Well, here it comes.

I've always said that it's only going to be a matter of time before a new STI spreads with devastating results; especially since the dumbass millennials, who never saw the horrors of the '80s, have forgotten (or just willfully disregard) everything we've learned since then about protected sex.

CNN is reporting (via the CDC) that Zika virus has been routinely found in the semen of infected males, but that it survives indefinitely (that they know of at this time) and is transmittable past the 7-10day period where the immune response otherwise purges it. No need for mosquitos as a vector at that point.

*****************************
Just saw the report on TV. This is the only hard link I've been able to find in the minutes since:
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/22/5/16-0107_article

Looking like there's going to be a lotttt more deformed babies being born, really soon....  

Quoting LAX772LR (Thread starter): Looking like there's going to be a lotttt more deformed babies being born, really soon....

I think the discovery will help prevent loads of them in the near future. Wouldn't it be easier to control an STD than a mosquito?

Quoting LAX772LR (Thread starter): is transmittable past the 7-10day period where the immune response otherwise purges it

Some tissues are very hard to reach for antibodies and other parts of the immune system. That's why infections of the eye, the brain and the spinal cord are so devastating and difficult to treat. Here's more on that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_privilege


David

Quoting LAX772LR (Thread starter): I've always said that it's only going to be a matter of time before a new STI spreads with devastating results; especially since the dumbass millennials, who never saw the horrors of the '80s

Is there any evidence that condom usage has decreased amongst millenials or are you just ranting?

BTW, I believe the largest growing population of STD spreaders is the elderly thanks to Viagra extending people's active sexual life.

This from a well known Conservative Jay Ambrose. I do not know if we want to go back to DDT



By Jay Ambrose

Posted Feb. 17, 2016 at 2:01 AM


Warrior greenies, get out of the way. You've done enormous hurt in this world and you appear prepared to keep it up. It's time to allow people their health, their lives and the chance to fight back more effectively against mosquitoes that have been having at us from ancient times to right this minute.

Those insects are currently doing their egregious harm in a new, emphatic way in Brazil and more than 20 other Latin American countries and territories. They are biting people and infecting them with a pathogen called Zika. The virus has been around for decades but for the first time is believed to be causing a birth defect shrinking the skulls and damaging the brains of babies. It may also cause a syndrome that paralyzes people. It has even sneaked into the United States. The reported estimate is that 4 million people could be hit with Zika by 2017.

Time to use DDT maybe? Absolutely. As the scientist Robert Zubrin has noted, here is a pesticide that was used during World War II and later to kill mosquitoes and wipe out malaria and other diseases in the United States, Europe, Latin America and Asia, saving hundreds of millions of lives. Mosquitoes, fighting back, managed to develop resistance to it in some areas, but then something more dramatic happened, giving them an enormous break.

Rachel Carson happened. Her factually challenged book, "Silent Spring," happened. The book said DDT would kill off birds, fish and other wildlife and that some spring morning you'd wake up without hearing a single tweet but maybe having been cursed with cancer.

That was in 1962. By 1971, Zubrin observes in a National Review article, we had a seven-month investigation and a judge ruling that DDT would not commit the alleged harms. It didn't matter. The Environmental Protection Agency banned its use anyway, and another agency said we wouldn't fund foreign projects that used DDT. Other Western countries jumped in with one kind of ban or the other. It became harder for malaria-plagued African countries to get the pesticide.

The cost, some contend, has not been just a few lives, but millions upon millions of lives — mostly African children — even though the spraying would be slight and inside homes and present no wildlife dangers. Consider South Africa. It banned DDT in 1996 and within a matter of years malarial cases had increased by thousands, causing 460 deaths in the year 2000. It reintroduced DDT and had brought malarial deaths down to 94 by 2014.

It's true that some other heedful countries have had less success with DDT, sometimes because of inadequate funding, and have had good success with other techniques. It's true, too, that more potential ill effects of DDT have been noted, although there is still not the slightest hint of anything anywhere comparable to what malaria does.




























» Comment or view comments

Quoting LAX772LR (Thread starter): I've always said that it's only going to be a matter of time before a new STI spreads with devastating results; especially since the dumbass millennials, who never saw the horrors of the '80s, have forgotten (or just willfully disregard) everything we've learned since then about protected sex

Well, in the US if teaching proper sex-ed(not religion based bullshit) at the relevant grades wasn't taboo and some states weren't also actively trying to defund organizations that provide education and means to prevent STI, you wouldn't have to worry about this problem...alas...your religious nutjobs are setting you back in more areas than just Same-sex marriages...

[Edited 2016-02-17 19:25:14]

[Edited 2016-02-17 19:27:36]

[Edited 2016-02-17 19:33:30]

Quoting mham001 (Reply 1): Wouldn't it be easier to control an STD than a mosquito?

Not sure. To be honest, I'd have my doubts.

Quoting LittleFokker (Reply 3): Is there any evidence that condom usage has decreased amongst millenials or are you just ranting?

By all means, let me help you: click HERE.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 5): Well, in the US if teaching proper sex-ed(not religion based bullshit) at the relevant grades wasn't taboo and some states weren't also actively trying to defund organizations that provide education and means to prevent STI, you wouldn't have to worry about this problem

For lack of a better word: Amen.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 5): your religious nutjobs are setting you back in more areas than just Same-sex marriages...

Fortunately, this just came up today!
http://deadstate.org/obama-cuts-all-...d-abstinence-only-sex-ed-programs/

It isn't a huge threat, just another one to add to the list. Personally if it lowers the birth rate for fear of deformity then it might end up doing more good than harm.

The whole Zika scare is pretty convenient, given the issue with larvaecide in Brazil - where the only real issues with the birth defects have been noticed.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 8): The whole Zika scare is pretty convenient, given the issue with larvaecide in Brazil - where the only real issues with the birth defects have been noticed.

No. No. Do not start pushing that line of BS. It's based on a set of big lies and the people telling the lies have ties to the Oganic industry.

http://thescientificparent.org/is-mo...d-cases-of-microcephaly-in-brazil/

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9): No. No. Do not start pushing that line of BS. It's based on a set of big lies and the people telling the lies have ties to the Oganic industry.

   Monsanto shill!

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 6): Quoting Acheron (Reply 5): Well, in the US if teaching proper sex-ed(not religion based bullshit) at the relevant grades wasn't taboo and some states weren't also actively trying to defund organizations that provide education and means to prevent STI, you wouldn't have to worry about this problem For lack of a better word: Amen.

Same goes doubly for Latin America... It will be very interesting to see how this is handled in a region that has loads of Catholic baggage, little to no access to abortion, minimal penetration (t-hee) of contraception, coupled with a strategy of "don't get pregnant for a couple years". I think this is going to have major socio-economic implications on a lot of levels, hopefully in a very positive way.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 10):    Monsanto shill!

Yup. I'll get that paycheck from them...

...some day.

I'm sure.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 10): I think this is going to have major socio-economic implications on a lot of levels

Maybe they'll send Bristol down, to sort it all out for everyone else.  

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 7): It isn't a huge threat, just another one to add to the list. Personally if it lowers the birth rate for fear of deformity then it might end up doing more good than harm.

Yep, personally I hope for a global pandemic of a fast spreading virus that would permanently sterilize anybody who gets it. It's exactly what this specie needs the most right now.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 13): Yep, personally I hope for a global pandemic of a fast spreading virus that would permanently sterilize anybody who gets it. It's exactly what this specie needs the most right now.

I don't even know what to respond to this.

It's one thing to wish for population control akin to China's One Child Policy; it's another to wish harm to people. I assume you'll be the first to get infected with it?

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 14): I don't even know what to respond to this. It's one thing to wish for population control akin to China's One Child Policy; it's another to wish harm to people. I assume you'll be the first to get infected with it?

Overpopulation is the root cause of pretty much all major problems we face right now. Realistically speaking only a rapid reduction in world's human population can save this specie (and most other species on this planet for that matter) from catastrophic climate change and general destruction of nature & resulting mass extinction of species.

The form of viral sterilization I wish for wouldn't exactly harm anybody or cause anyone's death, it would simply prevent people from having children after the infection. It would be a very effective and humane form of population control that would solve all of humanity's problems within a century or so.

I would gladly get infected by this virus if let's say 80% of other humans did too.

Obviously I wouldn't oppose a global one child policy either, but who really thinks that could ever happen? A large portion of this planet is ruled by religious nutjobs who think having a large family is a good thing no matter what. For the same reason, and due to human greed, any serious attempt to limit the climate change to sustainable levels are doomed to fail.

Nah, the solution can't depend from the people, it has to be forced upon them for greater good of all living things on this planet.

[Edited 2016-02-19 04:56:11]

Quoting pvjin (Reply 15): Overpopulation is the root cause of pretty much all major problems we face right now.

No arguments there. I do believe we, as humans, are reaching a point where we won't be able to sustain every one alive.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 15): it would simply prevent people from having children after the infection. It would be a very effective and humane form of population control that would solve all of humanity's problems within a century or so.

Except it's inhumane in the sense that victims would be people who are going on about their daily lives with no warning whatsoever. Imagine a newlywed couple, just ready to start a family and then *boom*, one or both are affected. How can I even say "it's for the greater good" when I'm not even remotely responsible for what they plan to do?

Quoting pvjin (Reply 15): Nah, the solution can't depend from the people, it has to be forced upon them for greater good of all living things on this planet.

That's a tyrannical way to look at things.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 16): No arguments there. I do believe we, as humans, are reaching a point where we won't be able to sustain every one alive.

Not really true. The rate of population growth has been falling for many years.

In Europe and native USA, the population is falling. China is just about peaked. India will peak soon.

The human population will peak and go down.

It's debatable whether starvation or obesity are worse problems for the world's poor. I don't know the answer. In the US and latin America, and Europe, obesity is a far worse problem.

Anyway, about this zika thing, pretty scary. It has me having second thoughts about spring vacations. Some of my family already cancelled theirs.

[Edited 2016-02-19 08:24:04]

Quoting pvjin (Reply 13): Yep, personally I hope for a global pandemic of a fast spreading virus that would permanently sterilize anybody who gets it

Hopefully, it starts with you... and anyone else who thinks like this. Lord knows we don't need any more of that.  

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 9): Quoting N1120A (Reply 8): The whole Zika scare is pretty convenient, given the issue with larvaecide in Brazil - where the only real issues with the birth defects have been noticed. No. No. Do not start pushing that line of BS. It's based on a set of big lies and the people telling the lies have ties to the Oganic industry. http://thescientificparent.org/is-mo...d-cases-of-microcephaly-in-brazil/

Wait, I'm confused, Doc. Are you saying that it is NOT the larvacide, or that it IS the larvicide?

Also, how do you spell larvaecide?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 17): Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 16): No arguments there. I do believe we, as humans, are reaching a point where we won't be able to sustain every one alive. Not really true. The rate of population growth has been falling for many years.

Is that why we hit 7 billion in 2011 and on track to hit 8 billion before 2025? Unless the trend reverses and shows a decline in population growth (ie. more people died that were born) we'll keep growing.

Notice I said that we're reaching a point where it's gonna be unsustainable. What you're saying is that because less water is coming through a hole on a ship it's not going to sink. Will humanity peak? Yeah. At what level? And how long can it sustain that level before countries realize a need to shrink their populations? Can you imagine EVERY country with at least a billion people? If you think food is expensive now, just wait.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 18): Hopefully, it starts with you... and anyone else who thinks like this. Lord knows we don't need any more of that.

We do need more of that. 2 billion people with enjoyable lives is better than 10 billion suffering due to massive environmental problems caused by overpopulation. Quality over quantity.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 17): Not really true. The rate of population growth has been falling for many years.

Yet the population still keeps growing at a rate that is historically speaking still extremely fast. The current levels are already unsunstainable, when the population actually starts to decrease significantly it's already too late unless something dramatic happens.

[Edited 2016-02-19 12:02:56]

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 20): Is that why we hit 7 billion in 2011 and on track to hit 8 billion before 2025? Unless the trend reverses and shows a decline in population growth (ie. more people died that were born) we'll keep growing.

I agree overpopulation is a serious problem. Especially because it tends to happen among poor populations.

China, as it is getting richer, has fallen below replacement levels of childbirth. Starting in 2025, their population will shrink. A long list of countries are already shrinking (again, including the USA if you exclude migration).

World population is expected to peak around 2050. We're actually very near the end of this issue and some of us will likely live to see a much more comfortable, healthy world for the world's poor (but likely a hotter one).

interesting, both links with misleading or wrong information about the spread of diseases have now been purged.

Meanwhile California Workplace Safety Board has rejected safety measures for porn actors.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2016/0...atory-condoms-for-porn-actors.html

I suppose members are waiting for their checks from the porn industry.

[Edited 2016-02-19 15:43:16]

[Edited 2016-02-19 15:43:56]

Quoting pvjin (Reply 21): We do need more of that. 2 billion people with enjoyable lives is better than 10 billion suffering due to massive environmental problems caused by overpopulation. Quality over quantity.

So walk the walk... be an example; I'm sure there's a bridge near you somewhere.  

You must be a sick sick person if you think Zika virus will be great for humanity. The thought of millions of babies, an entire generation, being born with extreme brain damage is horrific beyond belief.

I'll gladly give my risk of cancer a boost if it means killing mosquitos and protecting pregnant women and their babies.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 24): Quoting pvjin (Reply 21): We do need more of that. 2 billion people with enjoyable lives is better than 10 billion suffering due to massive environmental problems caused by overpopulation. Quality over quantity. So walk the walk... be an example; I'm sure there's a bridge near you somewhere.

Finland is running out of places to house refugees too! Lower the population and give someone fleeing danger who values their life a home! Win-Win.

If only they'd stayed in Syria and taken a bullet to the head for the team. They really should've thought about the global over population problem before selfishly lowering their chances of dying a premature death.

/sarcasm

I loathe the very concept of white guilt but if anything could force it to well up inside me, it is celebrating third worlders dying so you can maintain your high standard of living and not worry about resource depletion or high prices.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 16): I do believe we, as humans, are reaching a point where we won't be able to sustain every one alive.

People have been saying that for literally hundreds of years and yet more people have adequate nutrition today than at any time in human history. Nearly half the world's population have a smart phone, something that didn't even exist 10 years ago.

Quoting D L X (Reply 19): Wait, I'm confused, Doc. Are you saying that it is NOT the larvacide, or that it IS the larvicide?

It is not the larvicide.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26): Quoting D L X (Reply 19): Wait, I'm confused, Doc. Are you saying that it is NOT the larvacide, or that it IS the larvicide? It is not the larvicide

Ok. Why isn't Zika seeming to cause defects in other countries? Or is that just untrue?

Quoting D L X (Reply 27): Ok. Why isn't Zika seeming to cause defects in other countries? Or is that just untrue?

Why don't you read the article I posted?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 28): Why don't you read the article I posted?

I don't get an article when I click that link. Just comments.

Quoting D L X (Reply 29): I don't get an article when I click that link. Just comments.

You're quite right. Something has gone wrong with the website.

http://www.tribemagazine.com/board/t...-general-conspiracy-thread-56.html

Look for the response by "PRAKTIK." It's the text of the article.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 24): So walk the walk... be an example; I'm sure there's a bridge near you somewhere.

Nah, I don't think killing anybody is necessary when you can just sterilize them. I would be willing to get myself sterilized if 5 billion other people do the same.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 25): You must be a sick sick person if you think Zika virus will be great for humanity. The thought of millions of babies, an entire generation, being born with extreme brain damage is horrific beyond belief.

Yeah, Zika isn't really that useful as it damages the child rather than causing sterilization.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 25): I'll gladly give my risk of cancer a boost if it means killing mosquitos and protecting pregnant women and their babies.

Then those pregnant women and their children will also have a higher risk of cancer. Besides, the disease doesn't need mosquitos to spread as the topic of this thread shows.

Quoting QFA380 (Reply 25): People have been saying that for literally hundreds of years and yet more people have adequate nutrition today than at any time in human history. Nearly half the world's population have a smart phone, something that didn't even exist 10 years ago.

During last 100 years world's population has absolutely skyrocketed, together with our scientific knowledge and the ability to affect the environment. The world in many ways is totally different place from what it was mere 200 years ago, and this enormous change has already caused huge damage to this planet's biosphere.

But obviously you don't care about that if you are ready to increase use of pesticides so that the birth rate, our path towards destruction, isn't going down one bit.

What good are improved nutrition situation and smartphones if climate change kills most or all members of human specie? Also, I don't think compassion is a thing that should be shown only towards human beings. The fact is we are genociding most other life forms of this planet.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 31): Nah, I don't think killing anybody is necessary when you can just sterilize them.

Why stop there though? Killing them will be so much more efficient and quick, and grant an immediate reduction in resources.

Help me follow your "logic," if population culling is the goal, why not just do it the old fashioned way?

Quoting pvjin (Reply 31): I would be willing to get myself sterilized if 5 billion other people do the same.

Don't be such a follower; lead.

Start with yourself, today..... show us you're serious.

It would give the white, blue eyed, nordic people Lebensraum. No problem if a few darky Untermenschen get it. Hitkler would have been so proud!

Btw., this was sarcasm in response to Pvjin's waffle.

Jan

Quoting D L X (Reply 27): Ok. Why isn't Zika seeming to cause defects in other countries? Or is that just untrue?

Retrospectively defects have been detected in France (French Polynesia).

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 32): Why stop there though? Killing them will be so much more efficient and quick, and grant an immediate reduction in resources. Help me follow your "logic," if population culling is the goal, why not just do it the old fashioned way?

Because killing people who haven't committed a particularly serious crime against their own will isn't ethically right.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 33):

Nah, that would be unfair. There should be a vaccine that would be distributed to a certain percentage of world's population equally all around the world.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 13): Yep, personally I hope for a global pandemic of a fast spreading virus that would permanently sterilize anybody who gets it. It's exactly what this specie needs the most right now.

The NWO is currently working on it. Be patient

Quoting pvjin (Reply 35): Because killing people who haven't committed a particularly serious crime against their own will isn't ethically right.

And sterilizing people, somehow would be?

Your statements are getting less and less logical as you go....

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 37): And sterilizing people, somehow would be? Your statements are getting less and less logical as

Given that the thread's main topic is SEMEN we starting at a disadvantage. But there is a lot to say about it, apparently.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 31): . I would be willing to get myself sterilized if 5 billion other people do the same.

and if I win a billion dollars I would willingly share it with you.

If you are serious about over-population you can just go ahead and do something about it. If you haven't already undergone the snip, book an appointment today. You don't have to wait for everybody else to go first.

But then, talk is cheap.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 17): In Europe and native USA, the population is falling. China is just about peaked. India will peak soon.

Yes, this doesn't get significant press, but India's TFR dropped significantly in the past 15 years to 2.3, coincident with the period of economic growth. The replacement rate is 2.1, and India will reach it in 2019 or so . Back in the 1980s, our TFR was 5. It dropped to the mid 3s in the 1990s, and fell further to the mid-low 2s in 2015. DISK/DINK couples are common in cities now: Why New Gen India is Going Childfree. The decrease in population growth rate is aiding economic growth (currently at 7.5% annual GDP growth), because the work pool is growing, while the dependent population is falling.

On the other hand, China's TFR may rise, since they abolished the One Child Policy last year. Still, by 2040 or so, the global TFR will fall below 2.1, which means world population will fall after peaking in mid century.

There are three main reasons why birth rates are falling almost worldwide:

1) Better chances of survival for infants. In most countries with a non-existing social security system, parents depend on their children to support them when they are old. As so many children die young, they have to have a lot of children to make sure that some survive to take care of the parents later.
With better health care, the chances of children becoming adults increases, so that the parents don't need to have so many.

2) Education for girls and women. Educated women know that it is not healthy for them to pop out one child after the other. They are more likely to use birth control. They also know that it is better to concentrate on a small number of children, both health and educational wise, than to have a whole brood of neglected ones. This can even be seen in conservative countries like Iran, where birth rates are falling and the number of women with university degrees is passing the number of men with similar degrees. In Brazil middle class couples find it more and more difficult to hire maids for their household, as based on soap operas showing successful women in positions of business managers, lawyers and doctors, women from the slums are saving their money to send their daughters to higher education. These professional young women will not follow their mother's footsteps in becoming domestic helpers.

3) The worldwide rise of an educated middle class. Knowing that one can safely raise a certain small number of children and have a comfortable life makes people have less of them.

Jan

One factor that in informal studies in India showed a significant correlation to the fall in birth rates is television penetration. Television not only aids knowledge acquisition and widens the scope of the effort to educate women, but keeps people entertained at night, so they're less likely to be busy with other forms of penetration.

Quoting BarfBag (Reply 42): One factor that in informal studies in India showed a significant correlation to the fall in birth rates is television penetration. Television not only aids knowledge acquisition and widens the scope of the effort to educate women, but keeps people entertained at night, so they're less likely to be busy with other forms of penetration.

Also as far as it gives ideas about new role models, see the Brazilian example.
My still girlfriend (the situation is a bit mixed up at the moment) grew up in a slum in the Philippines until she was about 12 years old. Her family managed the jump into middle class through extremely hard work (mainly on her father's side, who started as a labourer in a steel mill and retired as a supervisor and quality inspector) and managed to get all eight children through highschool and five of them through college. But my girlfriend says that it was an extremely hard time, while they always had food on the table, a small two room house made of hollow blocks with a tin roof in the slum, they never had any money for luxuries. Her father never called in sick for more than 30 years, but e.g. if he had an accident, they might have ended up as beggars. As the steel mill was government owned, he was also entiteled to a government pension, which removed some worries about future from the parents.
But my girlfriend says that it would have been much easier if the parents had less children. My girlfriend's generation has now a much smaller number of children (one to three children per couple, comparable to Europe), also because, even though it is a Catholic country, they use contraception.

Jan

[Edited 2016-02-21 23:28:22]

Philippines still has a TFR of more than 3. They are one of the handful of Asian countries with such a high fertility rate. However, Asia as a whole has already fallen below 2.1 TFR. India's continued falling TFR will make up for any increase in China.

http://www.economist.com/news/215891...nsform-asian-family-baby-boom-bust

During my 1980s born generation, having a couple of siblings and lots of cousins was common. I don't know a single person amongst those whom I went to school with, who has more than 2 kids. The majority has one (including me). The rest have 0 or 2. In other words, that sample set has a TFR well under 2.

There is still a big religious influence in the Philippines, both from the Catholic church (90% of the Fiipinos are Catholic) and from backward Muslim clerics, who both see high birthrates as a way to keep influence. But resistance grows. E.g. two years ago the "Reproductive Health Act", which permits the government to make free contraceptives available to low income people, has passed both houses of parliament against strong protests from both Catholic and Muslim groups.
Also the educated middle class is growing, and with this birth rates are going down. While most Filipinos still have a strong family sense (e.g. the larger family will often live in the same neighbourhood), the numbers of children born is decreasing.

Jan

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 37): And sterilizing people, somehow would be? Your statements are getting less and less logical as you go....

If it's what's needed to save this planet's biosphere, humans included, then yes.

Quoting pvjin (Reply 46): Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 37): And sterilizing people, somehow would be? Your statements are getting less and less logical as you go.... If it's what's needed to save this planet's biosphere, humans included, then yes.

Go ahead. Top yourself, set an example.

Jan

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 47):

Again, I don't believe there's any hope if the change depends from individual action. The majority of humans are way too greedy, short sighted or religiously brainwashed to seriously change their habits for greater good.

Sure, the birth rates are slowly dropping thanks to decreasing poverty and increasing levels of education in many developing countries, however the change is not even nearly fast enough, and the increasing consumption of fossil fuels and natural resources that is linked to the very same economic growth that gets people out of poverty is an issue.

Perhaps there should be an extra tax for families with more than one children, that could be somewhat effective, just like subsidies on hybrid cars increase their sales way more than any environmentally conscious celebrity buying a Prius ever could.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 38): Given that the thread's main topic is SEMEN we starting at a disadvantage.

Not exactly sure what that's supposed to mean, but um, okay....

Quoting pvjin (Reply 48): Again, I don't believe there's any hope if the change depends from individual action.

Then quit being so obnoxiously hypocritical about it then.

If you're too much of a coward to start with yourself, as has been established.... then what on earth do you expect to accomplish by sitting here preaching to other people about it, aside from making an abject fool of yourself?

[Edited 2016-02-22 20:47:02]