old as 200k years but most modern populations are derived from populations that spread during the Neolithic. I can post papers that mention all this, of you do not believe me.
I actually wanted to, but the bibliography is pretty extensive.Googling "human genetic diversity low" will give you a plethora of results.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2014 23:26:07 GMT 5
I think you mistake phenotypic variation for genetic variation. Humanity went through many population bottlenecks (Toba, LGM, and a variety of local ones. Then there are serious founder effects, as we liked to disperse pretty quickly. H. sapiens may be as old as 200k years but most modern populations are derived from populations that spread during the Neolithic. I can post papers that mention all this, of you do not believe me. I actually wanted to, but the bibliography is pretty extensive.Googling "human genetic diversity low" will give you a plethora of results. I did search... it turns out you're right.Man, outside looks can be so deceiving. |
|
|
|
Post by malikc6 on Sept 21, 2014 0:36:59 GMT 5
Sounds interesting do. Do it. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Sept 21, 2014 0:37:30 GMT 5
What do you mean? Starting a race thread or turning yours into one?
|
|
