New malaria vaccine

[sgt_zim]

It is really sad the comment was not immediately removed.

Lon

Unless it would reflect badly on Jerome, I say leave it there. No point in hiding him from the world, let them see him for what he is.

 

[Firebird]

Moronic posts like the one poorly regarded should be enough to get a guy banned for a couple months. . .

 

[DieJager]

Unless it would reflect badly on Jerome, I say leave it there. No point in hiding him from the world, let them see him for what he is.

It is, sadly, are fairly common opinion and propagated these days more and more. They are called extinctionist. Some influential people have these ideas like Yuval Harari.

E.g.

Hoping for end of humanity

 

[sgt_zim]

It is, sadly, are fairly common opinion and propagated these days more and more. They are called extinctionist. Some influential people have these ideas like Yuval Harari.

E.g.

Hoping for end of humanity

They're just misanthropes. If they really meant it, they would lead by example.

 

[DieJager]

They're just misanthropes. If they really meant it, they would lead by example.

That is always my counter to people saying these things. But never themselves always someone else.

 

[sgt_zim]

I do the same, then nothing but crickets.

 

[Hank2211]

Historically, the best way to lower the rate of increase in populations is to increase the economic well-being of those populations. In other words, the poorer the country, the higher the rate of population growth. Having said that, it needs to be noted that countries with the highest rates of population growth also tend to have the lowest life expectancies - which of course is a result of low economic well-being.

And I would tell my fellow countryman (is he really Canadian?) that the best way to preserve the natural world is to take people out of poverty. The poorer the country, the less people care about wildlife and wild places. It's difficult to worry about conservation of impala when you're worrying about the next meal for your family.

Lastly, I would note that China (which he mentioned) is regretting its one child policy these days. The demographic impact of that policy is potentially devastating to the Chinese economy in the long run - to the point that not only was the policy repealed in 2015, but China today is encouraging people to have more children - but with limited success (an example of one of the consequences - as I noted - of a stronger economy and people having options).

 

[J.Ogilvie]

Historically, the best way to lower the rate of increase in populations is to increase the economic well-being of those populations. In other words, the poorer the country, the higher the rate of population growth. Having said that, it needs to be noted that countries with the highest rates of population growth also tend to have the lowest life expectancies - which of course is a result of low economic well-being.

And I would tell my fellow countryman (is he really Canadian?) that the best way to preserve the natural world is to take people out of poverty. The poorer the country, the less people care about wildlife and wild places. It's difficult to worry about conservation of impala when you're worrying about the next meal for your family.

Lastly, I would note that China (which he mentioned) is regretting its one child policy these days. The demographic impact of that policy is potentially devastating to the Chinese economy in the long run - to the point that not only was the policy repealed in 2015, but China today is encouraging people to have more children - but with limited success (an example of one of the consequences - as I noted - of a stronger economy and people having options).

Excellent points here.

The countries with the best conservation outcomes are those that are rich enough to afford to care about wildlife and wild places.