See other Health Articles
Title: What about population control?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 17, 2008
Author: salemguy
Post Date: 2008-11-17 23:35:10 by salemguy
Keywords: None
Views: 1482
Comments: 127
So I've been looking at comments about Obama's new war plans, not, and something that's been bugging me for a while causes me to post this. I'm curious what you think and what you think we should do, as a freedom forum. When, with all these crises on climate change, energy, food, water, land use, environment, etc., are we going to address the problem of too many people? I'm pretty sure we already have too many people. How should we do that? I think we should have global goals for a population reduction of 50% by 2050, via natural deaths, contraception, and abortion. How do we get there?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-14) not displayed.
.
.
.
#15. To: Cynicom (#13)
Good idea, cynicom. Are you volunteering? I do live in a state that supports physician-assisted suicide, and I'm glad for that. Euthanasia, realistically and humanely, has been practiced for a long time by doctors and others, so yeah, I think we ought to allow that, too. A large piece of US medical costs are foolishly spent in the last six months of life. It would save a bundle and relieve a lot of suffering. Apart from we should all buy guns and shoot each other, anybody have any positive contributions here? For RickyJ, I'm pretty sure there are already too many people because we are now damaging planetary systems, big time, with no end in sight. People, among animals, have by far the greatest impact on natural resources, and it's clear that our endless growth is not sustainable.
Your Mother should be fined for not doing her duty in alleviating over population. I assume you DO take her to task for over loading the planet? If not you are a unnatural born hypocrite with a sick mind, deciding when and if others should live or die.
What planetary systems are we damaging? The overpopulation myth has been going on since the end of WW2. It is a myth or else we wouldn't be letting millions of Mexicans into America to work if we already had too many people.
God is always good!
Kissinger spoke of useless eaters, I think we have one of his disciples in attendance.
Huh? Where have you been for the last few decades? Do you deny global warming, the decimation of northern and southern ice caps? The incredible, omnipresent pollution of the planet? Watersheds everywhere increasingly contaminated? The acidification and warming of ocean waters? The death of coral reefs? Much of this results from industrial and consumer use of petroleum and petro- chemicals, not directly from overpopulation, but now at over 6 billion, and rising living standards in India and China, only more pressure on ecological systems can be expected... more damage guaranteed. Globally, we could address this either by ratcheting back on living standards or focusing on fewer people. I think fewer people is a better choice. Otherwise, collapsing ecosystems will see to it, hmm? At that point what is your standard of living worth?
The population problem is the keystone dilemma facing this world. There are way, way too many people on 'spaceship Earth.' We consume so much, there is not enough resources and space for other life forms every bit as valuable and important as our species of primate.
The entire earth population can fit in Texas with about 1400 sq ft per person. It is nowhere close to full or overpopulated. Problems with food etc is because of mans wars and greed. Not overpopulation. Anyone who thinks that we are overpopulated needs to kill themself.
Yeah, can I nominate some folks??
The political elite is inherently anti-life (because legislation is robbery), so below replacement level fertility is actually a bi-product of their dictatorship. Low fertility - particularly in Europe, east Asia and North America - is a sure sign of cultural failure. The goons are killing the people off, but they continue to talk about the "aging" population instead of the dying population.
Someone dying of a disease like cancer is a liar because the population of healthy cells in the body is overwhelmingly larger then those which are cancerous. I mean, how dare they die being such hypocrites to infer that so many can be taken out by so few. What you say is so dumb it is beyond belief. Just be glad stupidity isn't painful, you'd be in agony. First subtract the surface of the planet that is water, then desert and arctic and subarctic tundra, then land at high altitude and so on until you discover the freaking baldly obvious, that everything is dying off because our species can't control their numbers and thinks it can instrumentalize everything that is not human life into a buck until everything is destroyed or denuded. I deal in facts, and you in fiction that rationalize away the obvious. I suppose too everything going extinct is just going because it's their time to die according to your god's plan and not because of the shear demand and pervasiveness of the human species to, yes? What you share with is is an insanity that flies so deeply in the face of reality it is mind boggling. Get out of Ohio and take a look at the real world. We are a species out of control that can't live within it's means and is in danger of killing itself off much as it has everything else in the world. Try to explain reality away all you want, nobody is buying.
Though I'm glad you feel this way, as obviously there is more then enough room in these United States for as many illegal immigrants as we can entice in. Dufus.
Do you think you'd be able to enjoy the quality of life that you have with a population density that high? For starts, many of the western states have water shortages now. If you had twice the population that the US has today, you can say hello to water rationing over a good part of the country.
What is your field of expertise? You don't, by chance, teach about butterflies, do you?
Verdammter Verräter
"Not the victory but the action; Not the goal but the game; In the deed the glory" Dies ist gut "Not the victory but the action; Not the goal but the game; In the deed the glory" Dies ist gut Speak English or French bub, those are the only two languages I know. Kraut is a scoll by.
Do to bad government policy driven by environmentalism.
It's mostly due to morons who live in places like Southern California or Arizona and run their sprinklers 24 hours a day, seven days a week to grow a lawn.
No it's mostly do to enviros who insist on having water for their yachts like during the Klamath water crisis. Oh they claimed it was for the fish, that didn’t need it btw, but the reality was the guy who set the water levels was commodore of the yacht club and that was the first year they didn't have to pull their boats out. He claimed there still wasn't enough water though the lake was at record levels. It's due to enviros who want to save an artificial lake at the expense of the farmers who created it, all because birds have managed to take advantage of it. It's because our forests are overgrown with all those trees sucking up the water supplies causing less runoff and unhealthy forests. I could go on but I won't.
Ich werde mit Ihnen für das Schwein sprechen, das Sie sind.
"Not the victory but the action; Not the goal but the game; In the deed the glory" Dies ist gut You're probably aware of the fact that many environmental groups also oppose unlimited third world immigration into the US, because third world people have families 2-5 times the size of westerners.
Los Angeles: 2018 A.D.
Ja "Not the victory but the action; Not the goal but the game; In the deed the glory" Dies ist gut The world is much much bigger then Texas. That should answer most of those questions.
I've always thought that colonization of space was the only real solution to overpopulation. If there were a significant and determined effort, we should be able to build starships in the not so distant future. However, I don't see that happening due to the greed and waste inherent in our society.
I firmly believe that the Chinese and maybe even the Indians are going to be in the lead. My pet hypothesis is that the Chinese establish a Lunar base by sending up a bunch of astronauts, start a Lunar base. They don't come back like our guys did, but immediately being establishing a Chinese presence. They stay there, and more follow with increased living quarters and additional personnel, some or all of the original coming home. We've lost our faith in science, progress and are full of selfdoubt. Other countries are not as mired in navel watching angst as we are.
Yes, this is covered in Sociology 101. However, this was not my point. I was mining a hole in A K A Stone's logic.
Je tu déteste aussi, mec. Ta gueule.
The problem with a lunar base is that it is just an outpost, it could never truly be a permanent habitat for a population due to the lack of an atmosphere and the harsh temperatures. What is truly needed is interstellar exploration in order to find a planet similar to Earth that has a hospitable environment and breathable atmosphere. Once that happens, we could build interstellar ferries to transport large numbers of people there to truly colonize that world. It's not as far-fetched as it sounds.
I was just pointing out position (in favor of third world immigration and population control simultaneously) is just as inconsistent and illogical as Old Friend's (against third world immigration, in favor of unlimited population growth).
If the US population density were as high as Japan's, we would have to adopt a lifestyle very much like the Japanese. I doubt that you would like it very much if you had to give up your big, roomy house and yard for a little studio apartment, as even the wealthy Japanese are forced to do. And the Japanese model is a best case scenario.
It's easy. The only reason the earth can support this many people is because of nitrogen fertilizers, which are the result of advanced technology. No nitrogen fertilizers, half the world dies off.
Pugs rule, all other dogs drool.
They are working on getting rid of those. Causes problems with reefs and algae plumes.
And I pointed out right back that I was not addressing that, I was dealing with foundational flaws to his way of looking at global population problems. First and foremost, we all, globally, need to defuse the population time bomb. All countries have a fundimantal human requisite to do this, and do so in a way that is as fair as possible to everyone in the world as possible. I know full well how and why countries evolve from one modus and frame of reference concerning population growth, as it is a fundimental that is extensively expounded on in sociology. I was in Special Forces in Utah which has a part of 19th Froup there. I heard the same tired saw A K A Stone worked in here many times from Mormons constantly there. I was not impressed then, and it does not impress me now.
FWIW, there is no population time bomb. The Earth can support twice as many people as now. The problem is not resources, but their allocation, logistics, administration and corruption causing waste, theft, inefficiencies.
Actually, what will be terrifying about lunar culture is a people in possession of the high ground. It is far, far easier to 'throw rocks' at Earth from a shallow gravity well then it is to do the same from Earth's deep gravitational well. They will be far more then an outpost, and the conflict to control Luna will be bloody and very intense in the next century. At least that's how I see it from my perspective.
Human life is far from being the most important thing on this planet. All life is sacred and all species have a right to exist for their own value unto themselves. Yes, if we were more efficient and less piggy, we indeed could crowd lots more hairless primates all over the place, but this is something I am intensely opposed to. I am a very strong proponent of deep ecology, and we must bring our numbers under control, and reduce our load and burden on this planet sanely and relatively bloodlessly by attrition. As people die naturally, less people should be born to take their place. I strongly support the end to abortion and do not believe in genocide as any means to an end. But I have believed my entire life there is too many people on this planet, and this is a central notion to my belief system that is in no way shape or form open for discussion to change.
Yes, it can. The question is what quality of life we'd have at significantly higher population densities. Both the US and Japan are wealthy, developed, first world countries, but many American would be uncomfortable if they had to live the cramped and congested lives that are typical for Japan, or any other place with a very dense population. I don't see zero population growth as a bad thing, at least not when it comes about through the decisions that people make for themselves. In first world countries, people will have fewer children (one or two) and invest a lot into them, as opposed to having ten or more with less investment per child. Zero population growth will become more and more the norm as living standards and levels of education increase.
Thing is, the moon is just a barren rock with no air, food, or water. It wouldn't solve a overpopulation problem, as the same problems would exist there as here, with the added problem of regularly transporting at least water and fuel just to maintain those people living there. Food can be grown or raised, water can't be created from nothing however, and it takes fuel to keep the lights on when the sun goes down.
The population bomb will naturally defuse itself. More and more developing countries have an educated middle class, and will see families with two children instead of a dozen. European countries are at zero population growth by their own people's volition, not by any China style social engineering scheme. "Be bountiful and multiply" is a relic of times where most kids had a good chance of dying before reaching adulthood and everyone needed as many hands to work the family farm as possible. Now that times have changed in the developed world and are changing in the developing world, nobody thinks that having as many children as possible is the world's greatest virtue. Once people have education and money, they'd rather spend their resources on a smaller number of children than spread it among many to hedge their bets.
You are still thinking like an Earthling. When you require next to no energy to land or take off from a small ball of mud like Luna, you can get anything you want from say another shallow gravity well like a moon of Jupiter, some of which have plenty of aqua. The solar system is your oyster, and people in deeper gravity wells are at the tender mercies of any really tyrannical government that develops there. There will be no problem being very well endowed with resources up there that make those who live there in the future quite rich and powerful. I predict that many will be so myopic about this with no real foresight into this we will collectively be shocked and caught entirely by surprise. I have long sought to think outside the box on this issue, and frankly, I am very worried about this.
Comments (56 - 127) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNotice Salem left out " EUTHANASIA"?????
#16. To: salemguy (#15)
Good idea, cynicom. Are you volunteering?
#17. To: salemguy (#15)
For RickyJ, I'm pretty sure there are already too many people because we are now damaging planetary systems, big time, with no end in sight. People, among animals, have by far the greatest impact on natural resources, and it's clear that our endless growth is not sustainable.
#18. To: RickyJ (#17)
#19. To: RickyJ (#17)
What planetary systems are we damaging?
#20. To: salemguy (#19)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#21. To: Ferret Mike (#20)
The population problem is the keystone dilemma facing this world. There are way, way too many people on 'spaceship Earth.
#22. To: Cynicom (#13)
" EUTHANASIA"?????
#23. To: RickyJ, salemguy (#10)
'The elite want to control the world, of course "too many" people would be a huge problem for them.'
#24. To: Old Friend (#21)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#25. To: Old Friend (#21)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#26. To: Old Friend (#21)
The entire earth population can fit in Texas with about 1400 sq ft per person
#27. To: salemguy (#0)
#28. To: Ferret Mike (#25)
obviously there is more then enough room in these United States for as many illegal immigrants as we can entice in.
#29. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#26)
#30. To: Beendigen Sie die Kommunisten (#28)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#31. To: Rupert_Pupkin, Old Friend (#26)
For starts, many of the western states have water shortages now. If you had twice the population that the US has today, you can say hello to water rationing over a good part of the country.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
#32. To: farmfriend (#31)
#33. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#32)
(Edited)
It's mostly due to morons who live in places like Southern California or Arizona and run their sprinklers 24 hours a day, seven days a week to grow a lawn.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
#34. To: Ferret Mike (#30)
#35. To: Ferret Mike (#25)
Though I'm glad you feel this way, as obviously there is more then enough room in these United States for as many illegal immigrants as we can entice in.
#36. To: Beendigen Sie die Kommunisten (#29)
-Schweizerische Schuetzenzeitung (Swiss Shooting Federation) April, 1941
#37. To: X-15 (#36)
Los Angeles: 2018 A.D.
#38. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#26)
Do you think you'd be able to enjoy the quality of life that you have with a population density that high? For starts, many of the western states have water shortages now. If you had twice the population that the US has today, you can say hello to water rationing over a good part of the country.
#39. To: salemguy (#0)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#40. To: FormerLurker (#39)
in our society.
#41. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#35)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#42. To: Beendigen Sie die Kommunisten (#34)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#43. To: swarthyguy (#40)
My pet hypothesis is that the Chinese establish a Lunar base by sending up a bunch of astronauts, start a Lunar base
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#44. To: Ferret Mike (#41)
#45. To: Old Friend (#38)
(Edited)
#46. To: salemguy (#0)
How do we get there?
#47. To: Turtle, salemguy (#46)
No nitrogen fertilizers, half the world dies off.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. —Thomas Jefferson, 1802
#48. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#44)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#49. To: Ferret Mike (#48)
#50. To: FormerLurker (#43)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#51. To: swarthyguy (#49)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
#52. To: swarthyguy (#49)
The Earth can support twice as many people as now.
#53. To: Ferret Mike (#50)
"The real deal is this: the ‘royalty’ controlling the court, the ones with the power, the ones with the ability to make a difference, with the ability to change our course, the ones who will live in infamy if we pass the tipping points, are the captains of industry, CEOs in fossil fuel companies such as EXXON/Mobil, automobile manufacturers, utilities, all of the leaders who have placed short-term profit above the fate of the planet and the well-being of our children." - James Hansen
#54. To: Ferret Mike, swarthyguy (#48)
#55. To: FormerLurker (#53)
"You only have power over people so long as you don't take everything away from them. But when you've robbed a man of everything he's no longer in your power -- he's free again. Alexander Solzhenitsyn
.
.
.