Should we impose population controls?
Should we impose population controls?
Future generations risk inheriting an overcrowded, suffocating planet. Taking action may mean what was taboo is now common sense
|
11
points
1
point
1
point
call us racist bigots for using our brains. There's an easy way to determine which of us has the sounder narrative. Visit Harlem and start accusing all the black people you see of being racial tribalists. If you get out of there without being mortally wounded or murdered then you win. 11
points
Visit Harlem and start accusing all the black people you see of being racial tribalists. If you get out of there without being mortally wounded or murdered then you win. So why would I not get killed in a white area if I screamed the same thing? Do tell. Your real beliefs on minorities are showing eh nom? Per your definition, are you sure it isn't you that's the racist? 6
points
4
points
We should impose Nomenclature control. Bill gates is a hopping mad eugenicist: https://www.youtube.com/ Population control wouldn't be necessary if we switched to a Nicola Tesla Jacque Fresco type world and ditched the Rockefeller Rothschild Nomenclature model. Yes but worldwide the case is rather different ....... Global human population growth amounts to around 83 million annually, or 1.1% per year. The global population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.6 billion in 2017. It is expected to keep growing, and estimates have put the total population at 8.6 billion by mid-2030, 9.8 billion by mid-2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100. 1
point
Cruzader, ''I dont think its necessary , in occidental countries the birth rate is stagnating.'' Dermot provided the following stats. "The global population has grown from 1 billion in 1800 to 7.6 billion in 2017." That global population is moving into Europe, and especially into the US. The US population was 165 million when I was in high school, and now it is double that. In 2015 13.5% (43 million) of the US population were immigrants. Currently over 27% of the US population are immigrants and their kids (84 million). (https://www.migrationpolicy. That 84 million accounts for half the population increase since I was in high school. World population impacts the West, despite stability in our native born populations. Personally, I think Western nations would do well to RADICALLY reduce the immigration we allow into our own nations. That way at least some of the world has a chance at not becoming overpopulated. Well, we sure can't wait until it's STANDING ROOM ONLY'. 'Move along there the tides coming in and the sharks are circling''. Earth's resources are not infinite and if the human population explosion is allowed to continue unabated other species will rapidly become extinct with only domestic livestock surviving and a few moth eaten examples of wildlife existing in zoos. Already such animals as elephants, lions.tigers and many others have been reduced to a fraction of their former numbers of less that 100 years ago. We have choked and polluted the seas, contaminated the land and poisoned the air which we, and all other living organisms need to survive. If we let the brainless sanctimonious bleeding heart brigade have their way and we fail to exercise prudent birth control then we are signing our own death warrant along with most of 'life on earth. 1
point
O.K, it's your turn to stand on my shoulders but for god's sake don't crap on my head. Oops! ... Sorry man. When, you've got to go, you absolutely have GOT to go." We are already at that point, in a sense. Fukashima Daiichi is still spewing strontium-90, and the tritium bloom crossed the entire Pacific, and has hit the west coast of the US. The Deepwater Horizon spill dumped at least 5 million barrels of crude oil into the Gulf, Caribbean, and Atlantic. These are just two of the worst such events. These events happened because there are enough consumers of energy that the consumers and their governments WORLDWIDE, consider the risks to be acceptable for these and other identical enterprises , so long as people get their electricity and gasoline. "Now it is my turn to stand on your shoulders while I eat some seafood. Want some shrimp?" Hello D, Overcrowding is a political issue - not a shortage of resources issue. So I say let’s feed the people instead of preventing them from being born. By the way, aren’t you the one who thinks we should kill people instead of letting them starve?? You are, aren’t you. Both of your remedies are stupid and inhumane. excon 2
points
Excon, Both your remedies are stupid and inhumane. C'mon, man. There is nothing gained by unfair criticisms and all the ad hominem crap. You read enough of Dermot's posts to know that there is concern for others underlying his ideas and solutions. Just because we all disagree on root causes or best solutions doesn't justify accusing any of us of being inhumane. I think his population solution, like yours, is overly idealistic and impractical, but mine is no less ugly. None of us is stupid or inhumane. Overcrowding is a political issue - not a shortage of resources That is because overcrowding is, by definition, a shortage of space, not resources. It has been a decade since I was in Seattle, and the last time I was there was when I moved away in 97. I remember when the Space Needle was the tallest building(structure?) in Seattle. I remember Whidbey Island when it was damn near pristine (before there was a McDonalds on the island. The added population made western Washington less beautiful, and made the wild spaces less wild and more crowded. Your solution only makes that worse. Humans are not the only species that matters. You say ........ overcrowding is a political issue ..... really how do you come to that conclusion ? Yeah sure feed them , what a brilliant “ plan “ and tell me how you’re going to bring that about ? By the way aren’t you one of those people who enjoy watching children starve ? They still are at this moment , yet your solution is .... feed them , so why don’t you ? I haven’t offered a “ remedy “ I’ve offered solutions , your master plan is “ let’s watch children starve to death as it’s far nobler to do so “ Saying an argument is stupid isn’t an argument, but saying you’re stupid well that’s a fact Hello again D, Your answer presupposes that we tried to feed everybody in the world and we simply can’t do it. Were that the problem, I might consider your solution. But it’s not the problem. It’s not even close. We have the ability to feed everyone, and feed them well. We are simply not doing it, and that’s for political reasons. Let’s take Puerto Rico as an example. There’s tons of food and water at the airport, but the people are starving and dying of thirst. Is that a political problem or is that a resource problem?? I say we could feed the Puerto Ricans and feed them well. We simply choose not to do it. excon 1
point
Dermot, my friend, [Excon'] master plan is “ let’s watch children starve to death as it’s far nobler to do so “ Don't be silly. More to the point, don't be unfair. You can read his posts and tell that he is a generally compassionate guy whose posts pretty consistently indicate that he means well. We don't need to insult people with whom we disagree. It sure does nothing to advance the conversation. Based on his assessment that the problem and its solutions are political in nature, I think Excon wants governments to solve the problem, and he wants there to be no down side. I don't think it is realistic to expect to feed and find space for out-of-control populations, especially not indefinitely. I am sure it is unrealistic to expect governments to function well enough and with enough integrity to accomplish what would be required. 0
points
Most Liberals on this site are LIARS! The Democrat Party does indeed support No Restriction abortions up to birth! So tell me, what week up to birth are abortions illegal according to you? Give me the week when convienence abortions are no longer allowed in the eight No Restriction abortion States. What don't you understand about when Hillary says abortions are between a mother and her doctor up to birth? What don't you get about the Left's demand that the wording "health" of mother must be included into any abortion compromise, and that the word "health" must include depression. They understand that any and all abortions will be legal as long as the mother simply says she is depressed over having the baby. What don't you get bout the GOP trying to pass 20 week limits (but still allowing extreme case abortions), and the Democrat Party always stopping them? This is why I ban you. You refuse to be honest with what you support. Do you actually think that burying your head in the sand, and telling everyone the lie of how the Left does not support No Restriction abortions, actually mens anything at all? Who do you think you are fooling? YOURSELF? People have the right to have as many children as they want. That's O.K. but I think they should pay a worldwide tax on any children over ... say...two. This tax should be spent on world hunger, environmental cleanup, (water, air and ocean). At least they should pay something on the pressure they create on the rest of the world. I don't think that the third world has the same population problems as the developed world. Note also that the best way to make birth rates decrease is to become a developed country. As such, overpopulation is a problem that ought to solve itself on the global level in the long term. I do think that many developed countries have an overpopulation problem that is largely fed by immigration (our birth rates are often below replacement levels). An easy solution to overpopulation in developed countries, then, is to decrease immigration. Not to control how many kids we have, but to sway general opinion away from having big families in undeveloped countries. If developed countries would help fund for better education, developing countries would be given a boost. And it is shown that developing countries get more children on average. So educating the youth would help our population problem. A hard limit on the amount of children you can have, wouldn't be a good idea, though, since you can always have unexpected pregnancies. A more widespread use of condoms would also help, especially in developing countries. I'm curious, how? And in what case? Example. Should men be temporarily sterilized when they reach puberty and only allow the process to reverse when he is with his chosen life partner and they are stable enough to have children? Should there be a one child rule enforced? Both are viable but one is horrifying if the rule is broken. 0
points
For all those pro abortion people who want population control, you be the first ones to give up your lives for the sake of the so called overcrowding. What kind of arrogant selfish fool wants to talk about population control as long as it is someone else being killed. Put your life where your big hypocritical mouth is. |
