to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media problem u sociopathic market fundie
On 6/23/2026 4:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???Hey! You're the Nick eating all the beef and birds!
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
You know that's bad for the environment, right?
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media problem u sociopathic market fundie
On 6/23/26 7:36 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/23/2026 4:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???Hey! You're the Nick eating all the beef and birds!
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social
media problem u sociopathic market fundie
You know that's bad for the environment, right?
birds aren't mammals, u know that right?
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use--
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival. We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival. We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
On Wed, 24 Jun 2026 11:40:09 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Overpopulation is a problem. Too few young people to support the old
guys is a problem. It is easy to pick one or the other problem and
act as if that were the end of it.
The hard thing is to reconcile the two different problems in a
solution.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca> wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the >> quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
I was talking to Wilson. But I see that it was nicks thread. Nevermind.
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival. We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>> On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the >> quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation. If you
remove that, things start to go haywire. This is not a fault in white
tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the
population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
Or about how prosperous people want fewer kids. It is simply
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the >> quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social
media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have >>>>> been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social
media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by
balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and
survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless
should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation.-a If you
remove that, things start to go haywire.-a This is not a fault in white
tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
Or about how prosperous people want fewer kids.-a It is simply
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
On Jun 26, 2026 at 12:06:06rC>PM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
Right, we've manipulated the natural environment, ie. reduced natural deer predators (wolves, etc). This is the deer's method of limiting their numbers.
Our solution is "Management". Many other animals just limit births in response to environmentally negative changes.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the
population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
From what I've researched, this is the first time in our history that we have
a population decline that isn't due to war, famine, climate changes or disease, but appears to be a shift in personal choice, cultural and/or scioeconomic conditions. Studies show that monetary incentives to have kids have initially, a small but not a sustaining outcome.
Maybe this is the first time in history that we've actually had a choice and we are making it.
On 6/26/2026 11:43 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 26, 2026 at 12:06:06rC>PM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:What about Nick's question?
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
Right, we've manipulated the natural environment, ie. reduced natural deer >> predators (wolves, etc). This is the deer's method of limiting their numbers.
Our solution is "Management". Many other animals just limit births in
response to environmentally negative changes.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
From what I've researched, this is the first time in our history that we have
a population decline that isn't due to war, famine, climate changes or
disease, but appears to be a shift in personal choice, cultural and/or
scioeconomic conditions. Studies show that monetary incentives to have kids >> have initially, a small but not a sustaining outcome.
Maybe this is the first time in history that we've actually had a choice and >> we are making it.
Do you know how hard you need to abuse a mammal to make them not have children???
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation. If you
remove that, things start to go haywire. This is not a fault in white
tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
Or about how prosperous people want fewer kids. It is simply
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
On 6/26/2026 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It looks like I was snipped out. So, let me just say this about that:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social >>>>>>> media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have >>>>>> been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social
media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by
balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and >>>>> survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless >>>>> should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>> are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation.a If you
remove that, things start to go haywire.a This is not a fault in white
tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
Or about how prosperous people want fewer kids.a It is simply
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
On Jun 26, 2026 at 12:06:06?PM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
Right, we've manipulated the natural environment, ie. reduced natural deer >predators (wolves, etc). This is the deer's method of limiting their numbers.
Our solution is "Management". Many other animals just limit births in
response to environmentally negative changes.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the
population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
From what I've researched, this is the first time in our history that we have >a population decline that isn't due to war, famine, climate changes or >disease, but appears to be a shift in personal choice, cultural and/or >scioeconomic conditions. Studies show that monetary incentives to have kids >have initially, a small but not a sustaining outcome.
Maybe this is the first time in history that we've actually had a choice and >we are making it.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 18:43:21 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Jun 26, 2026 at 12:06:06?PM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
Right, we've manipulated the natural environment, ie. reduced natural deer >> predators (wolves, etc). This is the deer's method of limiting their numbers.
Our solution is "Management". Many other animals just limit births in
response to environmentally negative changes.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
From what I've researched, this is the first time in our history that we have
a population decline that isn't due to war, famine, climate changes or
disease, but appears to be a shift in personal choice, cultural and/or
scioeconomic conditions. Studies show that monetary incentives to have kids >> have initially, a small but not a sustaining outcome.
Maybe this is the first time in history that we've actually had a choice and >> we are making it.
Mostly they have not yet adapted to the absence of predators. Give
them a few hundred thousand years though.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 18:43:21 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Jun 26, 2026 at 12:06:06?PM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
Right, we've manipulated the natural environment, ie. reduced natural deer >> predators (wolves, etc). This is the deer's method of limiting their numbers.
Our solution is "Management". Many other animals just limit births in
response to environmentally negative changes.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
From what I've researched, this is the first time in our history that we have
a population decline that isn't due to war, famine, climate changes or
disease, but appears to be a shift in personal choice, cultural and/or
scioeconomic conditions. Studies show that monetary incentives to have kids >> have initially, a small but not a sustaining outcome.
Maybe this is the first time in history that we've actually had a choice and >> we are making it.
Mostly they have not yet adapted to the absence of predators. Give
them a few hundred thousand years though.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:58:00 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It looks like I was snipped out. So, let me just say this about that:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social >>>>>>>> media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have >>>>>>> been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social
media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by
balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and >>>>>> survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless >>>>>> should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>>> are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation.-a If you
remove that, things start to go haywire.-a This is not a fault in white >>>> tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>>>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
Or about how prosperous people want fewer kids.-a It is simply
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
If I clip you out, you are damn well clipped.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:44:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>> are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation. If you
remove that, things start to go haywire. This is not a fault in white
tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
Or about how prosperous people want fewer kids. It is simply
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
Ask occam.
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:43 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 26, 2026 at 12:06:06rC>PM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:What about Nick's question?
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>> are reduced.
Right, we've manipulated the natural environment, ie. reduced natural deer >>> predators (wolves, etc). This is the deer's method of limiting their numbers.
Our solution is "Management". Many other animals just limit births in
response to environmentally negative changes.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
From what I've researched, this is the first time in our history that we have
a population decline that isn't due to war, famine, climate changes or
disease, but appears to be a shift in personal choice, cultural and/or
scioeconomic conditions. Studies show that monetary incentives to have kids >>> have initially, a small but not a sustaining outcome.
Maybe this is the first time in history that we've actually had a choice and
we are making it.
Do you know how hard you need to abuse a mammal to make them not have
children???
Maybe women Mammals have decided rCLno more abuserCY. Or theyrCOve put having children on hiatus until the terms are re-negotiated (as if they ever
were).
Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:43 AM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 26, 2026 at 12:06:06rC>PM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:What about Nick's question?
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09rC>AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>> are reduced.
Right, we've manipulated the natural environment, ie. reduced natural deer >>> predators (wolves, etc). This is the deer's method of limiting their numbers.
Our solution is "Management". Many other animals just limit births in
response to environmentally negative changes.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
From what I've researched, this is the first time in our history that we have
a population decline that isn't due to war, famine, climate changes or
disease, but appears to be a shift in personal choice, cultural and/or
scioeconomic conditions. Studies show that monetary incentives to have kids >>> have initially, a small but not a sustaining outcome.
Maybe this is the first time in history that we've actually had a choice and
we are making it.
Do you know how hard you need to abuse a mammal to make them not have
children???
Maybe women Mammals have decided rCLno more abuserCY. Or theyrCOve put having children on hiatus until the terms are re-negotiated (as if they ever
were).
On Jun 26, 2026 at 6:10:19rC>PM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 18:43:21 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Jun 26, 2026 at 12:06:06?PM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>> are reduced.
Right, we've manipulated the natural environment, ie. reduced natural deer >>> predators (wolves, etc). This is the deer's method of limiting their numbers.
Our solution is "Management". Many other animals just limit births in
response to environmentally negative changes.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
From what I've researched, this is the first time in our history that we have
a population decline that isn't due to war, famine, climate changes or
disease, but appears to be a shift in personal choice, cultural and/or
scioeconomic conditions. Studies show that monetary incentives to have kids >>> have initially, a small but not a sustaining outcome.
Maybe this is the first time in history that we've actually had a choice and
we are making it.
Mostly they have not yet adapted to the absence of predators. Give
them a few hundred thousand years though.
Are you referring about the Dear? Because I cant figure how you're talking about humans historically.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 18:43:21 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Jun 26, 2026 at 12:06:06?PM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote: >>
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
Right, we've manipulated the natural environment, ie. reduced natural deer >> predators (wolves, etc). This is the deer's method of limiting their numbers.
Our solution is "Management". Many other animals just limit births in
response to environmentally negative changes.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
From what I've researched, this is the first time in our history that we have >> a population decline that isn't due to war, famine, climate changes or
disease, but appears to be a shift in personal choice, cultural and/or
scioeconomic conditions. Studies show that monetary incentives to have kids >> have initially, a small but not a sustaining outcome.
Maybe this is the first time in history that we've actually had a choice and >> we are making it.
Mostly they have not yet adapted to the absence of predators. Give
them a few hundred thousand years though.
On 6/26/2026 3:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:58:00 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It looks like I was snipped out. So, let me just say this about that:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social >>>>>>>>> media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have >>>>>>>> been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social >>>>>>>> media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by
balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and >>>>>>> survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless >>>>>>> should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>>>> are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation.a If you
remove that, things start to go haywire.a This is not a fault in white >>>>> tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>>>>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation. >>>>>Or about how prosperous people want fewer kids.a It is simply
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
If I clip you out, you are damn well clipped.
Why would you be opposed to a woman's right to choose?
Where's Tara?
On Jun 26, 2026 at 6:10:19?PM EDT, "Noah Sombrero" <fedora@fea.st> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 18:43:21 -0000 (UTC), Tara <tsm@fastmail.ca>
wrote:
On Jun 26, 2026 at 12:06:06?PM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>> are reduced.
Right, we've manipulated the natural environment, ie. reduced natural deer >>> predators (wolves, etc). This is the deer's method of limiting their numbers.
Our solution is "Management". Many other animals just limit births in
response to environmentally negative changes.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
From what I've researched, this is the first time in our history that we have
a population decline that isn't due to war, famine, climate changes or
disease, but appears to be a shift in personal choice, cultural and/or
scioeconomic conditions. Studies show that monetary incentives to have kids >>> have initially, a small but not a sustaining outcome.
Maybe this is the first time in history that we've actually had a choice and
we are making it.
Mostly they have not yet adapted to the absence of predators. Give
them a few hundred thousand years though.
Are you referring about the Dear? Because I cant figure how you're talking >about humans historically.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:52:15 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 3:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:58:00 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:Why would you be opposed to a woman's right to choose?
On 6/26/2026 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It looks like I was snipped out. So, let me just say this about that:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social >>>>>>>>>> media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have >>>>>>>>> been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social >>>>>>>>> media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by >>>>>>>> balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and >>>>>>>> survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless >>>>>>>> should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>>>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>>>>> are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation.-a If you >>>>>> remove that, things start to go haywire.-a This is not a fault in white >>>>>> tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain theOr about how prosperous people want fewer kids.-a It is simply
population is less about nature and more about social manipulation. >>>>>>
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
If I clip you out, you are damn well clipped.
Where's Tara?
Clipping your stuff has nothing to do with what women do with their
bodies.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:44:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been >>>>>> an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use >>>>>> is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>> are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation. If you
remove that, things start to go haywire. This is not a fault in white
tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
Or about how prosperous people want fewer kids. It is simply
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
Ask occam.
On 6/26/2026 6:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:44:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media >>>>>>>> problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>>> are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation. If you
remove that, things start to go haywire. This is not a fault in white >>>> tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>>>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation.
Or about how prosperous people want fewer kids. It is simply
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
Ask occam.
Occam's not here unfortunately, so we just have you.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:53:12 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:44:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>>>> are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation. If you
remove that, things start to go haywire. This is not a fault in white >>>>> tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain the >>>>>> population is less about nature and more about social manipulation. >>>>>Or about how prosperous people want fewer kids. It is simply
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
Ask occam.
Occam's not here unfortunately, so we just have you.
You can still evaluate his proposition. The simplest explanation that
fits the evidence is the most likely to be correct. That is not my
idea, so I cannot do more than recite it.
On 6/27/2026 2:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:53:12 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:44:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying >>>>>>>>> the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond
sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation >>>>>>> leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>>>>> are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation. If you >>>>>> remove that, things start to go haywire. This is not a fault in white >>>>>> tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain theOr about how prosperous people want fewer kids. It is simply
population is less about nature and more about social manipulation. >>>>>>
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
Ask occam.
Occam's not here unfortunately, so we just have you.
You can still evaluate his proposition. The simplest explanation that
fits the evidence is the most likely to be correct. That is not my
idea, so I cannot do more than recite it.
Why would richer people want fewer kids? Ignoring evidence does not hone
the razor.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:58:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:53:12 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:44:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Occam's not here unfortunately, so we just have you.
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond >>>>>>>> sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>>>>>> are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation. If you >>>>>>> remove that, things start to go haywire. This is not a fault in white >>>>>>> tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain theOr about how prosperous people want fewer kids. It is simply
population is less about nature and more about social manipulation. >>>>>>>
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
Ask occam.
You can still evaluate his proposition. The simplest explanation that
fits the evidence is the most likely to be correct. That is not my
idea, so I cannot do more than recite it.
Why would richer people want fewer kids? Ignoring evidence does not hone
the razor.
And the evidence has been time after time, from various sources that prosperous people tend to want fewer kids. I do not pretend to know
why.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:58:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Prosperous people in families often subscribe to intensive parenting.
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:53:12 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:44:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us! >>>>>>>>>>
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having >>>>>>>>>> kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond >>>>>>>> sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting >>>>>>>> are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation. If you >>>>>>> remove that, things start to go haywire. This is not a fault in white >>>>>>> tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain theOr about how prosperous people want fewer kids. It is simply
population is less about nature and more about social manipulation. >>>>>>>
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
Ask occam.
Occam's not here unfortunately, so we just have you.
You can still evaluate his proposition. The simplest explanation that
fits the evidence is the most likely to be correct. That is not my
idea, so I cannot do more than recite it.
Why would richer people want fewer kids? Ignoring evidence does not hone
the razor.
And the evidence has been time after time, from various sources that prosperous people tend to want fewer kids. I do not pretend to know
why.
On 6/27/2026 12:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:58:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Prosperous people in families often subscribe to intensive parenting.
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:53:12 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:44:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>>>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond >>>>>>>>> sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation. If you >>>>>>>> remove that, things start to go haywire. This is not a fault in white >>>>>>>> tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain theOr about how prosperous people want fewer kids. It is simply
population is less about nature and more about social manipulation. >>>>>>>>
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
Ask occam.
Occam's not here unfortunately, so we just have you.
You can still evaluate his proposition. The simplest explanation that >>>> fits the evidence is the most likely to be correct. That is not my
idea, so I cannot do more than recite it.
Why would richer people want fewer kids? Ignoring evidence does not hone >>> the razor.
And the evidence has been time after time, from various sources that
prosperous people tend to want fewer kids. I do not pretend to know
why.
Rather than having many children, they prefer to heavily invest
resources into one or two children to guarantee their success.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:00:00 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 12:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:58:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Prosperous people in families often subscribe to intensive parenting.
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:53:12 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:44:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson" <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing centralized >>>>>>>>>>>> control) telling everyone that by having children they are destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond >>>>>>>>>> sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or hunting
are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation. If you >>>>>>>>> remove that, things start to go haywire. This is not a fault in white
tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to sustain theOr about how prosperous people want fewer kids. It is simply >>>>>>>>> unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
population is less about nature and more about social manipulation. >>>>>>>>>
Who are you to say what is necessary?
Ask occam.
Occam's not here unfortunately, so we just have you.
You can still evaluate his proposition. The simplest explanation that >>>>> fits the evidence is the most likely to be correct. That is not my
idea, so I cannot do more than recite it.
Why would richer people want fewer kids? Ignoring evidence does not hone >>>> the razor.
And the evidence has been time after time, from various sources that
prosperous people tend to want fewer kids. I do not pretend to know
why.
Rather than having many children, they prefer to heavily invest
resources into one or two children to guarantee their success.
They tend to farm them out to nannies and later to private residential schools.
On 6/27/2026 2:48 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:00:00 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/27/2026 12:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 14:58:53 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid>Prosperous people in families often subscribe to intensive parenting.
wrote:
On 6/27/2026 2:46 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:53:12 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 6:08 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:44:43 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> social media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth >>>>>>>>>>>>> rates have been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix >>>>>>>>>>>>> it for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been
demagoging having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing >>>>>>>>>>>>> centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are >>>>>>>>>>>>> destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for >>>>>>>>>>>>> social media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments >>>>>>>>>>>> by balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates >>>>>>>>>>>> evolution and survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates, >>>>>>>>>>>> nevertheless should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond >>>>>>>>>>> sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat >>>>>>>>>>> degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation >>>>>>>>>>> or hunting
are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation.-a If >>>>>>>>>> you
remove that, things start to go haywire.-a This is not a fault >>>>>>>>>> in white
tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to >>>>>>>>>>> sustain the
population is less about nature and more about social
manipulation.
Or about how prosperous people want fewer kids.-a It is simply >>>>>>>>>> unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
Ask occam.
Occam's not here unfortunately, so we just have you.
You can still evaluate his proposition.-a The simplest explanation >>>>>> that
fits the evidence is the most likely to be correct.-a That is not my >>>>>> idea, so I cannot do more than recite it.
Why would richer people want fewer kids? Ignoring evidence does not >>>>> hone
the razor.
And the evidence has been time after time, from various sources that
prosperous people tend to want fewer kids.-a I do not pretend to know
why.
Rather than having many children, they prefer to heavily invest
resources into one or two children to guarantee their success.
They tend to farm them out to nannies and later to private residential
schools.
Prosperous parents often subscribe to intensive parenting spending more quality time with their children.
Less prosperous families have to go to work and send their their kids to
day school or baby sitters. YMMV.
On 6/26/2026 4:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:52:15 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 3:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:58:00 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Why would you be opposed to a woman's right to choose?
On 6/26/2026 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It looks like I was snipped out. So, let me just say this about that: >>>>>
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social >>>>>>>>>>> media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates >>>>>>>>>> have
been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it >>>>>>>>>> for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging >>>>>>>>>> having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing
centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are >>>>>>>>>> destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social >>>>>>>>>> media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by >>>>>>>>> balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution >>>>>>>>> and
survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates,
nevertheless
should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond >>>>>>>> sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat
degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or >>>>>>>> hunting
are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation.-a If you >>>>>>> remove that, things start to go haywire.-a This is not a fault in >>>>>>> white
tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids toOr about how prosperous people want fewer kids.-a It is simply
sustain the
population is less about nature and more about social manipulation. >>>>>>>
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
If I clip you out, you are damn well clipped.
Where's Tara?
Clipping your stuff has nothing to do with what women do with their
bodies.
It's Nick's thread. I'm just wondering why anyone might think that
limiting offspring would be a good idea, when Tara already posted that
there are too few children born in the US.
Apparently, Nick thinks you're abusing and burying children.
On 6/26/2026 4:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:52:15 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 3:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:58:00 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>Why would you be opposed to a woman's right to choose?
On 6/26/2026 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It looks like I was snipped out. So, let me just say this about that: >>>>>
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the social >>>>>>>>>>> media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth rates >>>>>>>>>> have
been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it >>>>>>>>>> for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging >>>>>>>>>> having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing
centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are >>>>>>>>>> destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social >>>>>>>>>> media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by >>>>>>>>> balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates evolution >>>>>>>>> and
survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates,
nevertheless
should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond >>>>>>>> sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat
degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or >>>>>>>> hunting
are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation.-a If you >>>>>>> remove that, things start to go haywire.-a This is not a fault in >>>>>>> white
tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids toOr about how prosperous people want fewer kids.-a It is simply
sustain the
population is less about nature and more about social manipulation. >>>>>>>
unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
If I clip you out, you are damn well clipped.
Where's Tara?
Clipping your stuff has nothing to do with what women do with their
bodies.
It's Nick's thread. I'm just wondering why anyone might think that
limiting offspring would be a good idea, when Tara already posted that
there are too few children born in the US.
Apparently, Nick thinks you're abusing and burying children.
On 6/26/26 6:53 PM, Dude wrote:
On 6/26/2026 4:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:52:15 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote:It's Nick's thread. I'm just wondering why anyone might think that
On 6/26/2026 3:09 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:58:00 -0700, Dude <punditster@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>Why would you be opposed to a woman's right to choose?
On 6/26/2026 10:44 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 6/26/2026 1:13 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:It looks like I was snipped out. So, let me just say this about that: >>>>>>
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:06:06 -0400, Wilson <Wilson@nowhere.invalid> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 6/24/2026 1:53 PM, Tara wrote:
On Jun 24, 2026 at 11:40:09?AM EDT, "Wilson"
<Wilson@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
On 6/23/2026 7:56 PM, dart200 wrote:
to make them not have children???
https://fb.watch/HVuocoR8RE
wilson: why should we keep letting the market "solve" the >>>>>>>>>>>> social
media
problem u sociopathic market fundie
Blaming low birth rates on social media when lower birth >>>>>>>>>>> rates have
been
an ongoing thing since the 1970s.
And THEN we need to get the government to step in and fix it >>>>>>>>>>> for us!
Because it SURELY cannot be the people who've been demagoging >>>>>>>>>>> having
kids nonstop (and who are ALL proponents of increasing
centralized
control) telling everyone that by having children they are >>>>>>>>>>> destroying
the earth.
Meanwhile advocating taking personal responsibility for social >>>>>>>>>>> media use
is not even considered to be worth mentioning.
As you know, in nature, species adapt to their environments by >>>>>>>>>> balancing the
quantity of their offspring. The environment dictates
evolution and
survival.
We just don't know the reason for low human birthrates,
nevertheless
should we
try to manipulate nature's adjustment?
It's a good question.
Species like white tail deer will grow their population beyond >>>>>>>>> sustainable levels to the point of overbrowsing and habitat >>>>>>>>> degradation
leading to widespread starvation. Especially when predation or >>>>>>>>> hunting
are reduced.
Because natural systems are balanced to include predation.-a If you >>>>>>>> remove that, things start to go haywire.-a This is not a fault in >>>>>>>> white
tail deer reproduction levels.
I do lean towards the reason we're not making enough kids to >>>>>>>>> sustain the
population is less about nature and more about social
manipulation.
Or about how prosperous people want fewer kids.-a It is simply >>>>>>>> unnecessary to posit manipulation, occam would assert.
Who are you to say what is necessary?
If I clip you out, you are damn well clipped.
Where's Tara?
Clipping your stuff has nothing to do with what women do with their
bodies.
limiting offspring would be a good idea, when Tara already posted that
there are too few children born in the US.
Apparently, Nick thinks you're abusing and burying children.
every child deserves intensive parenting with their parents
#god
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:38:28 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,462 |