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.

 

Two children should be limit, says green guru

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 

I actually knew that at some point but for some reason the 2 child thing stuck in my head.
I agree we have to take the culture into account . My point was simply that this kind of forced control on everybody rarely works out.

The details were different but I think we're thinking in the same direction.




posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I only support a world where womens issues and female energy is equally blended with the dominant, far too dominant male energy. The world you're talking about is the problem, and its the reason we're living in such an ugly mess, while Norway shines it wonderous light of equality for all to see. Sorry, wherever and whenever I see a patriarchal solution offered, its a no go. In the US, I would a performed a citizens arrest on your leaders a long time ago. You're discussing the ugly elitist dogma of this world. Not interested.

Not raising my sons to think that way either. Expect a civlized decent world that is female friendly and child friendly no matter whether 40% choose not to have, and can somehow do this with current birth controls, or not. Women count and unless you have some magic up your sleeves you cant have a system that does not operate under substantive equality and call yourself civlized. Substantive equality means, equalizing the conditions between people. In this case it means between men and women.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 

Well spoken, but I'm trying to pin down your point.
Not to be obtuse but who were you responding to on that post?



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


I am a female, and I do not support the idea that child bearing is a woman only issue.

I personally did not choose to have children, and I pay taxes that help support other peoples children, their education, their health care, etc. I dont mind that. I think it is just and proper for a society to care for its members. As long as the members are also being fair to the society in which they live. Which means not making YOUR choices make everyone elses life more difficult simply because you think the ability to squeeze one out makes you sacred somehow. It doesnt. Dogs do it. Cows do it. It may make you feel closer to God, (or Goddess) to give birth, but really, its just not a big deal.

Its a far bigger deal, to me, to understand that YOUR rights and YOUR children are not more important than the rights and children of people in your own culture or cultures elsewhere around the world. I chose not to have children of my own for the same reason I do not buy pets from breeders. There are too many good, worthy healthy children and pets out there that go begging for homes because some selfish twit who "loves children" feels the need to pop out 6 or seven rather than have one or two of their own and then adopt or foster a few strays.

You say it takes a village, what are YOU doing for the other children in your village? Are you taking care of any strays? Or does that statement only have meaning when you expect the village to help support yours?



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Not to be critical, but overpopulation is a real problem. People should be responsible for mother earth. More people, more consumption, eventually we'll hit critical mass and eat each other. Right now we already have abundence of unemployed people, it's one of the conciquences.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


The point is, that women do not have the ability to chose the number of children they have, short of the moment they get fixed, as birth control options are not efficient and even dangerous for most of them. My point is that in any society that has equality, and hopefully substantive, with a higher standard of living for its citizens, and a good health care system, is either producing less than 0% increase, or not much more, so it kind of evens out in the end.

Social justice and equality is the best response to the population problem earth is having, that means no more third world countries and true equity.

And all children in every household, irregardless of the biological differences between women, have the right to a good standard of living.

Personally, there are a lot of women who would love to see safer and better birth control available, so far there isn't. Not that many people actually get a "choice" in this matter.

[edit on 1-2-2009 by mystiq]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mystiq
 


I agree that birth control can be a pain in the butt. However, I have managed to suffer through it, and I disagree that it is "impossible." Inconvenient? Yes. Painful and dangerous sometimes? Yes. Impossible? No. And, after one has had a couple children what exactly IS wrong with getting "fixed?" It has not been an option for me, because oddly enough, doctors are loathe to sterilize women who have not already had children. Apparently, this idea that women are somehow "born to be mothers" is PART of the patriarchy that you claim you stand against. Many of us are not interested in the physical act of childbirth, and we feel our value, self worth, and contribution to our society is separate from our reproductive organs. In my opinion, THAT is equality. Not being defined by your sex organs. Not having people assume that your sex organs make you have a "different energy."


It is getting better now, I know of some younger women who have managed to convince someone that they are quite capable of making a rational decision despite having ovaries, but at this point I am close enough to middle age that I might as well just save the money and keep doing what I have been.

Edward O Wilson, the famed biologist, has noted that everywhere in the world women have had the personal freedom to choose, (including the freedom from religious oppression) AND have also had access to birth control birth rates have fallen to around 2.5 children per woman. When women ARE given freedom, and education, and access to birth control, as inadequate and messy as it currently is, large numbers of women are choosing NOT to be mindless breeders and carers of children.

It is the very patriarchal religions and governments that you claim not to stand for that have imposed this several thousand year mythology that women live for and breathe for the birthing of children. Some of us dont. Some of us prefer to do other things with our time and "female energy."



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Wholeheartedly agree wth topic. This poor planet can't and won't sustain us for much longer. It will take millions of years for earth to compensate for the current population as it is I believe.

Eventually there will become an equilibrium between man (population and what food we can provide) and earth. It is unbalanced just now due to population explosion.

I am all for it.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mystiq
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 
The point is, that women do not have the ability to chose the number of children they have, short of the moment they get fixed, as birth control options are not efficient and even dangerous for most of them. [edit on 1-2-2009 by mystiq]


What?!! First, there is nothing stopping you from using more than one form of birth control at the same time if you are worried about effectiveness. I can personally tell you that my IUD was very safe, having been in place for years--longer than it should have been actually. Heck, I wish I'd had the thing bronzed and mounted on a plaque as I figure it saved me from a life of having children. After that, when I could finally convince a doctor that I didn't want children, my tubes were tied in a painless procedure. Both very effective as I have the desired ZERO number of children. There is really no excuse for an ooops! any more.

I will leave it to your imagination to figure out how one can have sex, never get pregnant, and never use birth control either.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by FinalSonicX
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.


I agree with you. We need to be letting people breed even MORE out of control. Seriously why are we not encouraging MORE people to breed litters of 8 or more?

Then, when the population has grown beyond what is sustainable, mother nature will unleash pandemic on us all.

Problem solved.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by LostNemesis
 


obviously if everyone where to have 8 children then the problem would become pronounced rather quickly.

thankfully, we don't have that problem. we're unregulated right now and seem to be doing fine. the few people who decide to have a massive number of children are more or less balanced out by those who have one or no children.

there is still plenty of land to expand into. once that land has been utilized, we might consider building upwards. once that's no longer an option, mother nature will have already stepped in and corrected it for us (or we'll have found a way to traverse the stars or we'll have started a war to level out the population).

and indeed mother nature will set us straight again if we fail to regulate ourselves. no need for government control.

I apologize if my philosophy that we can't make these kinds of decisions for others has bothered you.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by GuyverUnit I
 


WELL IF we CAN build giant space ships.

You all do realize, we humans (- yes liberals included) will eventually out grow the EARTH.

ITS not our problem... FAR from it...

BUT it WILL be a problem for YOUR relatives in so many thousands of years.

Either that or the EARTH will reject us.

FREEZE US OR FEVER US into oblivion...

Imagine trying to burrow ten BILLION of our god forsaken kind into the ground.

NOT gonna happen.

Not only could we kill our selves off with other population - but the EARTH would assist us actively in our demise.

Its hard to give half a crap about your great granddaughter X's 50

There is always the rocket ships...

Like galactic transmitted, planet infecting gonorrhea.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Overpopulation is only an issue if everyone in mostly the west want to keep on consuming consuming consuming,and the governments sit back while they could fix these issues with a pen stroke.If we ACTUALLY helped developing or 3rd world countries grow food,have a stable government,economy..which would be very easy if people actually wanted this to happen.Food production would rise,Birth rates would fall,just because we have the option of only having one child and living a good life doesnt mean other people have that luxury, more children = more income and when you can barely afford to eat,it makes sense to have a larger family that can work and bring in money.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GuyverUnit I
 



This guy is an idiot. He should be taken off to the nut house the blasted Nazi.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   
On behalf of all the mindless breeders and carers of children please accept my



Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by mystiq
 

Edward O Wilson, the famed biologist, has noted that everywhere in the world women have had the personal freedom to choose, (including the freedom from religious oppression) AND have also had access to birth control birth rates have fallen to around 2.5 children per woman. When women ARE given freedom, and education, and access to birth control, as inadequate and messy as it currently is, large numbers of women are choosing NOT to be mindless breeders and carers of children.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Controlling fertile women is the bastion of all tyrannical societies. If you want to control your society you control the fertile women. You make laws based on the fertile women.

Birth control is an option. For the most fertile, it isn't even a very good one.

Because you want to control society, you want to control those women.

Even when you KNOW that in your society that a large number of women are not having children at all.

You want the most fertile to undergo chemical or abdomenal surgery to promote your cause.

You LITERALLY want to cut into the bodies of fertile women to control your society.

Take a good look in the mirror. Because when you come to this board and complain that the "Powers That Be" are doing bad, really it seems that you envy them. You've literally started to become Nietzsche's warning about fighting monsters.

“Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.”




[edit on 2009/2/2 by Aeons]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


Our world is sick when it puts a pressure on woman or couples that having more than 2.5 children is socially unacceptable. People mouth off about this all the time and don't really know why they say it.

Like "what were you thinking" or "are you crazy". When asked for their reasons for feeling this way it usually comes down to money or other inconveniences produced by having "to many" children.

You got to know that anyone coming up with a figure like 2.5 to describe the number of children per whatever is messed up in the head.

All that "nuclear" family bull was just a lot of brainwashing.


My wife had twins. We already had two children. Right there in the birthing room the Dr looked up and asked my wife if she wanted her tubes ties while he was right there. We said no and he said disgustedly "How many kids do you want". That was really not the time or place to discuss family planning but it did show up the mindset which I consider coldly practical to the point of madness.

We had one more after that and he is just the love of the family. The most precious little son. I shutter to think what tried to happen years before that.

My wife still has a live womb.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Honestly, I'd rather leave the decision up to the mothers. Realistically, if they can take care of the children and give them 100% attention and all the love in the world, they can produce as many babes to their hearts desire. I just don't like anyone to suffer because they don't have the support (financial, emotional, etc.) to raise more than whatever limit on the number children that they cannot handle.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons


You want the most fertile to undergo chemical or abdomenal surgery to promote your cause.

You LITERALLY want to cut into the bodies of fertile women to control your society.



If you believe I advocate anything other than voluntary reduction of population, you havent read a thing I have written for comprehension.

And if you cant be bothered to read what someone has written, you are just another someone looking to shoot off their mouth without information.

I dont LITERALLY want to cut into anyone.

I dont know if you are a mindless breeder, but mindless seems a safe assumption.

[edit on 3-2-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
If we take this matter to an end result what would it mean ?

We can have a nice little debate all day long about over environmental , unemployment or any other issue that we can link to " to many people " or " over population " . All of these other issues can also be debated as to what there true cause may or may not be as well , we cant simply blame over population as the cause , I would hope that we are all to smart to allow our train of thought to be dictated in such a manner .

Now as one person has pointed out in a earlier post in this thread , most developed nations are running at a 0 or a negative growth rate , so are we to conclude that we are really in fact debating the forced sterilization of the poor or those people in the 3rd world ?




[edit on 3-2-2009 by Max_TO]




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join