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: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:42 AM
I agree and disagree with his statement

Disagree: Cheap way to use an excuse for lowering a population is putting that stupid bull# global warming story for every excuse you see in the environment.

Agree: Although he used the global warming crap as a cheap excuse, he does have a point when it comes to over-populating gotta get that "he just wants to see humans dead" # out of your head for a second and think about how it would earth..certainly not in a global warming matter, but a resource matter...the more people, the more consumption. What happens when you run out? then we're going to have world hunger and become cannibals. Do you really want to see earth eat itself? I sure as hell wouldn't wanna be eaten alive, it hurts like hell I bet. So just think it through, because some people over-exagerate with the kids they make...there's families of 4 or 6 kids or even more..are you kidding me? chill the # out people. You complain that the government and the shadow organizations want to kill you, but look at what you're doing caused that article to happen. Although I disaprove his excuse and reason, he has a's just like agent smith said in the matrix "your species consumes one area, then moves to another" and that is exactly what we have been doing for the past centuries....I don't believe in global warming at all, I think that's a cheap way to tell people not to breathe their own air. However, I believe in life, and having 5250395393 kids in one family is over the line, this crap needs to stop. I will never have kids, because the future could get worse than it already is now. Besides, I sure as hell don't want to change diapers all day, or fear of becoming a dead beat father, cuz then I have truly no more purpose in life after that.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 05:42 AM

Originally posted by OTTOKARMA

Yeah that right, but do you think you can pollute other peoples life...

If you dont like my opinion, i dont care honestly.

so, iow, people are now pollution unless you embrace their presence. interesting.

the issue appears to be interaction rather than numbers. it's true, that under the present circumstances, overpopulation will degrade your living conditions without your consent or being able to do much if anything about it.

that's a result of a societal structure with violent bend and i blame a shallow understanding of evolution mostly, after all 'change' is supposed to be good and violent change can't be resisted easily. anyways, if people in, say Bangladesh keep popping kids like rabbits, that should be a localized problem, but it isn't because immigration is a holy cow in today's profit driven oligarchic system. what you called welfare is but an extension of that issue.(in fact it's just social engineering, ie. manipulation just like everything else)

whoever causes the problem has to spoon it out. i agree with that.

now, if you were talking (temporarily?) sterilzing women who can't afford their kids and keep making babies nonetheless, you'd probably gain more acceptance, but this particular thread is about limiting everyone to two kids regardless.

to be blunt, the economic pyramid of income makes it impossible for an ever growing portion of society to even consider kids, when you limit the rest to two kids, shrinking will be rapid an inevitable. EU countries have a higher population density, their shrinking is probably a direct result, North America, Australia and so on simply do not have this problem. just look at the map.

if pollution was the real issue, cutting it to acceptable levels could be accomplished by increased efficiency and better waste disposal first and foremost. we already know that reducing population is your favorite solution, i suggest you find a more convincing problem.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:01 AM
reply to post by nyk537

To be honest, she's right.

You may take offense to this statement, but curb your emotions and realize the implications of our current population growth and the emotional/ financial stress of having many children can harbor for a family.

It's not genocide. But control, something the average person has a lack of today.

[edit on 4-2-2009 by socrates271]

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:33 AM
To me I think having kids should be like anything else in life ....
Quality over Quantity

The more you have , the less individual time you get to spend developing them at an early age when it is most critical and also everything has to be spread out amongst the kids whereas if you only had a few the ones you did have would be more well provided for.

Not saying this is comletely black and white
I do believe it was a bit different from the 50's back because alot of those people had kid's so they could put them to work on the farm or around the house ..... now it is for different reasons.

people most likely had no available education on the subject back in those times compared to today but people still haven't gotten any more responsible.

they just pump out more and more deadbeat kids

this may seem like flawed logic to some but for me it's easy to see .... I don't want more than 2 kids as i personally feel I could raise 2 awesome kids but if I had 8 of them I just don't think they will turn out as well.

*end rant*

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:24 AM
Maybe there is a point to this greenie. There isn't unlimited resources in this world and unless multi billions were spent to even try to solve this problem then there is absolutely no way there will be enough jobs or support for the huge numbers of population that will result in the future.

Tons of people complain now but in a hundred, or maybe thousands of years the world is barren and the food supply is no where near the amount to support the population you may then realize that maybe its not such a bad idea.

Im not a big supporter of global warming but have you ever smelt the exhaust fumes from a car? It doesn't smell good at all and just think of how much of the stuff is getting pumped out, without even thinking of industrial factories pumping out a huge mess of grey gunk which we have almost no clue of how it affects the population at all.

Btw people who unfortunately have hosed their cars exhaust fumes into their own car for suicidal reasons die from it... Its not breathable.

Sure babies and kids are innocent.. Yet for some reason people think the total opposite about them when their grown up. You, I and everyone else was a toddler/kid once... Come off it, cry if you want but maybe for once a greenie is right.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:29 AM

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.

I couldn't agree more, when people will get into their skulls that having children is a privilege and NOT a right then there won't be such an overpopulation disaster that we have brewing away right now.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:04 AM
I agree that we shouldn't be forced into choosing not to have children or a limited number and I'm not going to get into the whole abortion thing. My question is, on an individual level will we ever decide for ourselves to limit our propogation. I believe we will not, just as the individual cannot conceive his/her own contribution to the destruction of our planet nor will we of our own species. When will the decision to have or not have children be made with our species' long term sustainability as a main factor? I submit NEVER. People will continue to have multitudes of children without regard for the population's exponential rise. We shouldn't have to be forced to be responsible, each individual should make these decisions with the future of our species as the main factor.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:27 AM
The answer is all around you.

In general, our societies' birth numbers are plunging.

Therefore, what we are doing already creates a free choice that AS A WHOLE works to bring down the population numbers. The individuals who have no children (of which there are many now) even out the individuals who have many children.

It is illogical and self-defeating to try to reduce the population numbers of societies that are already way below replacement to the point that they REQUIRE immigration to function.

You are not having enough children to even run your country by the time your elderly. As a whole, you aren't having enough children RIGHT NOW.

Those "children of the poor" that you despise - those people need to be given some advantages so that they can become educated and get jobs. Jobs that will help run your country and its economy later. That economy that if it isn't working, will have you taken over and run by those who despise you already.

That's right - educating and promoting the safety of those wretched poor children you hate. Because if you don't, you'll be bowing down later to those countries that aren't so self-centered and self-hating.

There is a population problem on the planet in some areas. Those areas are not HERE. Therefore, your rage at that woman with the 5 children is MISPLACED.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:39 AM

Excerpts: Facts are always a good thing

Philip C. Chinn:
What are the current fertility rates by racial and or ethnic groups?

Mary Mederios Kent:
The total fertility rate (TFR) or average number of children per woman given current birth rates-- was 2.1 children per woman in 2005. Among racial and ethnic groups, the TFR for highest for Hispanics at 2.9 children per woman, compared with 1.8 for non-Hispanic whites, 2.0 for non-Hispanic blacks, 1.9 for Asian and Pacific Islanders, and 1.7 for American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Among Hispanics, the rates are highest for Mexicans and Central Americans—who are our fastest growing Hispanic groups.

L. Ritz:
Review what is considered the replacement rate for any population.
Mary Mederios Kent:
In general terms, a two-child per woman average is considered replacement level—the fertility level at which each couple is replaced in the population by their own children, yielding zero population growth. It must slightly above 2 to account for mortality.

In more specific terms, maintaining replacement-level fertility requires that each couple produce a daughter who lives long enough to have her own children. The average number of children per couple, then, must be above two to account for the fact that not all children will survive through their childbearing ages. In addition, because 105 boys are born for every 100 girls, an exact 2-child average would not produce quite enough daughters. In the United States, replacement level is about 2.06 (usually rounded to 2.1). In a higher mortality country, replacement-level fertility would be higher – above 3.0 in some countries-- because so more children die before reaching their childbearing ages.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:02 PM
I'm seeing a lot of what seems to be replies, but without designation of who they are replying to(?).

For those who believe overpopulation will not affect the U.S., I cannot see how it will not. Just because things are so cozy now shouldn't lead you to believe they will always be this way. The native indians who once lived in North America would make decisions with their seventh generation in mind. We would be better off if we adopted this view, instead of living in the moment and making decisions based on short sighted, self serving motivations. Take a look at Google Earth and then realize we only started colonizing the country about 400 yrs ago. How much untouched natural land do you think we will have left by 2300 at the current rate of propogation? How many people do you think consider adoption as more than just a last resort? Do you really think reduction of population through the decision of some to not have children is such a bad thing? I mean last I looked the human race is not an endangered species.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 12:45 PM
Sure humans won't die out.

But I'd still prefer that my g-g-g-g-g-g-granddaughters not be ruled by the
Sheik of the North. Because his ancestors weren't so silly as to think that COMPARITIVE numbers don't matter.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:12 PM
reply to post by Aeons

Sure and that is why we must become more responsible right now, so the NWO will not take actions into their own hands when they innevitably come to power. As for COMPARATIVE numbers.... present them. Here are mine: In 2000 the U.S. population was estimated at 280,000,000 and this estimate has risen beyond 300 million as of the end of 2008. That's an increase of 20 million in under 10 years, so let's do the math. Another 90 years and the projected estimate will be around 500,000,000 total population. By 2300 if the increase rate remains we will hit somewhere around 700,000,000, but I'm sure we shouldn't worry about that since it will only concern your G-G-G-G-G-G-Grandchildren.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 02:12 PM
sorry double posted

[edit on 4-2-2009 by Buddy420]

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 03:59 PM
The problem with people having kids is they have them because they think their supposed to. Then after they have them they see their not the wonderful little GIFTS they thought they would be. I have no kids and thank GOD. I will never have kids, never wanted them and boy am I glad when I am in the grocery and someone has their little darling in the cart that screams a half hour all the way through the store.
I have neighbors that put their kids out in the summer time go back in the house and could give a darn about what happens to them because THEY don`t want to be bothered with them. These are little kids.
So, they are into my yard tearing my stuff up, turning my water on and such. Oh and we have on of the welfare moms who won`t work and gets food stamps but just had another baby over the summer, she is up to three kids and is 23 years old. So if people don`t have enough sense to start doing something about their own birth control don`t think the government will not take matters in to their own hands at some point. I think the President has something in the stimulas bill concerning birth control. If that does not work who knows a new virus may crop up a devasting new flu or something created by the government as a population control.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:09 PM
This is moving towards bioethics, which is very debatable.

Consider these topics from the University of Washington School of Medicine website:

* Who has the authority to make decisions for children?
* What is the basis for granting medical decision making authority to parents?
* When can parental authority to make medical decisions for their children be challenged?
* What if parents are unavailable and a child needs medical treatment?
* Should children be involved in medical decisions even though their parents have final authority to make those decisions?
* What happens when an older child disagrees with her parents about a medical treatment?
* Under what circumstances can minors make medical decisions for themselves?
* What is "medical futility"?
* What are the ethical obligations of physicians when an intervention is clearly futile?
* Who decides when a particular treatment is futile?
* What if the patient or family requests an intervention that the health care team considers futile?
* What is the difference between futility and rationing?
* What is the difference between a futile intervention and an experimental intervention?
* What is a "good death"? A medical perspective
* What goals should I have in mind when working towards a decent death for my patient?
* How do you know when someone is dying?
* What should I know about the hospice approach?
* What you need to understand to care for the dying
* How do physicians who care for the dying deal with their own feelings?
* What accounts for the rising awareness of maternal-fetal conflict?
* What happens when medical therapy is indicated for one patient, yet contraindicated for the other?
* When does a fetus or a newborn become a person?
* People have rights. Does a fetus have rights?
* What if maternal decisions seem to be based on unusual beliefs?
* What about obtaining court orders to force pregnant women to comply?

All extremely controversial.

But 2 child/family is the rate at which the world should be at in order to create 0 population growth.

The Earth is already overpopulated, those who thinks that having more and more children is completely personal, then they are selfish and does not think about the other inhabitants on this planet.

What I found is that the majority of the people on this website are not educated in the realm of environmental and social sciences. If you've taken a few courses in those subjects you will see the problems facing this world.

[edit on 2/4/2009 by die_another_day]

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:29 PM
How much of that growth is immigration?

I'll wait.

Originally posted by Buddy420
reply to post by Aeons

Sure and that is why we must become more responsible right now, so the NWO will not take actions into their own hands when they innevitably come to power. As for COMPARATIVE numbers.... present them. Here are mine: In 2000 the U.S. population was estimated at 280,000,000 and this estimate has risen beyond 300 million as of the end of 2008. That's an increase of 20 million in under 10 years, so let's do the math. Another 90 years and the projected estimate will be around 500,000,000 total population. By 2300 if the increase rate remains we will hit somewhere around 700,000,000, but I'm sure we shouldn't worry about that since it will only concern your G-G-G-G-G-G-Grandchildren.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:39 PM
reply to post by Aeons

What does that matter? Population is population and its all growing exponentially so the problem is still there no matter what the cause.

Get with the big picture. Only so much space to live, and eventually there will be too many people to live in it. Less babies less problem. I'm only saying we should grow up a little and first come to terms with the fact that it is a problem and then decide to be responsible and do something about it or in this case stop doing certain things which perpetuate it(i.e. having more and more children). You can stop waiting now, there's your answer.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 04:53 PM
No. You feel free to snip yourself.

I will have as many children as I please.

Your need to care about these issues dies out with you. Mine will take a much longer term and reasonable approach that protects my genetic investment.

I am part of the stream of genetic and cultural time. That alone assure I have investment in the continued stewardship of the planet. You are a blip of no consequence, and your lack of connection to the future necessarily limits your buy in to legitmate solutions.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 05:55 PM
China counts abortion as carbon-off credits.

The EU & UN agree.

Aborting children?

Will suicides be the next country carbon credit?

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 06:12 PM
It's not genocide if they're not alive.
Which, you know, they're NOT.

If you can't support the parasites, flush them out of your system.

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in