Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

World population


Matt Foley

Recommended Posts

We are one of the few creatures on this planet that can change our diet if we deplete a food source. We have also been able to engineer drugs to fight off disease instead of relying on evolution to combat microorganisms. With minimal natural predators, we have few ways to keep our species for growing exponentially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

duggars.png

This is the problem. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of families like this. There needs to be a cap. Me and the girlfriend talked about it. Things we work out, we get married, we have 3, MAX. After that, one of us are getting nipped up because after 3, MAYBE 4, you are being irresponsible. Personally, I'm happy with 2, but not opposed to 3. 4 is pushing it a little too far, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world population went from 4.1 billion in 1990 to 5.2 billion in 2010.

We are doomed. We'll hit 6 billion by 2020 the way we're going. No way this rock can sustain that many people.

Actually we're around 6.7 Billion at the moment ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Now now now, I wouldn't say there is no logic, but there's just not a lot of in-depth thought put into Barnwell's  "analysis." Now to be fair to him (and other national writers), pre-season team rankings are basically clickbait. And...Barnwell, himself, said that "there's a lot of projection here." He basically admits that he doesn't know how the hell things are going to turn out with our receiver group. He also said that "I find myself" more intrigued by Coker than Legette; that does not mean that he said that fans should be, or that Coker will even be better than Legette (regardless of ESPN's per-route-run stat). So, yeah, Barnwell said some things, but even he has to basically admit that he doesn't know how bad or good that our playmakers will be in 2025.  Overall, what Barnwell is basically thinking is that the Panthers have gotten worse at the offensive skill positions, and baked into that is that others have gotten better. That's the argument in July (meaning, please don't give this any more weight than it's due). I would personally be surprised (not shocked) if we end up worse than the Titans, Pats and Giants at least. Once you throw in the Bills, Giants, Jets, Steelers, and even the Chargers, I personally think there are several teams' skill groups that may end up ranked lower than ours by the end of 2025.  @kungfoodudeis one of my dudes, but like others he is over the tipping point. He's had enough. Seeing is believing. I will say this though: Barnwell's piece is less about logic than just good ol' opinion. And to be honest, he might as well be a Huddler throwing out sh¡t in the summer based upon nothing but good feels or bad feels.  Our offense as a whole (just like any other team's) is going to depend upon the play of the O-line and especially the QB. How you can even rank the skill positions without expressly baking those two things in the cake is beyond me. I would dare say that that's not even logical. 
    • Football is not the professional sport where timidness and apprehension are justly rewarded. 
    • Bryce Young had a super high floor definitely at least won't be a bust safe pick we allegedly had seen in some time.......and went on to have one of the worst rookie seasons of all time.  They are all lotto picks.  And that is especially true for whatever they will be day 1 in the NFL.  I don't think Tmac is a sure thing year 1.  It's not like we watched him do his thing in the SEC.  He was a PAC12 guy.  I'm sure it will take time
×
×
  • Create New...