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: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:19 PM
i believe these should become laws. you cant have more than 1 kid til you turn 18 then you can have up to 2. once you graduate high school you can have 3 children. if you have enough money to suport more you can have up to 5 children. people who have 10 or more children are executed with their children. if you have 6-9 children(including pregancies) the youngest 1-4 are killed. 1-2children=tax cut, 3children=no tax cut, 4-5 children you pay govt extra money. once the umbilical cord is cut you cant abort

i dont care if this seems strict this is how it should be because people are irresponsible

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:41 PM

Originally posted by kyoushi
i believe these should become laws. you cant have more than 1 kid til you turn 18 then you can have up to 2. once you graduate high school you can have 3 children. if you have enough money to support more you can have up to 5 children.

How does money/education/age factor into zero or reduction of population growth?

The rest I'm just gonna pass on.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 07:44 PM
What these people are trying to do is NEGOTIATE how much control they should be allowed to have over your organs.

You like that? Push and push and claim that you are a better guardian of a complete strangers internal organs.

The ultimate in tyranny. Negotiate how much control I'm allowed to have over your testicles with me.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:14 PM
I hate to be the guy that stands in disagreement with this OP; however, the population problem is fast approaching a critical level. There is already wide spread famine on the planet. The annual growth rate is 1.54%. I know this does not sound like much but here is what it equates to. Last year an increase of 113,000,000 people (that includes the death rate), that is 1/3 the population of the US. This year it will be 119,000,000, next year 126,000,000. How long can we sustain this growth before war and famine is all we know?

With the growing population there is also a need for additional space for them and more resources for them. So as the population grows, the available space to farm decreases. I do not think everyone is looking at this realistically. This in my opinion is the number one problem facing the planet provided it makes it past 2012.

Sorry if I upset anyone, this is just my appraisal of the subject.

Once in a great while TPTB actually are right, this in my opinion is one of those RARE occurrences.

[edit on 2/4/2009 by DarrylGalasso]

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:38 PM
I think that 2 children per family is a good idea. It's lame of them to relate it to global warming though. haha... it's laughable!

Global warming is mostly due to fossil fuels being burned. The fossil fuel energy route could have been avoided at the turn of the 20th century.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 08:47 PM
I believe the opposite is true than the OP quote. To me the problem is not too many people but, unwise choices in how we build in a sprawling fashion. For instance I watched a large home being built here . A pond was scraped over and the trees and all natural wildlife destroyed and in the unnatural flattened over Red Mud they planted a monoculture grass and had a chemical company spray pesticides and weed killer over it all of it to keep it monoculture. It is sterile ground.

An example.
There are 7 homes on my street
Each home has two occupants
This is comprised of 5 acres.
If there were one very large home (like the 1800's)
2-3 acres could be used to farm nearly all the food these people need.
The other two acres could be left wooded.

[edit on 4/2/2009 by toochaos4u]

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 09:01 PM
'Green guru'... I can't believe that this BS hype about being 'green' is still being used as a marketing strategy.
Don't people realise that these self-proclaimed "green guru's" are just salesmen in disguise.

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:14 PM

Originally posted by kreese
I think that 2 children per family is a good idea. It's lame of them to relate it to global warming though. haha... it's laughable!

Global warming is mostly due to fossil fuels being burned. The fossil fuel energy route could have been avoided at the turn of the 20th century.

In my opinion global warming is nothing more than the next bubble created for the economy. I have read numerous articles that state that the entire solar system is having a temperature increase. This may be a natural cycle under that pretense or, by getting closer to the galactic alignment, the gravity forces may have something to do with it, or we may even be passing through some sort of gaseous cloud in space that is causing a warming effect due to friction.

There are just too many unknowns to blame it on man's activities. When a volcano erupts it spews more fluorocarbons and co2 than man has ever created, maybe we should tax volcanoes too lol.

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:47 AM

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso
I hate to be the guy that stands in disagreement with this OP; however, the population problem is fast approaching a critical level. There is already wide spread famine on the planet.

meanwhile, megatons of crops are turned into fuel each year. you want to kill people.

good to know.

reply to post by kyoushi

so, if i were sarcastic, i'd summarize that all these survival-fit people with high IQs need gov't intervention to do just that. maybe the traits you adore have a negative survival value? have you ever contemplated that possibility for a moment?

[edit on 2009.2.5 by Long Lance]

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Long Lance

meanwhile, megatons of crops are turned into fuel each year. you want to kill people.

good to know.

Yeah that's it Einstein I want to kill people. (sarcasm in case you didn't get it)

I only want for people NOT to die in misery and starvation. Why do you think the "megatons of crops" are being turned into fuel? Did you ever think it may be due to the demand that increasing population is placing on resources and furthermore do you think it is going to increase or decrease as the demand for these resources increase? When the oil drys up brother, this is going to get a whole lot worse. You can run from the problem all you like, you can try to make me look like the bad guy all you want, but when someone kills your offspring 10 years from now for the sole purpose of eating them to survive, remember your arrogance. Think it can't happen? Read about Easter Island, it already has in the past.

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 12:46 PM
Aside from the ramifications of limiting births,

if we continue populating at this rate, we quite simply will eventually run out of resources.
When that happens, those born today will still die later, either in some resource war... or simply through starvation.

Yes, I can't think of a way to limit births without creating a very real threat to freedoms either.
But I can't see how we can continue populating at this rate either.

Take areas of Africa for example. I like to use them here because of their situation, and everyone is well aware of it, so it's the perfect example.

They populated beyond their viable means to support themselves, and many areas rely almost solely on international aid. (I'm not referring to the entire continent.)
Their situation? Raiding parties, little to no government control, war lords, starving children... the list goes on.

Quite frankly, I'd rather find a feasible way to limit births now, rather than give future children that kind of torture because we decided to continue populating so quickly.

What are the sources?

I know many religions hold large numbers of births as being a positive thing, and still preach that to this day.
On the flip side of the coin, a common trend I've noticed is the highly educated typically end up having fewer children than the uneducated.

Perhaps fixing the education system might help. It won't make any guarantees, but it should tilt the bell curve somewhat... that's a start.

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 01:50 PM

Originally posted by DarrylGalasso

I only want for people NOT to die in misery and starvation..

it's a comfort to know your intentions are good...XX

misery and starvation have a lot more to do with food and shelter than driving cars around. at the very least, biofuels are a prime example of an inefficient industrial process which is used to subsidize biotech corporations, industrial scale corn farming and last but not least the fertilizer industry. in case you don't understand, corn fuel has a hard time breaking even, in terms of energy in- to output.

i suppose the energy consumption of certain people are indeed an institution that's worth preservation, especially when compared to all these pitiiful lives... one shudders at the thought that you might have to actually pay to keep your AC at freezing point and the heater at 100F, all while Alaskan natgas remains unused (despite pleas to build a pipeline in the 70s, but i suppose scarcity sells) and heat pumps are barely understood by anyone, for some ungodly reason.

i find it extremely funny that i kept hearing 'the market will fix it' whenever convenient until recently, the transition to 'omg, do something radical now' was as swift as it was predictable. needless to say you've proven unwilling to even adress the points raised by Aeons and others, and keep rambling about the dire need to take action. i suggest you wrap your mind around the concept that there are people who can see through all these (superficially) good intentions and that we are quite put off by what we're seeing.

PS: oh, while we're at it, perhaps the future should belong to people with modest energy needs? i mean in animal kingdom, the more frugal specimen enjoys a selective advantage. not that i'm adhering to the ideology, mind you.

reply to post by johnsky


you'll have heard a lot about that land in the south, Zimbabwe. lots of problems, no food, inflation in the 7 digits region, violence, disease, etc.

not so long ago, they exported grain intot he world, so what has changed? farmers have been driven off the land, for rcial reasons and their successors were unable to turn the loot into something productive. Africa has huge swaths of fertile land, way more than they'd need to sustain themselves and that's before curbing deserts, which is doable if you're patient and determined.

i'm not blaming people either, it's obvious that the odd militia burning your stuff and crops and killing your family throws a wrench in your plans, but let's remain honest with regard to the reasons. besides, if the West adopted a two child policy, what would change there? nothing. is it even our business?

these points remain yet to be adressed.

[edit on 2009.2.5 by Long Lance]

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 05:21 PM
Is it about quantity or quality? How big is your footprint on the planet? Are you into rampant consumerism or do you go with the adage "Live simply so that others may simply live"? Could this planet support twice the current population if we lived with an awareness of the planet and her needs? If the planet was the first consideration for every action we took then consider the possibilities for our evolution. And wouldn't the world then be a great place to grow young bodies and minds.

Planet first...she is our spaceship, without her we are zero.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 06:14 PM
WHat annoyes the hell outta me is these on the wall documentaries we get imported on Discovery channel with these huge US familieis, 'Kate plus 8' and the other one whose name i cant recall who as 16 kids in a self-built ranch.

Watching them go shopping weekly makes me despair, in this school bus to the local WalMart, with enough food to feed half of Africa and creating a carbon footprint half the size of Europe each day. I'd wager the total consumption of processed foods, fuel, and emmissions from everything they do would be equlvalent to 10,000x that of a child in a 3rd world nation...

So yes, just because you have the ability to pay and afford 16x children doesnt mean you ought to. And to cap it off, these two families are devout church goers!!! ROTFL, what absolute hypocrites, killing their own planet at an exponential rate each day!! Obviously doing a great job looking after the precious planet their "God" has given them! Righty-o....

The quicker the developed world blows itself up, or runs out of oil, the better.

The meek will inherit the earth....

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by antar

If people had to put up a Bond and show they can afford to raise and educate each child they want to bring into the world, along with get a health Certification that each parent is healthy, and then have the fetus checked periodically for defects/deformities, it would bring a whole new consciousness to the RESPONSIBILITIES that come with having children.

And as for why should the U.S. not take responsibility for our birthrates just because other nations don't? Because we need to set a GOOD example.

My parents, God rest their souls, had the common sense in the late 1940s to limit their offspring to TWO of us. But the difference is, people THEN were not "the entitled" generations we see going awry today. They weren't spoiled. They weren't neglected. They had chores to do, studies to attend to, they attended sit-down meals with everyone else in their families... and knew what it was like to NOT live on credit today that they may not have been able to repay tomorrow.

Oh, yes... there were a some families in those days who were just as ignorant as hundreds of thousands of people are now--they kept having child after child after child, and expected the older ones to care for the younger ones because Dad was busy getting Mom pregnant, again! And the Church was out there, too, thumping the respective Good Books that children are a Gift from God. What a crock!

My dad came from a family like that, which is why he and my mom had the common sense to NOT have more children than they could afford to support on Dad's paycheck. Daddy knew what it was like to see his mother always worn out and too sick to do much because she was either pregnant, or exhausted from trying to parent all the children she'd already had, against the warnings of the family doctor. She died from a bad heart when Daddy was 14, leaving the older siblings to take his mother's place--which of course they'd been doing since they were old enough to walk, anyway--but without Mom's love, there was little affection.

The older children grew to resent the younger ones, and the younger ones felt unwanted. Many of them ended up being alcoholics, but NONE of them ever had more than 3 children in their adult lives, and most of those 13 kids had only 1 or 2 children. They didn't want theirs to feel the hunger, the anxiety, the angst that all Daddy's large family remembered so well.

COMMON SENSE and family planning is every bit as important as getting off foreign oil and going "green." And if people had to show they could bear the financial burden of each and every child they want to bring into the world, perhaps some common sense would return.

But as long as we allow children to be born who are going to be a burden to all the rest of the taxpayers... "just in case" we need them to go die for some old mens' pissing contests, or because no one should ever ask us to take responsibility for our own actions... then we are not behaving like responsible human beings; we are behaving like parasites.

Go on... get angry with me if all of you want to. It just shows how many of you know what "responsibility" truly means. My mother used to say, "It makes no sense for a nation to have more children than it can afford to feed, and then decide to fight a war just to blow up the excess."

Mother and Daddy were not college educated, but they were a lot smarter than some of the selfish, highly educated, entitled generations being spawned.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:11 PM
reply to post by nyk537

I seems so easy for you to dismiss everything and go right along your merry way in your SUV. I don't think killing is the answer. Preventing is. You have solution? Maybe you should run for office.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:22 PM
reply to post by DarrylGalasso

Next Bubble created for the economy? How about you do some reading before saying something.

Much of the waste from the work in China, particularly the ash from the burning of coal, is dumped into city's streams and canals, poisoning the wells and groundwater.

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:05 PM

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:17 PM
People should be made to feel bad and irresponsible for having more than 2 children, (staying under the replacement rate) but it should not be outlawed. And I want to raise my hand as one who DOES believe that it is OK to promote abortion as a means to deal with overpopulation, even by the government (as long as the government doesn't REQUIRE abortions)

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:47 PM

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in