Population Control

I keep seeing people on this site and elsewhere claiming that depopulation is a bad thing. Is this just semantics? When I see someone call for depopulation I don’t think they are implying it’s acceptable to murder a set amount of people. I think they are trying to say that we need to curb the global population growth, and over a long period of time reduce the amount of people dependent on shared natural resources. Here’s the thing, there are only so many resources, and those resources are only replenished at a certain rate. We already have people starving, unable to get water etc. Whatever your beliefs about pollution and global warming, I don’t think any sane person would argue that as the population swells, we are slowly poisoning our environment. So what’s the problem with stemming the growth of the world’s population? Population control, and depopulation should be embraced, it’s beneficial to all of us. Including future generations.

Are you opposed to supplying countries and people who cannot possibly afford to care for their children with birth control and education about family planning? Should we really have to fork out money to the religious that refuse to use birth control? The same people that can’t possibly afford to feed, house and clothe their own children but insist on having unprotected sex get rewarded?

I am all for helping people who fall on hard times. It happens. They should be fed, clothed and helped. I am very against people that cannot possibly afford to have a child having more children and just assuming the government is going to pay. Those children take food out of the mouths of others. And for no reason other than selfishness.

If I had it my way there would be a global organization that distributed birth control, condoms, and information to as many people as possible. Food stamps would come with a condition, you get piss tested to make sure you’re taking birth control (women AND men). No birth control? A few warnings and you get your kids taken and the money train doesn’t stop at your station.

We are in a crappy situation. No one wants to see innocent children that didn’t get asked to be born suffer from their parents idiotic decisions. I want to see every child fed, cared for and loved. I don’t have a good idea on how to make that happen while at the same time holding parents responsible, but something has to change.

I want everyone who is alive now to be given food, shelter, clean water, education and medical treatment. I don’t want to see a billion more people that all deserve the same being born for no reason other than two peoples dumbassery.

Humanity is like a parasite killing it’s host. We need to adapt and change, or we will be wiped out. We don’t have a new host to transfer to, so we better not suck all the blood from this one.

a reply to: Domo1

I keep seeing people on this site and elsewhere claiming that depopulation is a bad thing. Is this just semantics?

No. Its just so much betterer to claim that reducing population growth actually means killing people rather than reducing birth rates.

a reply to: Phage

Ahh. So clearly Bill Gates coded ebola.

While the sentiment seems rational on the surface, the implications of controlling who may and may not have children faces the slippery slope of eugenics.

Who would set the standards for licensing parenthood?
What would become of those who became pregnant without such licensing?
What would become of those unlicensed children?

A veritable avalanche of questions arise and none of them have satisfactory answers.

In my very humble opinion the entire overpopulation argument is propaganda geared toward furthering the cult of selfishness that the west is plagued with. It serves to divide because any group can be singled out as being part of "that" problem and then demonized and marginalized - along with their political base and power... All in one fell swoop.

Despite what many insist upon declaring, we are generations away from reaching a point of unsustainability with regards to the human population and resource use. In fact, from a business and governmental standpoint, wanting population control is contrary to the very tenets of both. Leaders need citizens to use as a power and income source, businesses need as many consumers as they can get as a means of monetary growth.

I think the depopulation agenda is not geared at all toward depopulating anything - more a simple tool to divide us and make us hate and mistrust others around us.

a reply to: Hefficide

Who would set the standards for licensing parenthood?

Licensing is not required.

It is interesting to note that developed countries have much lower birth rates and population growth rates than underdeveloped countries. Is that because of licensing or is it because when living standards improve birth rates fall?
www.eoi.es...

Despite what many insist upon declaring, we are generations away from reaching a point of unsustainability with regards to the human population and resource use.

So...wait until the crisis arrives? I guess so. It's the human way to handle things in most cases.

a reply to: Domo1
If they released the free energy systems and educated people to there full potential we wouldn't have this issue but keeping a population dumbed down just so a few families can rule over us is insanity,
one of the ways they are controlling birth rate is by increasing oestrogen in our food this is so men turn gay there are a few studies out there citing seabirds and fish as well as the chemical in Legumes which secrete oestrogen in order to turn predators gay so they won't reproduce.
In the 50s scientists were commissioned to find out what chemicals mimic oestrogen they came up with Mercury which is in our tooth fillings, tattoo ink and multiple vaccines Bisphenol A is in the majority of plastic and Sodium Lauryl Sulphate which is the sudsing agent in toothpaste shampoo and coffee and then the other day I find out oestrogen has increased 500% in milk, there's also another chemical called DTA but I don't know anything about that yet.

I've done my part. I have intentionally avoided adding to the population. I'm sure having kids is great and all, but it's not so bad not having any.

a reply to: Hefficide

I'm really not trying to be rude but did you read the OP? At all?

a reply to: Phage

Outside of China your statement is accurate, though hit and miss in application. Birth rates in the US are low, but tend to be higher in economically challenged areas.

An argument could be made that the upper classes in any industrialized nation are either too busy with their own careers and personal goals to be bothered with parenthood or that their own personal priorities have shifted from the biological imperative and have been overpowered by self-gratification as a primary drive.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Phage

Ahh. So clearly Bill Gates coded ebola.

I understand that you think "that's" rediculous ... but you aren't looking at the big picture.

It's important to be able to see things, from both sides ... without it, you're clueless.

Assume for instance, you have Ebola in Africa ... and you have a viable cure. The cure is expensive to produce, and it lacks the proper testing.

Two options...

A. Let it continue the way it has, slow pace ... eventually in a hundred years, and a million more dead Africans, they'll find a cure.

B. Speed up the process, sacrifice yourself (or someone else) for the greater good.


Option B, will look far more vile ... but will save lives on the long run. Option B, is the safe road ... but it's only safe for you, because you don't live in Africa, kind of.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Phage

... that their own personal priorities have shifted from the biological imperative and have been overpowered by self-gratification as a primary drive.

Perfectly accurate description ...

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: Phage

Ahh. So clearly Bill Gates coded ebola.

No well not that I know of but Bill Gates did state that vaccines would reduce the population by 15%, it looks like the vaccines kill the eggs of the future children so is that humane.
changing the chemical balance of us is barbaric and we are all born equal regardless of how much money you have been given or stolen, in the case of most of the families that run our planet.

a reply to: jinni73

This is the conundrum will we tilt towards self suficiency with our own fusion reactors,hydroponics or aquaculture set ups,skyskrapers with massive gardens and self sufficiency technology are now being built in Asia ,we have desalination so we wont run out of water the technology to feed all exists....or will we,perhaps become totally dependant on large corporations for food,water,power

a reply to: Domo1

I read the entire OP. I simply chose to ignore specifics like "piss testing to make sure people were taking birth control" and opted to comment in a general way rather than addressing ideas that I perceive as irrational.

a reply to: Hefficide

An argument could be made that the upper classes in any industrialized nation are either too busy with their own careers and personal goals to be bothered with parenthood or that their own personal priorities have shifted from the biological imperative and have been overpowered by self-gratification as a primary drive.

The motivation is not really relevant is it? Improved living conditions correlate with reduced population growth.

Since the underdeveloped parts of the world are contributing most to global population growth it would seem that efforts to improve living conditions in those regions would be the most effective means of reducing global population growth. Women in underdeveloped regions have more children, in Afghanistan the average is 6.2.

a reply to: Phage

Agreed 100%.

I imagine a lot of folks were like me. I was 20 when I had my daughter, and really didn't pay attention to the world around me. I had my bubble and everything else be damned. It wasn't until quite a few years later, that I actually thought about what I had done.

I would not trade my daughter for anything in this world. But I have wondered if I had it to do all over again... Would I?

Considering the climate (not the weather) I very well may have made a different decision. I think there are many who probably feel the same. I did not choose to bring a plethora of children into this world after that light bulb went off and I think that's why you see less families having 7/10 kids. Again... They likely feel the same way and had the same revelations.

I do think it's a good idea for people to stop and consider what they are doing by bringing another child into the world. Sadly, not everybody does that and I don't see that changing much regardless of the state of affairs around us.

I do think it's semantics, but I also think that there are quite a few folks that would not mind seeing the herd culled instead of just cutting back on births.

a reply to: Kangaruex4Ewe

I do think it's semantics, but I also think that there are quite a few folks that would not mind seeing the herd culled instead of just cutting back on births.

Then they can go to the front of the line.

a reply to: Phage

Indeed they can. If it is the noble cause they claim it to be, there should be no hesitation to lead by example IMO.

a reply to: Hefficide

So why gloss over the entire point that depopulation doesn't necessarily mean killing people off?

Why ignore the second paragraph where I talk about supplying everyone with birth control, condoms and education?

I'm trying to say that people who can make babies shouldn't make babies if they can't afford to, and that my idea of population control is education, birth control and condoms.

Go tell some of the kids experiencing famine there are enough resources.

I'm very aware I'm not a good writer, but I don't think most people would struggle with my points. You especially, I've always considered you very intelligent.