Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

Originally posted by Maxmars

Originally posted by Fatgoblin
Instead of kids why not just keep hamsters? They're really cute and they don't need to go to college.

I'm serious by the way

edit on 23-6-2011 by Fatgoblin because: (no reason given)

I wager someone is very happy that your parents weren't of like mind.

But there's a lonely hamster somewhere out there as a result

Not every human is the useless eater the elites say we are.

Well technically that's what we are, at least where I come from. Here in India people have kids like it's going out of style. Like more than a billion people isn't enough already

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I think the OP is confusing his partisan ideology with reality, a shame really as this is a really important subject. If one does the math, has an understanding of exponential growth, views his world and is aware of finite resources in an enclosed finite environment, then it becomes quite obvious to the non-biased thinker that overpopulation is a major problem.

You'll have to do the math for me. The math I did said that every single human being on Earth could be packed into a circle with a 32 mile diameter, and the entire rest of the planet would be supremely uninhabited and barren of humanity. That's allowing 4 square feet per person to stand in. If you could get them all to hold a candle at the same time, you might even be able to see the dot from orbit, in the night time.

Now granted, you'll never be able to pack them all into one place like that (Sunnis would start killing the Shia, Brits and French would start brawling, the Africans would just start killing anything that wasn't them, and lord help us if anyone suggested a soccer game or a hockey match in the midst of the circle!), but as an exercise it illustrates just how much of the planet is currently uninhabited, and how much space there still is per person. "Overcrowding" my ass. The math doesn't support it, unless you're using some of that newfangled "fuzzy math" that will allow you to fudge figures to suit what you want to get for results.

I do not think any of this matters. There are numbers of ways to feed everyone on the planet... But the fact remains billions are spent on war, defense and etc.

The only people that really care about hunger, starvation and etc are those that do not have millions-billions at their disposal...

1 Billion dollars could keep quite alot of people with food... But no you go give your 1 dollar a day. All the bankers/Ceos of all the big corps want you to.... But they don't. Billions in profit, yet not a dollar spent.

The fact is that your all probably doomed if you do, or if you don't anyway. Listen to Al-Gore if you want. Do what he wants if you want. The fact matters not. If you are posting on these forums you obviously arn't ever going to experience starvation/hunger/etc. So it doesn't matter.

Trust me nothing matters at all... Unless it directly affects you, but by then you will have no way to state it at all.

Example: Ever hear those starving children on adds directly? Or only on an add that tells you for 1 dollar a day etc blah blah can happen.

Imagine if 1 billion dollars was directed towards that for example from a big Corperation? Oh wait that won't happen. They want profit.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

 

why just not create problem at all? Its a pointless waste of precious earth resources.

allowing people to have children is not a waste of earth. this statement of yours shows your mentality on the issue, i dont think you value human life enough, your supporting telling people they are not allowed to have children

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

 

Also, reality proves you wrong. Overpopulated societes produce only famines, wars and disease. Solutions come from wealthy per capita (even quite underpopulated, I would say) societes with plenty of resources to spare, available to throw at luxuries like science and technology.

edit on 23/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

actually you confirm the exact point i made a few posts back, its nothing to do with numbers all to do with method and all reliant on MONEY.

"Overpopulated societies produce only famines, wars and disease"

reply to post by nenothtu


In what reality do people only use up 4 square feet of space? You talk about fuzzy math, completely disregarding the materials that come along with humankind especially the waste is deceptively not as naive as it suggests.

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

backwards thinking, besides all these issues your referring to be such a problem will cut the population numbers down, and your saying to stop those problems we must cut the population count down?

The "cutting of population numbers down" is not a problem. Problem is when it is cut by means which cause people to suffer (wars, famines, diseases..). When it is cut by comparably civilised means (birth control, abortions, laws) then its OK.

allowing people to have children is not a waste of earth.

Quality over quantity. Allowing people to have children to the point that it would decrease the quality of their life is a waste of earth (and people), because it defeats the very purpose of having children.

actually you confirm the exact point i made a few posts back, its nothing to do with numbers all to do with method and all reliant on MONEY.
famines and disease is all about method of living, not numbers, FIX THE METHOD, not the numbers,

We are unable to fix the method, if such a fix can even theoretically exist (Venus projects has more holes and unreal assumptions about human nature than anything). Earth resources are finite and non-renewable (except a few). This sets the highest limit on human population capable of living in abundance regardless of system of governance.

www.tribune.com.ng...

The above is dealing with bare recources itself, not money. Even non-monetary system is constrained by it, even non-monetary sysem musf follow the laws of physics, which say you cannot create something from nothing.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

 

backwards thinking, besides all these issues your referring to be such a problem will cut the population numbers down, and your saying to stop those problems we must cut the population count down?

The cutting of population numbers down is not a problem. Problem is when it is cut by means which cause people to suffer (wars, famines, diseases..). When it is cut by comparably civilised means (birth control, abortions, laws) then its OK.

how in the world can you think that telling someone they are not allowed to have a child will not cause them suffering? you think our populace has stonewall emotions? when someone wants a child, then they will not be happy without, even if it may or does lower the quality of life,

its about freedom, freedom of choice,

the only sort of population control i will ever support is voluntary, i agree there are way to many people on this earth who are having children even though they dont want to, they arent practicing birth control,

still i am against using law/legalitties to try and rectify a human issue like this,

make condoms free and accessible in all markets worldwide, there you go, a very efficient means of global voluntary population control where only the willing who dont want children are effected.

.

allowing people to have children is not a waste of earth.

Quality over quantity. Allowing people to have children to the point that it would decrease the quality of their life is a waste of earth (and people), because it defeats the very purpose of having children.

once the quantity is there, you do not improve quality by lowering quantity, thats like saying ill go buy 100 of the cheap brand cause i cant afford 10 of the expensive brand then ill throw out 90 of the cheap brand to make them as efficient as the expensive brand, obviously that dont work.

and nothing is a waste of earth, think about it, nothing we can possibly do to earth will ever affect it, all your really affecting is our and other animals ability to survive on it, the earth itself will be just fine, lets say everyone on earth died right now, millenia later, not one trace of our existence would remain, tectonic movement would cycle all our products and waste back into lava back into the earth,

peoples quality of life is never effected by having more children, only money and financial status is, the fact that financial status has a direct effect on quality of life is the true problem, the fact that having more children REQUIRE you to have more money is the true problem, the solution is not less children, but rather, less dependency on money for our society,

a man with all the money in the world can have hundreds of kids no problem his quality of life would still be great, a man with no money at all cannot survive one child, THIS IS WRONG we should not have built our society like this but we did, and this is the problem that needs to be solved,

you tied quality of life to quantity of children, i vehemently disagree, they are not tied, rather it is
quality of life = quantity of dollars

the only other argument is the extra waste produced by increased population and again i repeat this is due to method of society, not the numbers,

.

actually you confirm the exact point i made a few posts back, its nothing to do with numbers all to do with method and all reliant on MONEY.
famines and disease is all about method of living, not numbers, FIX THE METHOD, not the numbers,

We are unable to fix the method,

unable to fix the method? this is tantamount to admitting defeat, "we cannot improve the way our society handles waste, it is not possible,"
sorry i dont believe that.

if such a fix can even theoretically exist (Venus projects has more holes and unreal assumptions about human nature than anything). Earth resources are finite and non-renewable (except a few). This sets the highest limit on human population capable of living in abundance regardless of system of governance.

when Galileo said the earth was round, when Columbus wanted to sail the ocean, when the wright brothers wanted to fly, all these aspirations where touted as being full of holes and unreal assumptions,
yet people were surprised to see the success,
you just gotta go out and do it, only through experience can you ever be sure of somethings potential for success, otherwise its speculation and conjecture, btw thanks for informing me of the venus project, never heard of it before, looks interesting.

you know technically no resource is non renewable, we have successfully artificially created everything in laboratories from oil to copper to diamonds, the problem is it is expensive to do, once again money holds you back, remember? like 4 or 5 posts ago i mention money is our true enemy here, our systems dependance on it is whats killing us and causing ALL these problems

besides, as far as resources go the only ones needed for life is food -(renewable) water -no water ever leaves earth in fact earth gains water yearly collected from space. (renewable (you have no idea how much pee you have drank outta your faucet already in life )) and sunlight (beyond our control but seemingly not an end in our sight(to the sun)) EVERYTHING else as far as resources go is ALL METHOD of our society,

www.tribune.com.ng...

The above is dealing with bare recources itself, not money. Even non-monetary system is constrained by it, even non-monetary sysem musf follow the laws of physics, which say you cannot create something from nothing.

oh yes, lets listen to the un, how wonderfully enlightening they always are right?

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
I think the OP is confusing his partisan ideology with reality, a shame really as this is a really important subject. If one does the math, has an understanding of exponential growth, views his world and is aware of finite resources in an enclosed finite environment, then it becomes quite obvious to the non-biased thinker that overpopulation is a major problem.

You'll have to do the math for me. The math I did said that every single human being on Earth could be packed into a circle with a 32 mile diameter, and the entire rest of the planet would be supremely uninhabited and barren of humanity. That's allowing 4 square feet per person to stand in. If you could get them all to hold a candle at the same time, you might even be able to see the dot from orbit, in the night time.

Now granted, you'll never be able to pack them all into one place like that (Sunnis would start killing the Shia, Brits and French would start brawling, the Africans would just start killing anything that wasn't them, and lord help us if anyone suggested a soccer game or a hockey match in the midst of the circle!), but as an exercise it illustrates just how much of the planet is currently uninhabited, and how much space there still is per person. "Overcrowding" my ass. The math doesn't support it, unless you're using some of that newfangled "fuzzy math" that will allow you to fudge figures to suit what you want to get for results.

Please see my previous posts to get the answer to your question, I'm quite burned out answering the same questions, no offense.

reply to post by e11888


How silly!! Everyone knows that the Earth is capable of sustaining an infinite number of human beings just like corporations strive to make infinite amounts of money!

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by citizen3273676
i really hate to somewhat agree with al gore,,,, its more responsible for everyone to voluntarily limit themselves to 2 children so that in the long term we have a more stable poulation not the doubling we have now.untill we have advanced science enough and developed a way to solve our problems without war we really dont want to see 14 billion people. i remember when they said the world pop. was 2.2 billion now i here 6 to 7 depends on the source. thats still triple if you are young you need to understand what triple will mean. not in a 1000 yrs but in the next 30 to 40 years. imagine in america 330 million showers a day how much soap we pump into the oceans what about bleach, kitchen cleaner, or human waste per day/month/year? we dont currently have the tech for the population level we have, much less double or triple. i know we totaly spend/invest in science and education like we should no worries(sarcasm)

America already has 300 million potential showers everyday.
whats your point all population numbers are approximate no human knows the exact number?
As for the technology to clean the water...it is all there. Governments are just very slow to utilise it.
the tech is not here as it pertains to costs nor is any tech 100% at really big numbers even really small amounts matter!
Here is a link to a study done on my city. We have reduced the amount of wast going into the water to the same levels as 1920. bad example 1920s it was not just legal but correct to dispose of anything by pouring it in a river or the ground .eg oil changes by the owner of a car or a garage were poured in the ground ask a really old person anyway when your at 1720 levels (even per capita) then you can brag tho bump for doing more than my citiy
Study on Edmonton's Waste Treatment Facilities - Goldbar
.

i applaud your cities efforts but the point of my post was how fast poulation numbers double ie 7 bil 14 bil 28 bil all possible in way less time than you/i/society/the world seem to be preparing for. again not trying to pick apart your post what yall are doing is great and should be followed more but untill we have infinate room/resources and recycling tech that works at 100%(no such thing as perect) you will allways have a max poulation number. consider 15k children(under 12) die from starvation per day so ive heard(dont know how to even start verifying ussually lack of birth /death certificates) per day underlined.

Gore can kiss my butt.
Love seeing him for the true elitist he truly is.

If we aren't over populated.

Why do we need nuclear power plants.

Although he is contradicting himself with having 4 kids, maybe he came to his "epiphany" about global warming/population control after having his kids? It is true though, we need to control the population, I mean this isn't supposed to be our world, but it is our world. Humans have made this world ours, yet there are millions of other species living in this world.

We're the worst invasive species possible.

reply to post by Manipulation


I doubt that.

Maybe he should just eject himself from the earth, thus eliminating his "carbon footprint"

Gore is a jackhole.

In evolution it is survival of the fittest. But the intelligent professionals are having less children. While those with no jobs and very little funds have children nonstop. What does this do to our gene pool? Scary if you ask me,

reply to post by citizen3273676


I agree with you to a great extent.

My only issue with mandating it by law, is that it naturally occurs when required.

Our population will cap out at what our technology and resource limits will allow. No law required. It is how nature has operated for as long as we have studied it. It has occured to humanity multiple times in the past as well...fairly stable population, new technology/method, rapid increase in population to new maximum. Happens to all species on Earth, we are not above this natural law, and we will never be.

So why put it in law, if it is already dictated by nature? Only reason I can think of is because the law makers will profit from it.

Edit to add:
There is an graph in this article that shows human population over time. Note that population growth rate has never been totally flat, but it does spike along with technological advancement. Once we hit that cieling it will go back to almost flat until we advance further.

How come Al Gore isn't slamming Obama for making +1 million FOREIGNERS new US citizens every year???


How come ANY Leftist person isn't calling Obama out on this? If we are so overpopulated why are we taking in 1/300th of our entire population every single year under Obama??

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye

how in the world can you think that telling someone they are not allowed to have a child will not cause them suffering?

Mental suffering if the irresponsible parent because he/she cannot have lots of children vs. mental and physical suffering of innocent children due to not having enough standard of living.
For me, the lesser evil is obvious.

make condoms free and accessible in all markets worldwide, there you go, a very efficient means of global voluntary population control where only the willing who dont want children are effected.

What about those who oppose all birth control due to ignorance or ideological (religious) reasons?

once the quantity is there, you do not improve quality by lowering quantity, thats like saying ill go buy 100 of the cheap brand cause i cant afford 10 of the expensive brand then ill throw out 90 of the cheap brand to make them as efficient as the expensive brand, obviously that dont work.

You have x resources. You have y children. You compute the standard of living of every offspring as x/y. You can increase it by increasing x (wealth - resources), or decreasing y (the amount of children wealth has to be divided).

and nothing is a waste of earth, think about it, nothing we can possibly do to earth will ever affect it, all your really affecting is our and other animals ability to survive on it, the earth itself will be just fine, lets say everyone on earth died right now, millenia later, not one trace of our existence would remain, tectonic movement would cycle all our products and waste back into lava back into the earth,

Its waste of earth resources needed by humanity for long term sustainable development.

oh yes, lets listen to the un, how wonderfully enlightening they always are right?

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having less kids, it's the more responsible thing to do this day and age. When peak oil hits, many will be sorry they didn't practice sustainability before hand.

Most of you seem to have some sort of illness "Everyone is out to get us"

Go to a doctor, get it checked out. I'm sure they have medicine for it "Oh no big Pharma"

Give me a break.

I agree this day in age, we shouldn't have no more than 2 kids but the messanger that believes in this has 4. If you are gonna preach to other people, you should be an example. It's like Sarah Palin preaching to teens about abstinence while her own daughters are probably having sex in their parents' bed. I can't stand hypocrisy...

Originally posted by blackrain17

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
There is absolutely nothing wrong with having less kids, it's the more responsible thing to do this day and age. When peak oil hits, many will be sorry they didn't practice sustainability before hand.

Most of you seem to have some sort of illness "Everyone is out to get us"

Go to a doctor, get it checked out. I'm sure they have medicine for it "Oh no big Pharma"

Give me a break.

I agree this day in age, we shouldn't have no more than 2 kids but the messanger that believes in this has 4. If you are gonna preach to other people, you should be an example. It's like Sarah Palin preaching to teens about abstinence while her own daughters are probably having sex in their parents' bed. I can't stand hypocrisy...

In this day and age we should be having more children. People have been raising children in everything from tents to ditches to wooden, brick and tin homes. Not one resource on this planet needed to survive is finite. This is absolutely no reasoning behind population control other than control freak billionaires that wish to see this entire world return to the stone age.

I do however agree with you on the hypocrisy and the pot issue