Actuarial Outpost
 
Go Back   Actuarial Outpost > Blogs > sweetiepie
FlashChat Actuarial Discussion Preliminary Exams CAS/SOA Exams Cyberchat Around the World Suggestions

DW Simpson
Actuarial Jobs

Visit our site for the most up to date jobs for actuaries.

Actuarial Salary Surveys
Property & Casualty, Health, Life, Pension and Non-Tradtional Jobs.

Actuarial Meeting Schedule
Browse this year's meetings and which recruiters will attend.

Contact DW Simpson
Have a question?
Let's talk.
You'll be glad you did.


Rate this Entry

1 wish

Posted 09-07-2008 at 10:51 PM by sweetiepie
Updated 09-07-2008 at 11:04 PM by sweetiepie

It used to be that I would wish for a clean life. Then true love. Then a talking sheep, which seemed the least likely to backfire. Now I'd wish there were less people in the world. Like, a lot less. Like, how about a total of 100,000,000. I guess my wish would go:

"I wish folks' reproductive systems would not function when they have 2 or more living children and there are >100,000,000 people alive." Or actually, that might encourage genocides. Well whatever you get the point.

I mean, I don't really have a problem with people. On a small scale, they are fine. Individuals can be downright lovely. But so many all at once? Uhg. Humans, of all flora and fauna, are guilty of diminishing returns.

Sorry Catholics...I know it's not a very humble wish. I'm just having one of those days, the kind where you want 6.6 billion people to go the hell away.
Posted in Uncategorized
Views 37105 Comments 14
« Prev     Main     Next »
Total Comments 14

Comments

  1. Old Comment
    MathGuy's Avatar
    Maybe you should consider suicide? After reading "Humans, of all flora and fauna,..." I certainly hope you are not considering producing [up to] two offspring.
    Posted 09-08-2008 at 10:58 AM by MathGuy MathGuy is offline
  2. Old Comment
    Maybe not? As for your second suggestion, yes, if I want them I'll try to consider international adoption first, and failing that, I don't know, I am not a particularly charitable person, but I at least know how not to leave a mess.
    Posted 09-08-2008 at 08:32 PM by sweetiepie sweetiepie is offline
  3. Old Comment
    tanjinee's Avatar
    What the movie Idiocracy portrays, scares me.
    Posted 09-08-2008 at 11:19 PM by tanjinee tanjinee is offline
  4. Old Comment
    glassjaws's Avatar
    I'm sure if you produced a kid and shipped it to live with sane people it'd be fine. Which is why I'm confused you think you'd be any less able to ruin a child if you adopted rather than by birthing it. I get that you wouldn't be pissing in the gene pool, but being as though I've seen no definitive links to genetics and how likely one is to be like their parents regardless of the environment, I don't see how adoption circumvents the reproduction issue.
    Posted 09-09-2008 at 10:24 AM by glassjaws glassjaws is offline
  5. Old Comment
    ADoubleDot's Avatar
    I basically agree with you. I think the world can sustain 2 Billion people. The population is growing exponentially. No life can sustain this level of growth.

    As the world approaches 7 Billion, nations break out in conflict over water and food rights; I'm sure there is no connection
    Posted 09-09-2008 at 06:09 PM by ADoubleDot ADoubleDot is offline
  6. Old Comment
    First of all, it's a matter of population control Mr. Glassjaw, not a matter of being a good parent or raising a good kid. There's no benefit to there being so many people alive at one time, and there are plenty of substantial negatives. Secondly, depending on the nature of the adoption, it is far better to rescue a child from a shit starving loveless life, than toss a new set of dice.
    Posted 09-10-2008 at 01:34 PM by sweetiepie sweetiepie is offline
  7. Old Comment
    MathGuy's Avatar
    If it's simply a matter of population control, wouldn't it be better to let the children starve? I'm just trying to wrap my head around your thought process here...
    Posted 09-10-2008 at 02:34 PM by MathGuy MathGuy is offline
  8. Old Comment
    I don't think it's nice to let people starve?
    Posted 09-10-2008 at 08:44 PM by sweetiepie sweetiepie is offline
  9. Old Comment
    MathGuy's Avatar
    And you can find a place in your heart to save [up to] two of those children from starving? That's a beautiful thing, right there.

    I'm just saying, you might want to tighten up your rhetoric a bit.
    Posted 09-11-2008 at 08:25 AM by MathGuy MathGuy is offline
  10. Old Comment
    Are you asking about charity? That's a different question entirely. I was answering how I might meet my own (potential) desires while helping or at least not hurting things.
    And no, my rhetoric is fine. I'm just not going to go into details here. Figure it out yourself.
    Posted 09-11-2008 at 11:12 AM by sweetiepie sweetiepie is offline
    Updated 09-11-2008 at 11:21 AM by sweetiepie
  11. Old Comment
    MathGuy's Avatar
    I just find it interesting that you think controlling world population is so paramount that you would restrict so-called reproductive rights, but you bristle at the suggestion that you kill yourself, or that you let starving children die. Just trying to wrap my head around the apparent logical inconsistencies. Are you a selfish a-hole or not? If so, why do you care what happens to the world after you are gone? And why would you want to pass on your philosphy to [up to] two children, maybe adopted [but not American; American babies up for adoption are "undesirable", to speak euphemistically].
    Posted 09-11-2008 at 11:50 AM by MathGuy MathGuy is offline
  12. Old Comment
    glassjaws's Avatar
    Kill people with AIDS. End the pandemic. Problem solved?
    Posted 09-11-2008 at 06:07 PM by glassjaws glassjaws is offline
  13. Old Comment
    MathGuy's Avatar
    Ask sweetiepie. He's the one that wants to solve the world's population problem. He explicitly states in his first post that he wants "6.6 billion people to go the hell away." He's selfish enough (egotistical enough?) to think that he should be among the remainder, but resists suggestions that maybe he's not that special.
    Posted 09-12-2008 at 08:15 AM by MathGuy MathGuy is offline
  14. Old Comment
    Well-- I'm glad glassjaws is thinking about the issue at least...
    Posted 09-14-2008 at 07:09 PM by sweetiepie sweetiepie is offline
 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
*PLEASE NOTE: Posts are not checked for accuracy, and do not
represent the views of the Actuarial Outpost or its sponsors.
Page generated in 0.21603 seconds with 15 queries