 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I have been watching a programme about the second world war,and it said that 55 million people died during it.Now if all those people were alive today would the whole of the world be starving today.??? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago
Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum |
55 million is 0.055 billion, so I doubt it would make much oh a difference to the 7 billion we've currently got. Now if they were all British it might be a bit of a squeeze here now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"55 million is 0.055 billion, so I doubt it would make much oh a difference to the 7 billion we've currently got. Now if they were all British it might be a bit of a squeeze here now."
If there were another 55 million people in Britain that would seriously raise my chances of getting a meet |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It does make you wonder!!!
Personally and i appreciate I may get a bit of flack for this but can we continue trying to save every starving child, everyone with cancer, earth quake/tsunami vitims etc? The Earth is not infinate, there is a limit to the amount of food that can be grown or cattle raised, land suitable for humans to live on etc.
May not happen in our lifetimes or even our great grand childrens but as some point we are going to have to start "putting humans down" rather than keep them alive for longer!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago
Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum |
"55 million is 0.055 billion, so I doubt it would make much oh a difference to the 7 billion we've currently got. Now if they were all British it might be a bit of a squeeze here now.
If there were another 55 million people in Britain that would seriously raise my chances of getting a meet"
If I struggle, then everyone should.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Yes but remember Julia that those 55 million people would have had loads of kids so you could multiply that 55 by at least 10or even more then the numbers become atronomical. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *yrdwomanWoman
over a year ago
Putting the 'cum' in Eboracum |
"Yes but remember Julia that those 55 million people would have had loads of kids so you could multiply that 55 by at least 10or even more then the numbers become atronomical."
Ah, but if we hadn't had WWII there wouldn't have been all those horny military men causing the baby boom when they got home. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"It does make you wonder!!!
Personally and i appreciate I may get a bit of flack for this but can we continue trying to save every starving child, everyone with cancer, earth quake/tsunami vitims etc? The Earth is not infinate, there is a limit to the amount of food that can be grown or cattle raised, land suitable for humans to live on etc.
May not happen in our lifetimes or even our great grand childrens but as some point we are going to have to start "putting humans down" rather than keep them alive for longer! "
We really don't save them all. My concern is ensuring people don't suffer. I would rather "save" children than keep older people alive beyond their time.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Lickty remember you might be old one day??Ive still got plenty of go in me yet."
I know and I don't want to live on demented and decrepit. I just think it would be better to lose the old and decrepit if we are "putting down humans" as suggested above then to abandon children to die in poverty and in pain because of Tsunami's, drought, war and other disasters. I don't buy the line that they are over there so that's ok.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
I thought exactly like you when I was your age,but as you get to my age you start thinking about yourself.Will I wake up in the morning,can I pay my next bill,will I survive this winter,will I have enough money to buy food.Sorry buit my prioroties come first Im afraid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I thought exactly like you when I was your age,but as you get to my age you start thinking about yourself.Will I wake up in the morning,can I pay my next bill,will I survive this winter,will I have enough money to buy food.Sorry buit my prioroties come first Im afraid."
Mine don't now so I don't expect them to when I am older. We all have the survival instinct and it keeps us going and we are programmed to be selfish to stay alive.
However, I think it is taking it to the extreme to suggest we should therefore ignore the suffering of others as "me" is more important than anything else.
Also, thinking logically, who will look after the old people, the sick, run things if all of the children are dead or so malnourished they are under-developed and never reach their full potential?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
What about the old people that are being abused by their "carers" in the old peoples home do you worry about them??.I agree I wish I could help all the children on earth,but shouldn't the government of that country be helping the children in the first place.You can only do so much worrying for other peoples sake but there comes a point where you feel you are just banging your head against a brick wall.And ive hit that wall. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
