Of course we have a choice.
We can kill or surreptitiously sterilize vast numbers, or we can enforce pollution controls and learn from the countries whose populations are
decreasing to find the cause.
You might have noticed fears that non whites are reproducing faster than whites are. This is not a plot to out-breed whites, it's simply an
inevitable result of the whites, (on average,) being better educated, having better health care, better survival rates for their children and better
aged pension plans.
Instead of fighting in other countries, we should be helping countries improve these aspects of their living conditions. Educated women with careers
have fewer children, especially when they can be reasonably confident of the children they do have surviving, and of not needing children to care for
them in their old age.
[edit on 16/12/09 by Kailassa]
Population Control: Do we really have a choice?, page 1
privacy
Topic started on 16-12-2009 @ 09:25 PM by JaxonRoberts
I went and did a little mountain climbing today up Camelback Mountain in Phoenix, AZ,
and one of the things that really troubled me when I was taking in the view was the amount of pollution that was just hanging in the air here in the
Valley of the Sun:
This got me to thinking. When I was a kid there were only 3.3 billion people. In 1999 we passed the 6 billion mark, and now we are over 6.8 billion and growing. Current trends say that there will be over 9.4 billion by the year 2050. Source
Exactly when is enough going to be enough? When will we run out of resources to feed, shelter and clothe the entire human population? Exactly at what point will just our sheer numbers be too much for the world's ecosystems to bear? How many other species will we drive into extinction before we finally wake up, and will it be too late at that point to save ourselves (if it's not already)? Will we procreate ourselves into extinction, or will there come a point where we will have no choice but to follow China's lead and limit couples to only one child per couple?
Now I know that many will say that to limit such a thing is a violation of their basic human rights, but do they have the right to procreate us into non-existance? Or worse, into a world like that of the movie Soylent Green?
When I was only a teenager in the 70's, I made the decision to not have more than two children, because I saw this coming when we crossed the 4 billion mark (a decision I kept as I only have one child). I look at having children as not a right, but a solemn duty and resposibility, but I am one of the few. So many children are 'boo-boos', so many are raised by daycare centers and babysitters, so many are... well, just so damn many!
It's coming, folks, make no doubt about it. Only two possibilities exist: We start limiting the number of humans on the planet, or we go the way of the T-Rex... The choice may already be out of our hands...
This got me to thinking. When I was a kid there were only 3.3 billion people. In 1999 we passed the 6 billion mark, and now we are over 6.8 billion and growing. Current trends say that there will be over 9.4 billion by the year 2050. Source
Exactly when is enough going to be enough? When will we run out of resources to feed, shelter and clothe the entire human population? Exactly at what point will just our sheer numbers be too much for the world's ecosystems to bear? How many other species will we drive into extinction before we finally wake up, and will it be too late at that point to save ourselves (if it's not already)? Will we procreate ourselves into extinction, or will there come a point where we will have no choice but to follow China's lead and limit couples to only one child per couple?
Now I know that many will say that to limit such a thing is a violation of their basic human rights, but do they have the right to procreate us into non-existance? Or worse, into a world like that of the movie Soylent Green?
When I was only a teenager in the 70's, I made the decision to not have more than two children, because I saw this coming when we crossed the 4 billion mark (a decision I kept as I only have one child). I look at having children as not a right, but a solemn duty and resposibility, but I am one of the few. So many children are 'boo-boos', so many are raised by daycare centers and babysitters, so many are... well, just so damn many!
It's coming, folks, make no doubt about it. Only two possibilities exist: We start limiting the number of humans on the planet, or we go the way of the T-Rex... The choice may already be out of our hands...
reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 09:53 PM by MAC269
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
Dear JaxonRoberts
100% agreed now how do we reduce the population or indeed just keep to the present level which in my opinion is way too many??
Who will make and enforce the decision??
Why do we have such a high population now??
I think I know but let see what you think.
Dear JaxonRoberts
100% agreed now how do we reduce the population or indeed just keep to the present level which in my opinion is way too many??
Who will make and enforce the decision??
Why do we have such a high population now??
I think I know but let see what you think.
reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 09:58 PM by Animal
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
i think perhaps rather than working on population 'control' we could work on ethics that extend beyond simply the human sphere and incorporate the natural sphere. however i am not sure that humans, generally speaking, are ready for developing such an ethic.
the bottom line is that we live in a physically closed and finite system. exponential human growth will either be check by the collapse of the system that supports it and thus the human population or the human population will chose to adopt practices that prevent such a collapse and ensure the indefinite well being of our species.
i think perhaps rather than working on population 'control' we could work on ethics that extend beyond simply the human sphere and incorporate the natural sphere. however i am not sure that humans, generally speaking, are ready for developing such an ethic.
the bottom line is that we live in a physically closed and finite system. exponential human growth will either be check by the collapse of the system that supports it and thus the human population or the human population will chose to adopt practices that prevent such a collapse and ensure the indefinite well being of our species.
reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 10:08 PM by whaaa
Eventually, if it hasn't happened already, a virus will be developed that attacks people with dark skin or a particular genetic trait. They will get
sick and die and there will be plenty of resources left for the master race.
The ranting of a crazed paranoid?.....we shall see.
Or perhaps Malthusian theory will kick in and save the Master race the trouble.
en.wikipedia.org...
Merry Christmas everyone
The ranting of a crazed paranoid?.....we shall see.
Or perhaps Malthusian theory will kick in and save the Master race the trouble.
en.wikipedia.org...
Merry Christmas everyone
reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 10:22 PM by InfaRedMan
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
Interesting thoughts JR! Many people claim that the world can support billions more people but I tend to differ. In theory, sure, it's possible - but in reality you have the developing nations like India and China all wanting to become westernized consumers and therein lays the problem. The earth can barely support the insatiable appetite of the west, let alone another few billion.
There would need to be a radical shift in lifestyle for everyone if the earth was to survive that many people. Especially with our current (outdated) politics, industries & infrastructure.
In short, it ain't gonna happen. War is a great lever for keeping those in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. This Star Trek Utopia where everyone is fed, clothed, housed and educated is simply unrealistic. It's too hard... too expensive! Especially if we're talking more than 9 billion people. It's much easier & cheaper to bomb!
Personally, I think someone needs to hit the reset switch.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
IRM
Interesting thoughts JR! Many people claim that the world can support billions more people but I tend to differ. In theory, sure, it's possible - but in reality you have the developing nations like India and China all wanting to become westernized consumers and therein lays the problem. The earth can barely support the insatiable appetite of the west, let alone another few billion.
There would need to be a radical shift in lifestyle for everyone if the earth was to survive that many people. Especially with our current (outdated) politics, industries & infrastructure.
In short, it ain't gonna happen. War is a great lever for keeping those in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. This Star Trek Utopia where everyone is fed, clothed, housed and educated is simply unrealistic. It's too hard... too expensive! Especially if we're talking more than 9 billion people. It's much easier & cheaper to bomb!
Personally, I think someone needs to hit the reset switch.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
IRM
reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 10:47 PM by lockman
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
well as far as your pollution concern, I live in the East Valley and planes were Chem-trailing the city all morning today and so I think the poor visibility has more to do with that then the pollution.
well as far as your pollution concern, I live in the East Valley and planes were Chem-trailing the city all morning today and so I think the poor visibility has more to do with that then the pollution.
reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 10:49 PM by Gools
Where's the Conspiracy?
Nice opening post.
The world population has more than doubled in my lifetime and yes I contemplate on that fact often.
.
edit: link fixed
[edit on 16 Dec 09 by Gools]
Nice opening post.
The world population has more than doubled in my lifetime and yes I contemplate on that fact often.
.
edit: link fixed
[edit on 16 Dec 09 by Gools]
reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 11:08 PM by jitombe
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
Hey there Jaxon, I more or less agree with you on having to have some sort of population control measures put into place. Having kids is not a right, it is a privilege. Nothing annoys me more than people who have kids as a result of an accident. Given the amount of birth control options out there these days, there is no excuse to have kids if that is something you can't afford to have - and I don't bother with the excuse of you find ways to make ends meet reasoning. People who can't afford to have kids end up having kids and they expect the govt to help them out which means that people who don't have kids have to help out the irresponsible. I have zero sympathy for anyone who falls into the category of having too many kids and expects help from everyone else to help take care of them. I don't care what the reason is, practice birth control or else. I realize I'm starting to ramble on here, there are plenty of other factors related to why people have children and I don't feel like going into detail considering that it may offend some people.
Hey there Jaxon, I more or less agree with you on having to have some sort of population control measures put into place. Having kids is not a right, it is a privilege. Nothing annoys me more than people who have kids as a result of an accident. Given the amount of birth control options out there these days, there is no excuse to have kids if that is something you can't afford to have - and I don't bother with the excuse of you find ways to make ends meet reasoning. People who can't afford to have kids end up having kids and they expect the govt to help them out which means that people who don't have kids have to help out the irresponsible. I have zero sympathy for anyone who falls into the category of having too many kids and expects help from everyone else to help take care of them. I don't care what the reason is, practice birth control or else. I realize I'm starting to ramble on here, there are plenty of other factors related to why people have children and I don't feel like going into detail considering that it may offend some people.
reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 11:10 PM by JaxonRoberts
reply to post by Rockstrongo37
And what happens when we run out of available farm land? We can only possibly grow x amount of food, which is enough to feed y amount of people. Then there is the ecosystem question. Perhaps you should give this question a great deal more thought before you tell us what is myth and what is not...
Just sayin'...
And what happens when we run out of available farm land? We can only possibly grow x amount of food, which is enough to feed y amount of people. Then there is the ecosystem question. Perhaps you should give this question a great deal more thought before you tell us what is myth and what is not...
Just sayin'...
reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 11:11 PM by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
Ok, well first of all, even though you didn't say anything about it, that pollution that you see is NOT atmospheric CO2. CO2 is not part of smog/pollution.
As for your question if there is ever going to be a time when we run out of resources? Well, if the Socialist/Globalist plan to sequester atmospheric CO2 occurs, then you can be certain that there will be less harvests, and much less productive harvests. Not to mention that with less atmospheric CO2 trees, plants, and all green biomass use more water to get nutrients, which leaves less potable water for animals, and humans.
So the Socialist/GLobalist plan to sequester atmospheric CO2 will cause massive starvation around the world, not to mention that it will be the worse environmental problem EVER caused by mankind.
As for what can we do to supply more food, and water for the growing populations? Allow for atmospheric CO2 levels to increase more, meanwhile sequestering the real culprits of pollution like nitrogen oxides (NOx) sulfur dioxide (SO2) methane (CH4) peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN) Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and aldehydes (RCHO)
It is safe to sequester those gases which form the smog that plagues big cities in the U.S. and most of these are the gases that cause health problems.
Also nitrous oxides/nitrogen oxide as a greenhouse gas has 298 times more impact per unit weight than atmospheric CO2. Sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxydes combining with carbon produce acid rain. If you sequester sulfur oxide, and nitrogen oxydes there won't be any acid rain.
Those are the gases that the Earth, and humans are better off without, but atmospheric CO2, just like carbon, is needed for life on Earth to thrive, including the environment which benefits with atmospheric CO2 levels at at least 1,200 ppm to 1,500 ppm which will solve the problems of not enough food, and not enough water for us humans.
[edit on 16-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]
Ok, well first of all, even though you didn't say anything about it, that pollution that you see is NOT atmospheric CO2. CO2 is not part of smog/pollution.
As for your question if there is ever going to be a time when we run out of resources? Well, if the Socialist/Globalist plan to sequester atmospheric CO2 occurs, then you can be certain that there will be less harvests, and much less productive harvests. Not to mention that with less atmospheric CO2 trees, plants, and all green biomass use more water to get nutrients, which leaves less potable water for animals, and humans.
So the Socialist/GLobalist plan to sequester atmospheric CO2 will cause massive starvation around the world, not to mention that it will be the worse environmental problem EVER caused by mankind.
As for what can we do to supply more food, and water for the growing populations? Allow for atmospheric CO2 levels to increase more, meanwhile sequestering the real culprits of pollution like nitrogen oxides (NOx) sulfur dioxide (SO2) methane (CH4) peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN) Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and aldehydes (RCHO)
It is safe to sequester those gases which form the smog that plagues big cities in the U.S. and most of these are the gases that cause health problems.
Also nitrous oxides/nitrogen oxide as a greenhouse gas has 298 times more impact per unit weight than atmospheric CO2. Sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxydes combining with carbon produce acid rain. If you sequester sulfur oxide, and nitrogen oxydes there won't be any acid rain.
Those are the gases that the Earth, and humans are better off without, but atmospheric CO2, just like carbon, is needed for life on Earth to thrive, including the environment which benefits with atmospheric CO2 levels at at least 1,200 ppm to 1,500 ppm which will solve the problems of not enough food, and not enough water for us humans.
[edit on 16-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]
reply posted on 16-12-2009 @ 11:13 PM by Rockstrongo37
reply to post by InfaRedMan
Again you are proving my point exactly, that the over population myth is based on emotion and not fact. Everything you are say is based on theory, opinion, and emotion. Where are the numbers that show that our planet is unable to sustain more people?
Again you are proving my point exactly, that the over population myth is based on emotion and not fact. Everything you are say is based on theory, opinion, and emotion. Where are the numbers that show that our planet is unable to sustain more people?
Volcano in Iceland Erupting Alongside The Aurora Borealis (pics)
Posted 4 days ago with 120 member flags
Posted 4 days ago with 120 member flags
West Coast USA: Pay Attention, Cascadia May Be Ready to Rupture
Posted 5 days ago with 85 member flags
Posted 5 days ago with 85 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Alaska: Samantha Koenig Kidnapped last week. Please help fellow Ak'ers
Other Current Events, Posted 12 hours ago, 35 flags
Other Current Events, Posted 12 hours ago, 35 flags
NDAA Nullification: Tennessee Bills Propose Kidnapping Charges for Federal Agents
Other Current Events, Posted 14 hours ago, 29 flags
Other Current Events, Posted 14 hours ago, 29 flags
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 8 hours ago, 27 flags
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 8 hours ago, 27 flags
VERY loud rumbling tonight in PacificNorthWest..anyone else hear it? 2/8/12
Fragile Earth, Posted 13 hours ago, 25 flags
Fragile Earth, Posted 13 hours ago, 25 flags
Biggest Conspiracy of 2012 : FACEBOOK ... It is time you close your account
US Political Madness, Posted 10 hours ago, 22 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 10 hours ago, 22 flags
Mass-arrest attempt on video - proof that CA riot police are the ones inciting violence
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 6 hours ago, 11 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 6 hours ago, 11 flags
Congress transfers yet more power to the executive
US Political Madness, Posted 12 hours ago, 8 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 12 hours ago, 8 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
"Gay Marriage" apparently not all it was cracked up to be
Other Current Events, Posted 13 hours ago, 111 replies
Other Current Events, Posted 13 hours ago, 111 replies
BREAKING: Israel teams with terror group to kill Iran's nuclear scientists, U.S. officials tell NBC
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 8 hours ago, 69 replies
Breaking Alternative News, Posted 8 hours ago, 69 replies
Biggest Conspiracy of 2012 : FACEBOOK ... It is time you close your account
US Political Madness, Posted 10 hours ago, 62 replies
US Political Madness, Posted 10 hours ago, 62 replies
VERY loud rumbling tonight in PacificNorthWest..anyone else hear it? 2/8/12
Fragile Earth, Posted 13 hours ago, 50 replies
Fragile Earth, Posted 13 hours ago, 50 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.232 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.232 seconds
