Martin0:


I actually mean u baby

Go and wipe your stingle butt gutter. I can smell you from here

Martin0:


Action speaks
Bring your ass and this time u will get the best

Go give yourself to your 'wife' Gypsey. You wrapper and pad wearing sicko

ngmgeek:


There are more comments coming in out there on the forum. Let's see, will be right back

OooO see eh I ve already see u not intrested
Come and carry your padds out of my house oooo...including your braziers

Martin0:


OooO see eh I ve already see u not intrested
Come and carry your padds out of my house oooo...including your braziers

Your brain has been damaged to the point that you now mistake me for your gay lover gypsey

ngmgeek:


Are you talking to Martin0? How come he stated initially that he is the man and you are the woman because of the shape of your mouth?

I wonder when our own wife will all of a sudden start denying us this surprise me ooo

gypsey:
i think we hurt his feelings he is so pained right now!

Hahahahah next time he will learn to think right like elites

Martin0:


I wonder when our own wife will all of a sudden start denying us this surprise me ooo

You are both Gay. Ask your 'wife' Gypsey about that one

gypsey:
look martin don't waste your time on that donkey!

yeah you are very very right..
I agree to that..

Martin0:



Hahahahah next time he will learn to think right like elites

Butt hole elites

Martin0:
yeah you are very very right..
I agree to that..

After all your screams when he is wacking you. You will agree to everything he is saying

Martin0:


I wonder when our own wife will all of a sudden start denying us this surprise me ooo

You are brainless. Go and die

Martin0:
yeah you are very very right..
I agree to that..

What happened? You creepy loser

Martin0:


Action speaks
Bring your ass and this time u will get the best

What happened. Losers. Come back and get whopped. Disgusting and creepy people.

Evablizin:
Mehn in Nigeria this your statement can never happen,since there is no job let those who want to give birth to 24 children or 5 local governments should go ahead,the can't afford to be loosing in both sides i.e job them no get,children them no get

Well, the exploding population will one way or another affect your life. There is a correlation between high birth rate, resource limitation and poverty. Think about it.

gypsey:
i think he just realised that your brains are full of maggots so he left me with you.

I dash u him,his nolonger sex to me anymore

gypsey:
thanks! ewu Gambia!

his indeed one

You're heart of Biafra sir

TheLordIsGr8:


You can do better than that.
Why even wait to have 3 kids then think you're better than someone who chose to have 10?
If all the people advocating for smaller population took the exit door there would be less people already.

I wouldn't love to argue with you anymore go ahead and have twelve kids; see how your life would be.
Its a free world.

repogirl:
well, corruption is not exactly the issue here. The issue here is educating the populace that they don't need to give birth to children they cannot cater for. Measures should be taken to encourage birth control, make it free for people and even enforce it on the people.

We can't sit back and let what will happen, to happen.
Drastic steps need to be taken now before things get even messier than it is now.

Babe u are making too much sense...
I can see more female supporting this idea than male & it really bemused me to see some young men kicking against birth control....

Martin0:
his indeed one

Your entire family Ewu Gambia. Slowpoke

Martin0:


I dash u him,his nolonger sex to me anymore

Same way you dashed Gypsey your butt. Faggit

Martin0:


I dash u him,his nolonger sex to me anymore

Two lovers talking. Go get a room homos

ngmgeek:


Same way you dashed Gypsey your butt. Faggit

You are baad. You again

transient123:
China is over 1.2bn people and advancing in all areas of endeavour and still counting. Nigeria is around 180m people and all monies stolen, even future revenues are stolen.

Senator Bruce, Americans are almost 300m people and still advancing , don't you think population should be to our advantage if we are not stealing our birth right.

How did you birth silver bird? No be through NTA abi?

If only you reasoned a bit more critically, you would've been able to grasp his message.

China is over 1.2 billion people and they have already applied a control measure to ensure that their population growth rate tallies with their economic growth rate (one child policy). Can you make that sacrifice here in Nigeria?

The US is actually less populated than Nigeria when you analyse the environment critically (landmass to population ratio, as well as population growth rate to economic growth rate)
In the regard of landmass to population ratio, Nigeria is comparable to China. Meaning that we ought to also have applied population Control measures if indeed we are to match their economic growth rate and consequently improved wealth distribution (we will also need to get more technological to be competitive in the modern global economy)

Even the West applies population control measures too through laws, taxes and also mass hypnosis (YES, mass hypnosis through the media. Watch any western movie portrayal of a family and it's never more than 2-3 kids. The media has a great influence on our psyche. If in doubt, ever wondered why there's increase in the proliferation of churches in Nigeria? The answer is Nollywood and their penchant for fetishes. Tattoos? Music videos + Western movies)

Now the question is, what control measures have we got?

The population isn't really an advantage on its own. It's how you apply it. Even at that however, there's always a critical population mass that shouldn't be exceeded compared to available resources. Hence his population growth rate Vs economic growth rate comparison (ie 2.6% vs 0.8%).

I could go on and on but just mull on these few points.

omohayek:

Really? One almajiri, agbero or gala seller is worth as much to humanity as a doctor, an engineer, a biologist or an economist? A man who scions 10 street urchins has done more for mankind than the one who raises a single Einstein? With such thinking, it's no wonder Nigeria is a cesspool.


What a lot of rubbish. So the man is only allowed to criticize one bad aspect of Nigerian life if he criticizes all others? And what does his supposed corrupt status have to do with the truth of his statements? Ben Bruce may be a hypocrite and a crook, but what he has said here is nothing but the truth: Nigerians need to stop popping out children they can't afford to decently house, feed and educate.

Try and be realistic.

Name countries where such unintelligent policy / idea has ever worked.

Before you mention ur role model (America ), try and make a thorough research.

I am very sure this particular idea will in reality show a country like China how unintelligent Ben and his zombies are. Dem go laugh tire.

piice:


After stealing all the money to cater and empower the born and unborn babies in the future.

If truly you are civilized, you should know more babies are assets to humanity.

And besides, I ave never heard you speak on corrupt policians being our problems. Anyway you are one them. Consequently, you have always been an hyprocrite who wants people to see him as an intellectual or an intelligent Nigerian.


I hate your kind of biased intelligence

Babies are not assets, they used to be before machines/technology&science. Enlightened minds are.
That's what developed countries poach from us, not babies. And it's getting increasingly impossible to keep them from leaving because all we have are 'babies' littered everywhere crying for this or for that.

Ben Bruce isn't a career politician, he's made his money way before deciding to go into politics to impart positive changes.

Analyse his comment critically and you'll see the truth in it. You can't expect to accommodate 2.6% with 0.8%. Something ought to give.

bibe:


Babies are not assets, they used to be before machines/technology&science. Enlightened minds are.
That's what developed countries poach from us, not babies. And it's getting increasingly impossible to keep them from leaving because all we have are 'babies' littered everywhere crying for this or for that.

Ben Bruce isn't a career politician, he's made his money way before deciding to go into politics to impart positive changes.

Analyse his comment critically and you'll see the truth in it. You can't expect to accommodate 2.6% with 0.8%. Something ought to give.

Forget about critical analysis bro.

If everyone thinks this way there won't have been the existence of generations to come.

His idea might be thinkable and reasonable but impracticable and unreal. This is natural. This natural.

U cannot block water ways but can path ways for it to avoid its disturbances.
The similitude to Ben's solution is like sweeping away runny water instead of stopping it from its source.

piice:


Forget about critical analysis bro.

If everyone thinks this way there won't have been the existence of generations to come.

His idea might be thinkable and reasonable but impracticable and unreal. This is natural. This natural.

U cannot block water ways but can path ways for it to avoid its disturbances.
The similitude to Ben's solution is like sweeping away runny water instead of stopping it from its source.

Take a step back and think deeply about this. His idea is actually reasonable and practicable. All the developed economies are practicing it.

A step back into history would make you understand better. Where we are today, Europe and especially the UK was centuries back.

Australia, USA, Canada, these countries are made up of UK and some Europeans that fled present day UK and Europe due to their population outstripping their resources (same thing that is starting to happen in Nigeria).

Then technology was "non existent" and human labor was in high demand and commerce was mostly agriculture hence human labor was highly valuable. Fast forward to the era of industrialisation and slave trade was abolished (machines became better and more efficient than humans and became a much better viable substitute)

In the modern global economy, if you seek equitable wealth distribution and other infrastructural development then you must invest in technology and control your population growth (every developed economy does this including the ones you envy and want to be like)

Our problem is that we've copied a system from the West but don't want to copy the sacrifice necessary to make it work. In the modern economy, every country is like a company competing with other countries. They've got less population and more technology, we've got more population but less technology. In the end they end up producing cheaper which is why we tend to import everything cos compared to them our cost of production locally is high (machines/technology versus human). Plus humans can never be as competitive as machines and are more of a liability (they put so much strain on infrastructure and other social needs eg health care, feeding, housing etc)

Now what he's trying to say is, just like the USA, Europe, UK, China, let's try to reduce the number of babies we manufacture while we try to put things right. Cos babies in high numbers puts a strain on everybody and society at large at the end of the day.

PS: The symbiotic malaise plaguing us is also the revenue sharing formula. It is Communist in nature and doesn't encourage hard work.
Also, we need to rethink our notion of government, cos the government is actually us and not some abstract entity. If you can't create jobs for 2 kids, you have no business fathering more than 2 as they'll become a liability to the society eventually. Just like a civil servant having 6 kids. They end up looting and engaging in corrupt acts.
The less children you have the more the quality of life you give them and that benefits the society a lot more in the end. Thus quality (the West/developed countries) and quantity (Africa/developing countries).

We all need to re-evaluate our psyche. We owe it to the next generation not to repeat the mistakes of our parents generation. They birthed children like their parents (our grand parents) who were mostly all farmers in a subsistence era of farming and were justified in the number of children they birthed. When their parents generation all got weak and died off, food became scarce as their generation didn't take to farming (yet birthed unjustified alarming number of kids compared to their counterparts in the West) that is among the chief reason of our fall from grace to grass.

I totally disagreed with Senator Ben Bruce-Murray on this one. Mankind did tell Nigeria to be a useless and idiotic country. It is either Nigeria goes down producing babies or goes up producing babies too.

bibe:


Take a step back and think deeply about this. His idea is actually reasonable and practicable. All the developed economies are practicing it.

A step back into history would make you understand better. Where we are today, Europe and especially the UK was centuries back.

Australia, USA, Canada, these countries are made up of UK and some Europeans that fled present day UK and Europe due to their population outstripping their resources (same thing that is starting to happen in Nigeria).

Then technology was "non existent" and human labor was in high demand and commerce was mostly agriculture hence human labor was highly valuable. Fast forward to the era of industrialisation and slave trade was abolished (machines became better and more efficient than humans and became a much better viable substitute)

In the modern global economy, if you seek equitable wealth distribution and other infrastructural development then you must invest in technology and control your population growth (every developed economy does this including the ones you envy and want to be like)

Our problem is that we've copied a system from the West but don't want to copy the sacrifice necessary to make it work. In the modern economy, every country is like a company competing with other countries. They've got less population and more technology, we've got more population but less technology. In the end they end up producing cheaper which is why we tend to import everything cos compared to them our cost of production locally is high (machines/technology versus human). Plus humans can never be as competitive as machines and are more of a liability (they put so much strain on infrastructure and other social needs eg health care, feeding, housing etc)

Now what he's trying to say is, just like the USA, Europe, UK, China, let's try to reduce the number of babies we manufacture while we try to put things right. Cos babies in high numbers puts a strain on everybody and society at large at the end of the day.

PS: The symbiotic malaise plaguing us is also the revenue sharing formula. It is Communist in nature and doesn't encourage hard work.
Also, we need to rethink our notion of government, cos the government is actually us and not some abstract entity. If you can't create jobs for 2 kids, you have no business fathering more than 2 as they'll become a liability to the society eventually. Just like a civil servant having 6 kids. They end up looting and engaging in corrupt acts.
The less children you have the more the quality of life you give them and that benefits the society a lot more in the end. Thus quality (the West/developed countries) and quantity (Africa/developing countries).

We all need to re-evaluate our psyche. We owe it to the next generation not to repeat the mistakes of our parents generation. They birthed children like their parents (our grand parents) who were mostly all farmers in a subsistence era of farming and were justified in the number of children they birthed. When their parents generation all got weak and died off, food became scarce as their generation didn't take to farming (yet birthed unjustified alarming number of kids compared to their counterparts in the West) that is among the chief reason of our fall from grace to grass.

I respect your stance not because ur write up is long but because of its constructiveness.

I would have loved or supported ur opinion in its entirety through this evidently written write up if you had cited the most populated country on earth in relation with its development, as an example.
However, China before her advancement as regards technology was characterized by a larger population than Nigeria's.

I suggest we had better explore our naturally given resources that perhaps belong to the unborn babies. I think we should think out of the box and used their numbers to improve our technology.
Lastly, if we decide not to manufacture babies again talk less of reducing their manufacture, and our leadership is still characterized by mismanagement of pubic funds (corruption ) and uncreativeness, we will still be singing the same song as regards uneven distribution of resources.



Thanks

piice:


I respect your stance not because ur write up is long but because of its constructiveness.

I would have loved or supported ur opinion in its entirety through this evidently written write up if you had cited the most populated country on earth in relation with its development, as an example.
However, China before her advancement as regards technology was characterized by a larger population than Nigeria's.

I suggest we had better explore our naturally given resources that perhaps belong to the unborn babies. I think we should think out of the box and used their numbers to improve our technology.
Lastly, if we decide not to manufacture babies again talk less of reducing their manufacture, and our leadership is still characterized by mismanagement of pubic funds (corruption ) and uncreativeness, we will still be singing the same song as regards uneven distribution of resources.



Thanks

Thanks for sharing with my perspective in some ways.

You see, the thing with population is that people make the mistake of just counting the numbers.
The right way to analyse it is actually to compare it to:
- The landmass
- Available resources and
- Projected economic growth.

If you compare China as at then (the time you speak of) with regards to their landmass and available resources, to Nigeria now in regards to her landmass and available resources, you'll see that we are as populated as them. They experienced everything we are going through now before initiating population control which helped to augment their fight against corruption (the less children you have, the less the tendency to want to acquire more wealth).

Like I said before, population on its own is not a measure of wealth, take California for example, with a population of around 38 million, it is the fifth biggest economy in the world. Simply because they apply technology more than it employs human labour. Thus we need to lower our population growth to enable government spend less on sustaining them and then use the money to invest in technology.

You can also see by this analysis (considering landmass and available resources) the USA is even actually less populated than us. Yet they apply stringent measures to keep its growth under control. That's why every incoming president has immigration as their topmost priority.

PS: Food for thought, India is over a billion yet Japan at around 120 million and UK at around 56 million are bigger economies (Japan's population is projected to drop to 80 million by 2040, ours to rise to 400 million by the same time, it is clearly worrisome).
However big economy does not translate to being a rich economy. The richest countries are actually in Europe eg Norway, Finland (you can also Google the richest countries in Africa, you'll be surprised to learn that Nigeria isn't even in the top ten or top 15). The quality of life there (Norway and Finland) is much better than you'll even get in the USA. In other words, countries with higher population (respect to economic growth rate) tend to have lower equitable distribution of wealth.
Nigeria

bibe:


Thanks for sharing with my perspective in some ways.

You see, the thing with population is that people make the mistake of just counting the numbers.
The right way to analyse it is actually to compare it to:
- The landmass
- Available resources and
- Projected economic growth.

If you compare China as at then (the time you speak of) with regards to their landmass and available resources, to Nigeria now in regards to her landmass and available resources, you'll see that we are as populated as them. They experienced everything we are going through now before initiating population control which helped to augment their fight against corruption (the less children you have, the less the tendency to want to acquire more wealth).

Like I said before, population on its own is not a measure of wealth, take California for example, with a population of around 38 million, it is the fifth biggest economy in the world. Simply because they apply technology more than it employs human labour. Thus we need to lower our population growth to enable government spend less on sustaining them and then use the money to invest in technology.

You can also see by this analysis (considering landmass and available resources) the USA is even actually less populated than us. Yet they apply stringent measures to keep its growth under control. That's why every incoming president has immigration as their topmost priority.

PS: Food for thought, India is over a billion yet Japan at around 120 million and UK at around 56 million are bigger economies (Japan's population is projected to drop to 80 million by 2040, ours to rise to 400 million by the same time, it is clearly worrisome).
However big economy does not translate to being a rich economy. The richest countries are actually in Europe eg Norway, Finland (you can also Google the richest countries in Africa, you'll be surprised to learn that Nigeria isn't even in the top ten or top 15). The quality of life there (Norway and Finland) is much better than you'll even get in the USA. In other words, countries with higher population (respect to economic growth rate) tend to have lower equitable distribution of wealth.
Nigeria

In accordance with research, I could understand the likes of Russia, Canada and USA are larger than China in terms of landmass but have lesser numbers of people (I mean a crystal clear difference). Yet it still competes with them in terms of economy. In the same trend, India being amongst the top 10 largest countries and 2nd most populated country in the world is nowhere to be comparatively. More over, a country that doesn't find its place in the top 50 richest countries in the world doesn't not amount to the fact that its citizens are suffering,
everything (welfare of citizens) builds on a country 's projected economy in which China is obviously one of the best.
In a nutshell, in own opinion, everything still boils down to how a country' s leadership manages its resources to ensure the certainties of the security, welfare and even distribution of it(resources).

I still stand to be corrected as regards clarifications u know.