I thought it basically meant you shouldn't wear two kinds of clothing because that would be greedy or some shit. I could be wrong, not really all that knowledgeable about the bible.

If I remember my Torah lessons correctly, it was because it was common in that time period for pagan priests to wear robes made out of a mix of two materials (Specifically linen and wool)

No, no it isn't. It says clothing.

Let me explain further. The people these teachings were being taught to were, by today's standards, pretty stupid. They lived simple lives of goat herding and prostitution. Do you actually think they could figure out what was supposed to be taken literal and what wasn't?

Hakama and turban, i just combined both theories.

no

no

With 1500 people dying a day from cancer, I'm sure it's way more than 3 million.

Uhh, no. The amount of people dying from cancer each year, according to an article I read, is about twice that number. It's between 7.2 and 7.5 million people.

An article I read said it was about 3.3 mil.

With 1500 people dying a day from cancer, I'm sure it's way more than 3 million.

.01% of the population sounds like very little, but it would be the second largest city in the U.S (right after NYC.) Approximately 7.5 million people die each year from cancer. That would mean that those 7.5 million would have kids, then those kids would have kids, and so on. You continue to fail to see that essentially, it would have a big effect, as in a couple of generations, that number would have tripled. That means 22.5 million more mouths to feed.

No the population will not triple in a couple of generations. Anyway my point is that cancer will not have a significant effect on Global resources used. A more effective way would be mandated child birth laws. I also did my math wrong the amount of people that have died form cancer is 3.3 million about .005% of earths population. finding a cure to cancer would not hurt the Earth because global overpopulation is impossible.

Uhh, no. The amount of people dying from cancer each year, according to an article I read, is about twice that number. It's between 7.2 and 7.5 million people.

An article I read said it was about 3.3 mil.

With 1500 people dying a day from cancer, I'm sure it's way more than 3 million.

Whether or not people died, they still end up using resources in their lifetime.


Can you explain how the two first humans, despite being only two of them, there are now over 7 billion of us.

2.2 Million years, but that isn't the point. The point is that less than .01% of the pop. Isn't significant in the least. Not now not in the next 2.2 million years.

.01% of the population sounds like very little, but it would be the second largest city in the U.S (right after NYC.) Approximately 7.5 million people die each year from cancer. That would mean that those 7.5 million would have kids, then those kids would have kids, and so on. You continue to fail to see that essentially, it would have a big effect, as in a couple of generations, that number would have tripled. That means 22.5 million more mouths to feed.

No the population will not triple in a couple of generations. Anyway my point is that cancer will not have a significant effect on Global resources used. A more effective way would be mandated child birth laws. I also did my math wrong the amount of people that have died form cancer is 3.3 million about .005% of earths population. finding a cure to cancer would not hurt the Earth because global overpopulation is impossible.

Uhh, no. The amount of people dying from cancer each year, according to an article I read, is about twice that number. It's between 7.2 and 7.5 million people.

An article I read said it was about 3.3 mil.

With 1500 people dying a day from cancer, I'm sure it's way more than 3 million.

No, I'm saying the people in this metaphorical room are reproducing, just like they do in the real world.

Alright, fine. This is my last response, as I don't agree with you. 9 billion people ca be supported by the resources available on Earth, but that will never happen because that figure is assuming that everyone, from the richest fatcat on Wall Street to the poorest person in a third world country survives on the bare minimum. Such distribution will never happen because no one accepts less than they can get. Again, taking human selfishness into context, the world is not capable of supporting 9 billion people, let alone (in my opinion) 7 billion people. I agree to disagree.

Again, I don't understand you're argument. I understand the concepts you're talking about, but I don't understand how it's any different than a room.

Because an outside force is putting people in a room. While in the Earth's case the people in it are putting more people in.

No, I'm saying the people in this metaphorical room are reproducing, just like they do in the real world.

What? Again, not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, theoretically speaking, the Nile River Valley isn't as populated as it is currently. The people from poorer regions move there, and as a result are able to meet their needs. As for that second part, I don't think I understand what you're saying. Can you elaborate a little bit more?

The Earth has the resources for the current population. No one needs to be eliminated. Starvation happens because some people have access to more food than they need while others don't. If this didn't happen (food distributed by forces not profit driven) then mass starvation wouldn't exist. Anyway I'm tired of arguing so if you disagree don't bother replying.

Alright, fine. This is my last response, as I don't agree with you. 9 billion people ca be supported by the resources available on Earth, but that will never happen because that figure is assuming that everyone, from the richest fatcat on Wall Street to the poorest person in a third world country survives on the bare minimum. Such distribution will never happen because no one accepts less than they can get. Again, taking human selfishness into context, the world is not capable of supporting 9 billion people, let alone (in my opinion) 7 billion people. I agree to disagree.

As I said, it's a snowball effect. You fail to take into account that that the 1000 people is already increasing rapidly. 1 more person is just adding fuel to the fire. The room isn't getting any bigger.

But the room (Earth currently 7 billion) has plenty of space for a growing amount of people. And once it is full (9 billion) It won't have anymore people being put into it. Using a room is a bad analogy because there is an outside force putting people in while the Earth id filling it's self and once it's full it will stop. The stop will be gradual but it will happen.

Again, I don't understand you're argument. I understand the concepts you're talking about, but I don't understand how it's any different than a room.

Because an outside force is putting people in a room. While in the Earth's case the people in it are putting more people in.

No, I'm saying the people in this metaphorical room are reproducing, just like they do in the real world.