It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Population control 'needs debate'

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Population control 'needs debate'


news.bbc.co.uk

Rapid world population growth must be halted to stop mankind "swamping the planet" like a "virus", a British MEP has warned.

Liberal Democrat Chris Davies told the BBC that politicians had to break a "taboo" and discuss the subject.

The North West England MEP added that families should be encouraged to have no more than one child in an effort to combat climate change.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
politics.guardian.co.uk
www.telegraph.co.uk




posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   
This is alarming.

Back in July, a think-tank said Britain should adopt a two child policy on families in order to combat population control.

I am failing to understand how this is linked to climate change. Apparently, fewer children will solve the problem


news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Soon they will murder the innocent in the name of the planet.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:06 PM
link   
I've started researching into this topic..

apparently, there is a UN plan for one child policy. Lobby groups are pushing for it.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
Back in July, a think-tank said Britain should adopt a two child policy on families in order to combat population control.



And yet they say we have to take in increaseing numbers of immigrants due to the UK population not haveing enough children to pay for the pensions in the future



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
i wonder if this politician and his colleagues around the world,will be volunteering themselves for population control measures.

i think this is what he actually means,"theres to many pheasants,there making us look bad,they must be dealt with".

cos poor people of the world are doing most of the breeding right?.

90% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 1% of people,maybe thats why theirs so much poverty,its always been that way.

if it must happen,lets start from the top,french style!.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I know,

It will be interesting to see what the government does, or is planning. Only a matter of time before something like this is introduced within the UK.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
I am failing to understand how this is linked to climate change. Apparently, fewer children will solve the problem


Well, if you consider the fact that it takes over a million bucks to raise a child from birth until they finish college, plus all that shuttling them back and forth to school, the link is pretty obvious. There's also the resources in terms of food, and how it was produced to factor in.

While, I'm not agreeing with the statement, I can certainly see how the link can be made.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
do you think the amount of resources needed to raise a child is indicative of a wasteful lifestyle??.

the truth is certain populations have been using more resources than the world can sustain for a long time.

its entirely possible to be self sufficient in terms of resources.there are many people doing so.

you dont have to control the populations numbers,they just have to live a more efficient lifestyle.





[edit on 17-11-2007 by welivefortheson]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Kill all the politicians = less hot air = warming problem solved

plus the added advantage of no more war




posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 01:41 PM
link   
The population control debate has been held already, several times - and I think it's safe to say that sensible people see the real problems with population have little to do with numbers of individuals (the planet could support hundreds of billions of humans if we modified our agricultural practices, and moderated our travel proclivities and city-building furor) - the problem is a function of lifestyle.

(Edit: a good example - if food was grown closer to the places where it is consumed, there would be a great deal less pollution, but people would rather have dense cities and wide-open empty farmlands, separated as if to prevent cross-contamination. The smart thing to do, it seems to me, is to grow food where people are eating it, and drastically reduce the monetary and environmental cost of said food.)

So often the proponents of population control simply take that position to advance their various prejudices - the argument goes something like this. "There're too many damn people, so let's kill off all the Africans" or "There're going to be too many damn people, so let's make it so only White, upper-class, Christian Americans can have children."

Their arguments ring hollow, relying, as they do, on very simple mathematics (better suited to balancing a checkbook than crafting a model for global population dynamics), and their formulas without fail cannot account for human ingenuity and the inventions/innovations of subsequent generations. They work under the assumption that overpopulation will be a problem 30 years from now, because we'll have exactly the same technology then as now. It's a nonsensical presupposition, really...

The bottom line is that people shouldn't buy into the hype and the scare tactics. They should stop and think for a moment, about the tremendous wide-open spaces that are everywhere around us - about the amazing advances in agricultural technology that are mostly unused due to short-term profit considerations.

Sure, we could invest in sea farms and hydroponic factory farms, but why do that when we can make a bit more money THIS year? That's the 'logic' at work here.

Proponents of population control should really do themselves (and us) a favor, and look into the alternatives to mass murder/eugenics, before they throw their hat in the ring motivated by fear or prejudice.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by WyrdeOne]


apc

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
A million bucks to raise a child to 21 would be 48,000 a year. That's greater than the average annual salary.

Kids are cheap. It's their lawyers that are expensive.


The alleged climate change link is standard global warming deceit. Next they'll try and blame trans fats or roller coasters. If they haven't already. It's a simple fact that the majority of the Earth's human population exists in third-world environments. Places where they don't even have SUVs. Forget steel mills and oil refineries.

The UN has always lusted for population control. As Europe is falling into the rabbit hole of global warming alarmism, where noone can be trusted and nothing is what it seems, it was just a matter of time before the situation were ripe for injection. And the UK is looking to be the clinical trials.

Soon they will require a license for that one child. I wonder what the criteria will be for approval.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by apc]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   
This what bothers me, the MEP said we shouldn't follow China, but the article clearly reads;



The North West England MEP added that families should be encouraged to have no more than one child in an effort to combat climate change.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I agree with the argument that there is not necessarily a link between the population and stopping climate change. The entire United States is 6.2 billion acres; you could fit the entire population on Earth in the US and give them one acre each.

But I don't want to see this devolve into a "the elites are trying to lower the population through malicious means" thread. Because I don't think that is a tenable position, nor is it a constructive one to the debate.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
If they are so concerned why is America no doing anything about illegal immigrants and other forigners who have on average 5 kids or more to look after whilst the government helps and do nothing about more of them coming in? Guess you can call it hyprocracy because they cause the problem and then they blame the American people or western society and yet it would be so PCI to say it was an influx of immigrants who out number the average national birth rate. The problem is made so we get the blame.



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


Originally posted by budski
Kill all the politicians = less hot air = warming problem solved

plus the added advantage of no more war


LIKE IT!!



The North West England MEP added that families should be encouraged to have no more than one child in an effort to combat climate change.

Now THAT is disturbing!!


There is something very wrong with this whole "global warming" debate, but I can't nail it. Is it being used as a form of control???


I still think it has a lot to do with oil supplies (or the dwindling thereof), but if they're seriously suggesting this idea, then there is something very wrong. Have they gone mad???? Are our leaders insane????

[edit on 17-11-2007 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I've a question.

What if our planet was so small enough that our population was getting out of control? What would you do? Or what would we do?



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 05:56 PM
link   
hmmm

I posted this thread when I first joined - got ripped to bits - then, lo and behold, it's all come true.

bah



JbT

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I dont know... I think they are right to an extent myself.

Surely you can understand that with growing living standards and life expectancys that eventually given enough time there could be a over population problem world wide. Things could grow ever fast expotentialy by generations if left unchecked.

Now, surely there must be some moral and civil way to go about this. I dont see anything wrong with a debate, or constructive discussion about the topic of overpopulation and what can be done to stay away from it.

Education for one, world wide might help. I myself dont see me having a child of my own, partly because I know there is not a 'need' for me to populate the planet with my child. Things might change, I might find the woman of my dreams and one thing could lead to another. But at least I know that having unprotected sex and leaving single mothers all over the country side is of no help to this planet or society (let alone women) in ANY way. I like to think my education - what little of it that I have - plays a part in that mind set.

Sure, I think a debate could be a good thing if the right things came out of it. Like a major word wide education movement, or something of the sorts. But of course I see problems when you get to the issue of limiting peoples amounts of children. What happens to the single mother pregnancy or the family that goes over the limit? Abortion? Adoption? ...Jail? That becomes a very slippery slope to play on.

It would be a tough debate, but one that I belive our leaders are going to NEED to have at some point sooner than later.

[edit on 17-11-2007 by JbT]



posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I'm just fine with population control, more people means less resources. And apparently it's the poor and uneducated who are on a reproduction rampage and then wonder why they are poor and can't afford to get their kids a proper education....of course then they just blame the rich. The governments have already set things into motion that would help deter overpopulation, however even now such things aren't helping when we are using up our own medical resources.
Population control is a necessity, not something to debate.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join