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: 11
11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by memyself
 


Well there is a demand, so there is your error.

And allow me to introduce you to a little something called science.

See, science operates on the basis of demand for things. If there was no demand for organs, medical engineering would not be invested in.

For resources, it's really quite simple. As a matter of fact, it's kindergarten simple. There's these things called genes, you see, and they make protiens and other things that control a cell. One of these controls growth speed, another controls O2 output, and others control other important things.

When he demand of wood exceeds that available, you use these genes to make fast growing trees.

When the o2 demand exceeds that available, you make trees that have more leaves and o2 output.

So you see, there's this awesome little thing in nature called evolution. And evolution allows things to change. And it just so happens that humanity controls evolution, and all things bound to it,m including themselves.



And there's also this awesome thing called space. Space happens to have other orbs just like the one we are on with resources just like what we have, with oxygen, just like what we have, and water, just like what we have.


So in all your hyperventilating to limit the human being's right to live as one wants, and in all your desire to destroy liberty for "nature's rights", you have failed to realize the fact that your opinion is that of last generation's problems, because this generation happens to have use their minds not to complain, but to find a way around the problem.

So maybe if you could stop complaining and use your neural networks to progress nature around humanity, rather then humanity around nature, you would find that there is nothing to worry about, and all your fears are a product of your own creation.




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
There are many sick people on this thread. They don't realize it.

If you cant handle 6 or 7 children then don't have them. But don't look down on those that can with all your new world piratical justifications. It would be irresponsible for many to have even one child becouse that kid many become infected with your Nazi ways of thinking about life and the world.

I have five kids and they are not on the god**med dole fool. I had a guy tell me the other day "what were you thinking?". Well I certainly didn't restrict and define myself by the modern pressures that he has caved into. Thats my prodigy he is talking about not the inconvenient result of a blast of semen!

Some of you posters that spout off about 2 children and more is selfish. Well you don't fool me, your the selfish one that sees children in your life as an inconvenience to yourself. You simply try to cover this selfishness by blowing on about your stupid notions you cater to.


SR

posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Wow for once on ATS i've found something 'the west' isn't to blame for once seeing as it's birth rates have been declining in the west for years.

It's actually amazing.

Never thought i'd see the day thanks OP for posting this thread and completing my life starred and flagged.




posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DrumsRfun
 


FOUR billion? Try six going on SEVEN.

I find China's population controls abhorrent, but if we don't start making birth control AVAILABLE and even preferable, even IF we can feed everybody we will be in a world with too many people to feel free in.

I find the idea of government forbidding people from having children to be VERY bad, but what do the people most unhappy about this quote hold out as an idea of life in a world with 15 or 20 billion people? Because we are on the way there. And in a world that crowded that government control you so fear will be much easier to pass.

The first step to protecting our freedoms would be to at least take away laws and financial impediments AGAINST birth control. And perhaps discourage, even if we cannot entirely forbid, unmarried women with six children from having octuplets. I have 3 kids, maybe we'll have another. But it is true that huge families in every generation (with increased life-spans) are going to produce a world we would not want to live in.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 

"We have the ability to weed out disease and mental illness. Life should be created through Science and not through chance. "

Wow, how totally Brave New World of you. And yet, I am not sure we actually have as much ability at this moment to "weed out" all medical and social problems through science as you think. No more children through natural means in the service of overly optimistic ideas of what our genetic screening can actually prevent? No thanks. And I should point out I have no real hang-ups about couple who have problems with natural prgnancy using IVF.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I think overpopulation has been a problem for a long time. If I could have it my way, we'd all live in tall towers like Sim City or something, pack in in and the more the merrier. I think that this is the reason for diseases like AIDS and cancer though is overpopulation, whether the govt. is doing it to us or it occurs naturally. I'd rather be limited to two children and have diseases like this not exist.

If we are ever going to truly have anything near a truly good society here on earth, rules like this are probably going to have to be considered.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 07:53 PM
link   
To all you folks who want to have as many children as you want--(5+?)
I want you to consider that
at present
we have a huge problem disposing of garbage
and disposing of sewage (feces etc)

Now then, if you can put a limit on the amount of garbage and the amount of feces that your children produce so that the oceans do not become open sewers........

already ALL our lakes and rivers are polluted from garbage, sewage and industrial wastes......
there are dead spots in the Gulf of Mexico off the Florida Coast as a result of sewer plants running their overage into the Gulf.
There are many reports of life in the oceans dying;
of floating "islands" of plastic...........

Do the logistics and get back to me.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I know local rivers and lakes that are clean and have good water to drink.

Also, we have bacteria and tools to clean stuff up.

You do the technological research and get back to reality.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by memyself
 


Your answer to overpopulation seems to be believing in Star Trek. You seem to think we can rely on science, and then suggest we use science in ways beyond our ability to.


"When he demand of wood exceeds that available, you use these genes to make fast growing trees. When the o2 demand exceeds that available, you make trees that have more leaves and o2 output."

Well, there are trees that grow faster than others, and I am sure some cross-hybridization can help this, but there's still a limit to how fast we can get trees to grow, and if we've over-populated the earth and changed the climate so large areas are now arid, there will be less room to plant any forests. Finally, no matter what our genetic science, there will be an upper limit to how much O2 one tree or one forest can produce. This is a limited answer at best, and possibly no answer at all.


"So you see, there's this awesome little thing in nature called evolution. And evolution allows things to change."


Sometimes things don't change until after a big extinction event. You are right, but it doesn't mean we aren't the next dinosaur or dodo.


"And there's also this awesome thing called space. Space happens to have other orbs just like the one we are on with resources just like what we have, with oxygen, just like what we have, and water, just like what we have."


No, in our current understanding, space has NO other 'orbs' like earth. Venus is too hot with a poisonous, crushing atmosphere. Mars is 0 farenheit on a summer day without enough air pressure to breath or terraform. Beyond Mars it gets even colder and the closest star will take centuries to reach in spacecraft our grandchildren won't have the technology to build.

You are looking for a deus ex machina. I'd rather look for a solution in reality, which may mean encouraging more people to buy a rubber and take the pill.



posted on Feb, 8 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TrevorALan
 


No, I'm thinking beyond Star Trek.
Please, in Star Trek they thought they would have computers that could interact with you in 200 years. HA! more like 20.


No more room for trees?

en.wikipedia.org...

Slow trees? Introduce more protiens. The genetics are far easier to control then you think.

What you put into, you get. Life is very easy to control. You just add more to what you want.

They do this with various insect genes which do something with plants, whatever.

And no, we are not the next Dodo or dino.

Humanity right now already has underground bases to survive pretty much anything that may threaten us on the surface.

So you're wrong there, again.



Space? You're wrong. We've discovered hundreds of planets and half a dozen with the capacity to support us.

Mars? Just add some water meteorites and plant some engineered lynchings. The reality of the world is that we could terraform it in a decade or two.

Are you really going to say that we can make the Earth uninhabitable in one generation or so, but we can't do vice versa on Mars?

Can you say contradiction?


Venus? Who cares about that hell hole.


You also have those far off worlds we know can support us.




You got to get with the times kid. You don't know the capacity of the species, which happens to be ∞.

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Gorman91]

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 12:14 AM
link   
I do not condone abortion.. I don't think the original thinker of this was talking about killing babies. If the unwanted s terminated BEFORE the 21st day of conception, there is no violation on Universal Laws of creation.

If it is done AFTER, then it IS killing, and should NOT be tolerated, and medical practitioners who do that should be jailed and punished.

We have to be more responsible. Kids are lovely, I have two myself, I love them very much, but I love my freedom and my quiet times too.

Also, the acceptable number of humans for a sustainable planet of this size is 529 million people. However, we have past the 6.5 BILLION mark. That is irresponsibly insane.

Please check this link, no matter what your religious believe is (if any), this pertains to you as well: us.figu.org...

PEACE.



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
To all you folks who want to have as many children as you want--(5+?)
I want you to consider that
at present
we have a huge problem disposing of garbage
and disposing of sewage (feces etc)

Now then, if you can put a limit on the amount of garbage and the amount of feces that your children produce so that the oceans do not become open sewers........

Do the logistics and get back to me.


You are insane. Your parents should have used a condom or got fixed becouse you simply don't fit the genetic profile needed to carry the race forward.

Just kidding but thats how some of you Nazis sound.

Notice how you went right from children to garbage and feces? Think real hard about it and look what they have done to you friend. Have you been educated at one of our fine public institutions?



posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by techieatwork
 


no, the planet's capacity is in the trillions.

Management is simply the problem.

Please, the planet is not in danger, and any hyperventilating over it is silly.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
thanks for your reply.

have you ever been to Hong Kong, Beijing, Jakarta? I have, ad I have seen horrors.
If you pile building after building across most of the planet's surface, well yeah, the area to house many more maybe is there..
But what about the resources, transport, food, drinking water, waste management, etc, etc. not to mention all the earth digging that must continue to obtain the mineral & metal resources for manufacturing more and more techno-junk.

Sure, if you want to live like chickens before their inevitable trip to the guillotine, by all means, let's keep populating this earth of yours and mine.. A fish bowl has limited resources for limited number of fish to be in comfortably..

But if we want to live comfortably and with dignity, with land area to cultivate your own non-gm food, etc, etc, the we are in the wrong path my friend.



posted on Feb, 10 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by techieatwork
 


I already said how to solve those problems earlier.

Vertical farming, genetic engineering on wood, etc etc.

Fact is we have nothing to fear except people who distract the progress of society by claiming there is a wall in front of us when in fact there's probably a declining slope that's easier, not harder.

You're no different then the religious blocking stem cells and the oil industry blocking hydro research.

tss tss tss.

[edit on 10-2-2009 by Gorman91]



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by thegreatone
 


"There should be a limit on the amount of children ANY family can have. Until we start colonizing space this should be a high priority."

Please elaborate.

Please Explain to me how such a thing will work.


explain what? contraceptives? I shouldnt need to. The only problem is there isnt one that works 100% and im anti abortion. truthfully after thinking about it i think space colonization would be the only acceptable and effective way to curb overpopulation.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by itinerantseeker

Originally posted by pynner

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by pikypiky
It doesn’t matter if environmentalist or TPTB suggest that two children per family is the limit. Bottomline: If babies are not wanted and the family cannot afford to take care of more babies and if making more babies entitle baby makers welfare, then yeah no more than two is a good start.


Would you like to hear a real horror story? Okay, picture this:

'A woman, pregnant with her third child, is reported by one of her neighbors because she has made public comments about how she refuses to get an abortion and this conflicts with the two-child rule.

So while this woman is out and about, she is stopped by armed military men who usher her into a waiting vehicle. She is forced unconcious in the vehicle. She awakens, some time later, in a government-run hospital bed. She tries to get up but a sharp pain runs through her belly-area. She looks down and notices bandages and pads and some blood. She freaks out and the machines hooked up to her begin to beep loudly. A nurse enters and the woman begins to scream "What happened to my baby!?"

The nurse injects her with a shot of tranquilizer and then informs her that because of the law, her child was forcibly removed as per government mandate. '

Yeah, that's a worst-case scenario, but how's this: enact such a law and what will it be - receiving mail from the local government informing you or your wife to report to the nearest "enviromental care by birth suppression" facility? What happens to women who resist? Prison and forced abortions?

Or what about a proactive solution - does the government require that a woman's uterus be removed after the second child is born so there is no chance of a third conception?

You still think that's a good start? I don't.


yeah.. or not.


this is the kind of non-sense that stops constructive conversation.

what if? what if? what if?



Actually, this isn't a what if scenario. It's funny how this possiblity, which would likely happen if population control were to happen here, makes you suddenly claim the conversation has ceased being constructive. You think this scenario is non sense? They do this kind of thing in China, in fact if the government finds out you have child number two they will do said things in the other post, but the only difference, they don't knock you out, they'll just do a forced abortion, kickin and screamin. Parent says something, bullet in the head. If the second child is born, there have been eyewitness accounts that they'll just come out and kill the baby. Not a what if, it's a reality. A reality that this could happen everywhere, even in the states.

Oh btw, I notice in your posts that you tend to us stupid a lot and that people need to be educated. Must be nice on your little self made pedestal and it must be nice that you can never make a mistake. Must be great to be so infallible!



man you guys are doom and gloom to the fullest. How about they just recieve hefty tax penalties for every child over the 2? Will it stop them from having them? no there are those unplanned bundles of joy, but i think families would think long and hard before having one consciously. Also it doesnt have to be a tax so sever that they are forced into poverty and maybe even a 1 time fine large enough to make sure she doesnt "miss that pill" or he doesnt "feel like wearing a condom".why go right to the worst scenario? kidnapping and forced abortions by our government? LMAO!wow where are the rational thinkers in this thread



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alternative
My goal in life is to have 5 children. Im 24 and so far have 0 of my own. My fiance has one from a previous relationship.

Theres very little point of suggesting such things as 2 children per couple. maybe a country can say that, but to think the whole world is going to follow suit? Never.

Ultimately my only purpose in life is to reproduce. If these "green" people want us to have less children then I suggest they have no children. Allowing for others to have more kids. as to balance out the statistics.

wow arent we a little selfish. here's a scenario for you:
There are 3 couples, each couple are allowed only 2 children because that all the current food source and resources will allow. You think they should not be able to have children because you want 5? wow
All this is last measure type stuff imo. So if this plan were implemented it would probably be a last resort. while 2 children may not be enough in your eyes its fair if everyome can have 2.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
In a world with 4 billion people I wonder why people have kids to begin with.
Why not adopt??
Having kids seems like a selfish decision in my opinion.


In the west it is not selfish, in the west 2 children per couple would see a stable population, unfortunately the "engine" driver for population growth is in Africa and Asia, however, I doubt the eco fascists will direct their anger there, instead they will carry out the usual demonisation attacks on anyone living in the west with their oh so dastardy carbon footprint


Bottom line is the populations in Africa and Asia need to decrease ASAP



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Man we are absolutely nowhere near a point where we need to worry about having children in regards to food production. The point is understood in the frame of this debate but the reality of many of the scenarios used here to justify low birth numbers just don't hold much real application potential to be used to structure a public policy on the thing.

The people that are really concerned about population growth are the insurance companies, schools and any other entity that sees numbers and bottom line. So they sell us all this babble.



new topics




 
11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join