Hi Yuyutsu,

No, you didn't say INDIA, that was CM, nor do I consider you a white supremacist, CM on the other hand is in my view that kind. Always careful to mask his political affiliations, but he does let things slip from time to time.

Migration, without controlled migration it would be unworkable. To reduce the worlds population to 200 million, would see the extinction of mankind. About 150,000 people die per day that's 0.7% per year. You want to reduce the world's population by 97%. If every female of reproductive ability and younger was sterilised instantly, the worlds population would start to decline, slowly at first, but accelerating over time. Eventually the population would reduce to 200 million, but it would continue to recede, and shorty after humans would become extinct. 200 million is now well below the critical level for human survival. This has been demonstrated in the animal world, when an endangered species reaches a certain number, even with remaining breeding pairs, the species will go extinct. Nothing can be done to stop it, that is what most likely happened to Neanderthal Man.

BTW that's why there could never have been a Noah's Ark. For example if Noah was to save elephants, no good taking just one breeding pair. To ensure the survival of elephants into the future, Noah would have needed to take 5,000 breeding pairs, not one.

If Paul1405 knows so much about population modelling perhaps he can prove his assertions- the first step that many researchers seem to use is the following...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete-time_Markov_chain

GO->

Dear Paul,

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population
world human population 12,000 years ago was 2-4 millions, 10 millions at the most, then 3000-1800 years ago numbers were quite stable in this range of 100-200 millions. Why then should mankind be extinct this time around?

Even if we aim at zero birth-rate (which is not the only option), a few million babies would still escape that net, and then be enough to sustain the human race on this planet.

The Neanderthals are believed to become extinct due to competition with the more intelligent and versatile homo-sapiens.

Regarding migration, you are still thinking in industrial and information-age 21st-century terms, but once population starts to decline, many other things will change as well. You mentioned supermarkets for example, but I don't think any will remain: as a child when I grew up there were no supermarkets yet either, only smaller local stores, probably because there were not as many different products on the market to shop for.

Similarly, until 100-200 years ago, people could freely migrate anywhere. They had of course to find some means of transportation, which was not as easy as today, but once they arrived no questions were asked.
So much is now said for example about housing shortage as a barrier for migration, but once population declines, empty houses will remain in abundance - they might need some repair, but it wouldn't be as difficult as building new houses from scratch, and will likely be carried out by the immigrants themselves, nor will there be anyone to enforce strict and costly building standards.

Regarding Noah, here again your thinking is locked in modern scientific terms:
should there be miracles, then what stops one pair of animals from re-breeding their species - and should there be not, then how could such a flood occur, how was Noah informed about it, how did he manage to gather all animals in the first place and how could his arc survive such a mighty storm?

Yuyutsu said- The Neanderthals are believed to become extinct due to competition with the more intelligent and versatile homo-sapiens.

Answer- With respect to Yuyutsu. Apparently Neanderthal DNA is embedded in European as well as other branches of the Multi-Regional model- so in a sense Neanderthal's are not extinct. The UK has both the Smallcombe Man 400K years old and one that is 500K years old- both considered Neanderthal's. Also see articles below...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-ancient-neanderthal-dna-still-influences-our-genes-today-180962285/

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/jul/07/first-humans-britain-stone-tools

Hi Yuyutsu,

There is science which says its a popular myth that Neanderthals were the dumb oafs of history. They may well have been as intelligent as homo sapiens, but were less adaptable. Climate change which seen forests give way to grasslands, and a changing animal population could have been the downfall of Neanderthals. We'll never know, as the few who are still around ain't telling.

Probably for thousands of years as few as 100,000 homo sapiens, and our other early ancestors lived a perilous existence in Africa, all but homo sapiens went extinct.

The American bison, although still in existence cannot be saved from ecologically extinction in the wild. It has passed its tipping point number as far as natural survival is concerned.

To be totally brutal the only way to reduce the human population to say 200 million and keep it sustainable, would be to artificially cull the population starting with the non-productive and those of no economic value, and of no possible future economic value, we know who they are, wink, wink. Always to be careful to maintain a healthy breeding stock for future viability. In this "brave new world" there would be few aged over 40, only an elite with skills still useful to society, and children would be tested for intelligence to determine future economic worth, it would give a whole new meaning to 'Naplan'. There would be a grading system for children based on these intelligent tests, 40, 30, 20 and "goodbye now".

This policy is unlikely to be popular with those nearing 40, and very unpopular with the over 40's. AND, decidedly repugnant to the over 80's. There will be a small number of septuagenarians, octogenarians, nonagenarian and centenarians kept in human laboratories for study and research by those scientists under 40.

Mum; "Little Johnny didn't come home from school today dear".

Dad; "Oh well, must have failed the intelligence test. Not a problem I've ordered the Little Tommy model, I paid extra for one with the Einstein inclusions".

Mum; "Very good dear".... "I hope you did ordered a white one?".

Paul405 seems to be engaging in self gratifying- reductio ad absurdum- it's somewhat appalling to have Paul1405 self gratifying himself in a public forum- most people have different standards.

His views appear to be bigoted anti-family/ anti-anglo rhetoric- straight from the annuls of Communism.

Why shouldn't white parents have white children just as black parents have black children.