It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Two children should be limit, says green guru

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:15 AM
what race are you, Aeons. not as a racial thing, just wondering...

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Aeons
Great. Sustainable.

So continue to ask the educated people who by and large don't have many children. The people who have 5 even out the many who have none at all.

Because what you need is for the educated people who try to help everyone to have fewer children.

Why is the self-defeating stupidity of this ideology so hard for people to grasp?

Hmm for some reason the idea of so called " educated people " trying to help all of us simple mined people get by doesn't sit right with me .

And just for those that might link your analogy to imply the poor people , I would suggest that we try to elevate all people to a state in which they could be looked upon as equals rather then a devastating plague .

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:38 AM
reply to post by GuyverUnit I

The media is turning on her because she has a psychological condition called hoarding. No single mother with no means of supporting her six other children should have legally been given fertility drugs. She has a definite problem that needs to be addressed, what she is doing is no better than someone who hoards stray animals.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:30 AM
Once again, one person decides to be extreme- "only 2 kids" and another says " you can't tell me what to do with my uterus!"

It always goes this way.
For example:
On one side, the 2 kids rule (with the unofficial "girls are worthless" attitude) has created some long term social issues for Chinese society.

On the other hand Miss 14 babies NEEDS to be told what to do with her uterus.

We need to find the middle of the road on these things.

Why do they always ignore the fact that most of us want common sense and not some extremely ignorant new law?
Unfortunately we cant legislate common sense.

And, as in the case of Miss I have 14 babies and the rest of the world has to pay for it." ..........You can't fix stupid.

Oh yeah, Green Guru?
Tell me he's not a waste of oxygen.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 02:38 AM
The answer is not fewer children, it's more children.

The more children you have, the better the chance that an Einstein type will be born, and innovate a way out of our old, current, and new problems. This is a point NEVER considered by the eugenics/overpopulation nutters.

And any child that turns out to be not so brilliant can always be rendered into a nutrient paste and used for fertilizer.

Seriously though, does anyone listen to these idiots when they talk? All this business about saving the earth - the earth doesn't need saving. The earth is going to be here long after we're gone.

Let them use 1 square of toilet paper and only flush once a month, have no children, eat only soy, and ride 30 miles to work in a blizzard on their bicycle if they're so concerned. Life is too short, man...

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Night Prowler
what race are you, Aeons. not as a racial thing, just wondering...

You have to realize I said First World. That is a cultural thing, not a racial thing. Look around you.

I am caucasian mostly.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:07 PM
This is a statement from someone who has no clue to what it takes in maintaining a healthy population for every country is different. In America the magical number is like 2.2, but in Somalia it is 5 or higher as examples. China and Japan are actually too low and will suffer the consequences in the next 30 years.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:10 PM
This is very simple.

In cultures where women have education, human rights, and freedoms, and laws which restrict others from control of women's sexuality those cultures do not have problems with population.

Which further makes my point. As a whole, women will control the population numbers to what they feel comfortable and safe with.

In cultures where the society or men think that they control women's and their uteruses.....almost always have a population problem.

If you want to lessen population numbers, you provide education and societal laws that promote female individuation. If you want over population, you destroy female rights, and let men have laws that say they can do things like rape their wives. Instant population problem.

Look around the world, and this dynamic is absolutely apparent.

For every family you think that has 5 children at Walmart, you know several women in their 40s who have no children. It evens out.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:12 PM
In my country there is no need to set a limit, because aside from the immigration program we have less than O % growth. Thats due to a higher standard of living than most third world countries enjoy, equality for women, and a fairly good health care program. Thats what all countries need!!! Because thats the answer. Its not about fascism and control, its about social justice and equality!!!

I have 5 children, and not really by choice I might add, though I finally got the operation to ensure no more would come, lol. I wouldn't chose this job over a peaceful quiet artistic for anything in the world, but its too late to think that way.
But 40% of women are choosing not to have children at all, and prefer to attempt to create a better life for themselves. That speaks volumes of how much support there is for families, the large number of women and children living in poverty.

Its not fascist rules that matter here, its social justice, equality and a good health care system.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:24 PM
The big problem when you limit births is you reach a point where the majority of the population is old and the working class is small and can not support the older non-working class.

This is why there is the perfect number of births per area to keep this balance. As my prior example with Somalia even 5 children per family is most likely not enough, and in China they will in 30 years have 60% or better of their population in the old age non-working group and will not have enough younger people alive to support them. Japan is negative growth too and faces the same if worst problems.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 12:42 PM

Originally posted by badgerprints
On the other hand Miss 14 babies NEEDS to be told what to do with her uterus.

I disagree. You shouldn't be telling ANYONE what to do with their uterus, whether they want to get an abortion of have 19 kids. This woman should be able to do whatever she wants with her uterus, just like every other woman.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 01:10 PM
While many people would have a knee-jerk response to this idea, it does make complete sense.

We simply cannot survive as a species if we continue to reproduce at a rate not able to be sustained by our planet.

It's a fact that one day the Human race will reach a limit if we do not slow down.
We are not able to operate as a stable species right now, there is not the capacity to feed all of us, there is no method of creating free energy yet, whole nations are incapable of supporting their own people.

Like it or not, one day we will have to either make a moral decision to limit and control our reproduction, or it will be forced by governments.

Personally I made the choice a long time ago to never have any children.
If I ever feel a desire to be a parent, I'll adopt and care for one of the many children irresponsible adults chose to have when they weren't able to provide for them.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:36 PM
population control is not moral, in my opinion.

no one has the right to determine how many children an individual or couple may have unless having those children infringes on our rights in some way.

correct me if I'm wrong here but:

if two people are limited to two children, then there is no population growth. that's just from birth. now factor in war, disease, crime, etc. and you can see that our population will actually shrink. the earth is capable of supporting many many more humans than it is currently. nature will sort the population out either through some sort of contagion, war, lack of supplies and starvation, or some combination of these.

Let people live their lives. each new child is a potential genius that can solve our energy crisis, a brilliant philosopher, or some other remarkable person. I agree that the solution to the problem of overpopulation is social justice, equality, and continuing as we as individuals deem appropriate. government control isn't the answer.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:42 PM
If you can afford 5 kids and want to have 5 kids, then by all means have them. Oh wait but the "green guru " guy said we shouldn't. Well I got news for him. I will have as many as I can afford.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 06:52 PM
The Western World doesn't need more kids! Young adults like myself are now competing with adults for jobs because the economy is so bad.

And for the pleasure of this thread:

The Duggar Family, 17 kids and counting... I think they have 18 now?

Oh, and they're all super religious. And all the kids' names start with the letter J.
They took a trip to the Creation Museum on the show that I watched.

I'm an only child. I don't want kids, but if I have them, I will have only one or two unless I have twins by accident.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:04 PM

Originally posted by badgerprints

On one side, the 2 kids rule (with the unofficial "girls are worthless" attitude) has created some long term social issues for Chinese society.

Just to be clear, the problem in China was a one child only rule. And if they had to choose, they preferred to have one boy. (The way society is set up there it is the male child who helps support the parents, the female child goes to her husbands family to help take care of HIS parents in their old age.)

In some countries, the task of caring for the parents falls on the shoulders of the male children – in fact, in China and most other Asian countries, it’s a matter of dishonor if a son refuses to look after his old parents till their deaths.

Its not that "girls are worthless" they are worthless to their parents in old age in a country where parents are cared for in their old age by their sons and their daughters in law. You really do have to place things in cultural context.

If the limit was two, there would not be the gender imbalance. China took a more drastic approach, they wanted rapid population reduction. Two children is holding a population steady, rather than continued growth, with moderate reduction over time as some will not reproduce at all either because they die young or choose not, and some will choose to have only one.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:08 PM
Having kids isn't about what you can afford. It takes a village to raise a child and I don't support patriarchal dog eat dog, every man for himself, capitalistic systems. The pill can only be taken by roughly 50% of women without major health problems. They don't have good methods. My last 2 children came about on alternative methods. IUD's are ugly and dangerous and don't qualify as any kind of a method. Men can use them if they like that one!

This is the human condition! Childbirth is a human condition.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:19 PM
reply to post by TasteTheMagick

Once again. Illustrating the point.
They can't see beyond one extreme or another.

Another idealist thinks it is fine and proper for a mentally incompetent person without the means to support 14 kids to squeeze out as many as she pleases and expects society i.e. SOMEBODY ELSE to pay for them.

Tell you what, why don't YOU go get a loan, buy a great big house, furnish it, stock it with food, pay for the gas, water, electric, maintenance, upkeep, taxes, mortgage, insurance and high def cable. Then call the lady who has her children by the litter and invite her over. Let her stay as long as she likes having litter after litter of kids.
You can clothe them, feed them, cover their insurance, keep them in fashion. Buy them all phones, games, bikes, cars and all of the other goodies that growing kids need. Pay for the tuition that will be needed for them to go to college and be successful happy adults.

That will be much better than telling this psychotic twit to stop having babies.

You might be able to find her contact information on the net. Give her a call. Tell her that you are going to support her right to be a baby making machine. Good for you!

Oh yeah, you're in luck. Mortgage rates are low and the housing market is in the crapper. You ought to be able to get a great deal on a 15 bedroom home.
This is gonna be great!
You can afford all of that. Right?

When will we get back to the ability to use our common sense in these issues? We don't have to take an outraged moral stance every time somebody jumps up and decides to do something incredibly selfish and horrendously stupid just because it is our right to do so.
Do we? Really?

Ok. I see your point.

Its every womans right to have a dozen or so rugrats on her own and just let the already overburdened social system take care of it.

It's also every fathers right to have sex with as many women as he wants, creating babies as fast as he can and never paying any child support.

Yep the extreme "It's my right to be stupid." method is the way to go.

I'm glad you cleared that up for me.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by badgerprints]

[edit on 1-2-2009 by badgerprints]

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:19 PM
Well there were 8 kids in my family, 10 in my fathers, 9 in mothers. When my one Grandpa died 1994 he had 63 grandchildren and that number has increased since then. Well I guess I'll just tell my family to make our way to the Nazi gas chambers because we have to appease some fascist "green guru." Like they say, Green is the new Red.

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by mystiq
Having kids isn't about what you can afford. It takes a village to raise a child and I don't support patriarchal dog eat dog, every man for himself, capitalistic systems.

Its also long been part of the human condition that when someone has more children than they can support, they pay the price for that in increased child mortality.

The human condition has changed. We are now more than ever before helping to support each other, providing emergency support systems for our citizens. If some segments of the population do not also become more cooperative by reducing the burden they place upon society as a whole, then I advocate going back to the way things were in the good old days. The "you make 'em, you feed 'em" good old days.

Cooperation is a two way street. If it isnt it is just one group exploiting another groups kind heartedness for their own selfish interests.

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in