Posted on 10/01/2010 5:25:16 AM PDT by Scythian
Over-simplified headline. Seems to me he was aiming at the ‘healthy population has a lower birth-rate’ result, not that vaccines would kill off up to 10% of the people. Let’s keep at least one foot on the ground, people.
Bill Gates’ ideas are completely asinine. Wouldn’t improving vaccines and health care lead to a higher population? I didn’t bother reading the article at the link. Furthermore, when he talks about “reproductive health services”, is he referring to killing unborn babies? I have no respect for the guy.
It seems to me that vaccines and health care would result in people’s living longer and producing more surviving offspring, resulting in a higher global population.
The “reproductive health” - sterilization and abortion - must be his real point. Death Eater Gates. Off yourself, first.
Free markets and personal responsibility can take care of that....not Ecoscience weirdos on a power trip.
Btw, there is a lot of unused land in this world - these population explosion claims seem a little silly - JMO.
It's not much of a "vaccine" if it results in a population decrease.
yeah I bet they could, you freakin maniac.
Why do you think millions REFUSED the hini vaccine
COMMUNIST
BTW
MICROSOFT MSN PRODUCTS -— pitiful
“but I agree that at the very least the population growth rate must come down. “
Population in parts of Asia, Russia, Europe, and the US is leveling off and projected to decrease significantly by 2050.
Latin America and Muslims are still rapidly increasing.
All these years, I’ve completely misunderstood the purpose of vaccinations.
“Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that (population) by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”
Huh?????
BTW
the “l” word there is a mistranlation of Isaiah done by satan’s monk.
lucifer means light.
satan is dark.
the actual translation should be just plain old satan, no upper case of any kind for the silly loser snake and with the pointing out of how ridiculous satan and his minions are
So let’s go the Holdren route? Or piss away billions in a effort to “control” population?
“Guess what? They aren’t. “
yes they are, populations in developed countries are largely leveling off and shrinking. Japan and South Korea are paying people to have babies as their birth rate is so low.
Without immigration the population here in the US would be fairly level.
Many studies have shown that as a population becomes more urban and developed, the growth rate of the population declines.
Japan and Europe are proof of this. Even Latin America and South American countries are having slower population growth rates.
The only group that is really reproducing is or Islamic friends.
I was referring to 3rd world nations.....should have been clearer.
I didn’t realize Gates thinks he is above God.
Anyone who is concerned about world population should immediately kill themselves. It’s a positive action with immediate payoff: problem reduced by 1!
1. How do you know your statement is true?
2. How do you know what the proper growth rate is?
3. Are you going to get that answer from all of the alarmists? I dare say that their models are all highly suspect.
4. How do you propose to reduce the growth rate? Mass sterilization? Chinese-type laws? Political correctness run amok?
Just curious on a Friday morning.
It points out that the population bomb idea started in the sixties was wrong and populations will be declining. The full thing is also on Youtube in an 11 part series.
What an idiot. Was this guy ever an engineer or systems analyst? Does he have any mathematical training? I mean really, how did he ever succeed in a technical field like software?
His simplistic equation (and that is being very kind) assumes that all people use the same mix of services, that all services use the same kinds and amounts of energy per use, that all energy production results in the same CO2 levels per energy unit, that there are no economies of scale, that there are no changes in services, energy production, etc. In other words, this equation is uselessly simple. Then again, it may work for un-educated liberals.
Furthermore, the entire premise of his statement is based on fallacy. Even if you take P to zero it will have, for all intents, no effect on CO2. Humans contribute less than 3% of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere each year. Less than 3%. In engineering circles, referring to big complicated systems (like the atmosphere) we'd call that insignificant. Here's a small scale example of that. Go down to your community swimming pool on a hot day when there's dozens of kids splashing around in it. From the curb observe the pool's water level. Now, tell me, is it at 97% of nominal capacity, 103%? Somewhere in-between? And that is giving you a 6% range to estimate in, not just 3%... Oh, and if human activity did drop to zero, don't you think maybe animal populations and activity might increase in our place? Guess what, they'd produce CO2. So the net result would probably be even less than a 3% change.
Gates, you're a fool and your software s**ks. I had to, had to use Windows, Outlook, and msn the other day. Guess what, your own help pages on microsoft.com are wrong, and the combination of your OS, your application, and your service...does not work the way your help pages say it should. You wanted to charge me $35 for help. 15 min of poking around on the Internet (after wasting nearly an hour with ms products and services) finally showed me that it can't be done. Good job. No wonder Apple and Ubuntu are eating your lunch.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.