Tighten your belts, scientists tell the world's rich

That's not going to work.

It's the poor countries that need to figure out population control.

If you're poor don't have 8 kids!

I think this concept is backwards. The people I know in life who have money are incredibly hard workers, frugal, or they simply do not spend their money. This is why they have money. They have learned to do without the frivolous, and the make do. Poorer folks on the other hand don't become educated, exhibit low quality standards with their work. They are lazy, irresponsible, and wasteful of time, money, and resources. These are the people who ultimately are going to fail. Planned birth control needs to accompany welfare checks and medicade assistance.

If you can't take care of and support yourself you have no business starting a family. I know a family where the husband has two college degrees and the wife has a college degree. The have decided not to work for the last decade. The wife does maid work and the husband plays computer games and stock market. They went ahead and had three kids who are suffering as a result of the grown ups choices. These people are irresponsible and the children are learning to work the government system as a way of life.

People need to learn to buy used products and reduce, reuse, and recycle. But most importantly birth control needs to be practiced in these third world countries. Those plastic islands in the oceans need to be collected and reused. People need to work together on ideas for being greener. Birth control.

Originally posted by stanguilles7

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by stanguilles7
No one is suggesting it happen 'overnight'.
That is your own absurd false dilemma.

No, it's rather you having not provided any sort of time scale for your proposition, in the face of exponential population growth, which in itself impedes progress towards a prosperous and open society. So it all sounds very well, but is just a pipe dream.

LOL. Again with your false dilemma. What sort of 'time scale' do you need?

I merely pointed out that giving poor people opportunities lowers the birth rate, as opposed to just starving them out, which was the example i was initially responding to. This is proven time and again. The West's declining birth rate is a great example. Do you deny that?

a) you made a proposal according to which some really dramatic in living standards of people in under-developed countries will reduce birth rate.

b) you left out the cultural aspects and tradition out of the equation. I've known an Arab who comes from a wealthy family and there are still like 8 kids in the family.

c) the time scale is important because if the TSHTF scenario is likely to happen before your proposal bears fruit, it's automatically pointless.

d) you ignore the exponential nature of population growth, hence the extreme importance of understanding the dynamics of how your proposal will work

And "giving opportunities" does sound very nice, I give you that. Amazingly, we are not very good at doing that here at home, and assuming that we can be successful at same in a foreign culture is stupid.

reply to post by frugal


So think the poor people in the 'developing world' only have themselves to blame for their circumstances?

All the kid in the refugee camp in Rwanda has to do is pull himself up by his bootstraps?

Or did you not actually read past the headline?

Originally posted by ollncasino
I'm not sure how this could work. If rich countries have to stop using resources so that poor countries can, wouldn't that mean a major shift in economic, political and military power?

Well, yes, but the main problem is the over-consumption of natural resources. So, what does it matter which country is doing it? I don't get it?

reply to post by stanguilles7


Africa is the most ancient civilization on the Earth. They should be the most educated super power. They have had the longest amount of time to do it. America has been working at it since 1609 AD. That's only 403 years of boot strap pulling! My relatives came over here with nothing and each generation pulled their weight together for sucess. No, one child can't do it by themselves. A village must work together!

I like the idea of the birth control companies making the pills green unstead of blue, and making the packaging recyclable, and starting a campaign about being socially responsible to the Earth. Be green! At this rate we are going to run out of protein and fresh water and safe land to live upon.

You know, if parents have only ONE child per family, that will reduce the the population by half. This will leave a generation of alot of old peoples retire. Keep up this activity and we could reach a decent population by 4 generations. This activity will not work, WHY. People will always have more than one child per family even if you put a law stating that you can only have one. The military and powers at be, love to have an army bigger than the other, so with that in mind, other countries will only have more children.
Look at china, they are allowed only one child per family. If a country lets you have only 1 girl and many boys then moral issues occurr. Things like abortions,adoptions and poor little girls children left out in the streets. Very sad. If people of the world just have only one child per family, whether it be a girl or a boy the population will decrease drastically in about 4 or 5 generations. EXAMPLE: 100 people to 50, 50 to 25, 25 to 12.5 and so on. Put those numbers into billions and you have an idea of how long it will take to depopulate the planet. LIKE I SAID, this will never work because of the way people are raised and think and other countries of the world use population as a military advantage. This is so sad, and is the utter TRUTH.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by stanguilles7
.....plus you can't magically "upgrade" 6 billion people to Western living standards overnight..

and thank goodness for that!

what a scarey world this would be if it was "raised" to the western standard of living.

yuck.

edit on 2-5-2012 by infowarrior9970 because: (no reason given)

If you cannot afford to take care of yourself don't have children because 9 out of ten times you will not be able to take care of them and someone else will have to. Example. Lets say you get a female dog. You can barely take care of, but yet you get one anyways. The dog gets knocked up and then has a litter of 5. Now you have 6 dogs to take care of and you cannot afford. SO WHY ON EARTH, did you get the dog in the first place, if you could not potentially take care of it's needs. WHY, you were not thinking, ooh but their so cute. This mentality does not feed and take care of the animal. END OF STORY.

Originally posted by cloaked4u
If you cannot afford to take care of yourself don't have children because 9 out of ten times you will not be able to take care of them and someone else will have to. Example. Lets say you get a female dog. You can barely take care of, but yet you get one anyways. The dog gets knocked up and then has a litter of 5. Now you have 6 dogs to take care of and you cannot afford. SO WHY ON EARTH, did you get the dog in the first place, if you could not potentially take care of it's needs. WHY, you were not thinking, ooh but their so cute. This mentality does not feed and take care of the animal. END OF STORY.

life is not about money. people want dogs for companionship. should they be deprived of a loving pet because they don't have any fake paper currency???

your arguement makes no sense.

you seem like you base worthiness on the (fake) dollar amounts in a persons bank account, when the opposite is true. one day you'll see.


this mess is because of greed. plain & simple. gain for oneself.

Just FYI, the ILLUSION of scarcity is one of the primary game plans of the Elite to get people to toe the line.

So don't buy into this Bullshocky.

You see people starving all over the world. If you do not have the means to take care of children, don't have any. I can understand if a farmer had more children to till the land and had the resources to do so. The world is overpopulated and needs to be downsized, this i agree, but genocide is not the answer. The answer is a much more harder feat to achieve and that takes time and people do not like to wait. So you get what you get, a world full of starving people and no resources to feed them. This problem will NOT go away worldwide.

"Rich" - this is code talk for Americans (USA + Canada) and Europeans, excepting a minority religious group, which I think I need not name on this forum. Don't ask.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


Don't forget the Chinese. They make their fortunes through long-lasting lines of inheritances...

Originally posted by cloaked4u
You see people starving all over the world. If you do not have the means to take care of children, don't have any. I can understand if a farmer had more children to till the land and had the resources to do so. The world is overpopulated and needs to be downsized, this i agree, but genocide is not the answer. The answer is a much more harder feat to achieve and that takes time and people do not like to wait. So you get what you get, a world full of starving people and no resources to feed them. This problem will NOT go away worldwide.

look these 2 facts up on google

11% of the earth's surface is used to grow food
25% of the earth's surface is now considered garbage landfill.


you think there is starving people all over the world, that we can't feed????...then ask yourself why only 11% of the earth is used to grow food??? why?

because food is a weapon. a means of controlling population.

there is NO FOOD SHORTAGE as vegetation has a way of multiplying the more its picked. so its complete BS

reply to post by infowarrior9970


The mess is because of greed, i agree. You see so many peoples on T.V that have animals and can not take care of and they sick and skinny. Lack of care. The system is based on CURRENCY these days and you know that. I do not dissagree with having a pet, i only dissagree with people who cannot take care of because lack of funds to do so, because our world is based on this type of lifestyle.

Originally posted by infowarrior9970

Originally posted by cloaked4u
You see people starving all over the world. If you do not have the means to take care of children, don't have any. I can understand if a farmer had more children to till the land and had the resources to do so. The world is overpopulated and needs to be downsized, this i agree, but genocide is not the answer. The answer is a much more harder feat to achieve and that takes time and people do not like to wait. So you get what you get, a world full of starving people and no resources to feed them. This problem will NOT go away worldwide.

look these 2 facts up on google

11% of the earth's surface is used to grow food
25% of the earth's surface is now considered garbage landfill.


I do not dissagree with you. I am saying that the way the world is run, is making this way. Why, you have to buy land. If you don't have money, you cannot buy land to make a crop on, to sustain your life. If land was free, we would not have a hungry world to begin with. IT IS THE SYSTEM, that controls.


you think there is starving people all over the world, that we can't feed????...then ask yourself why only 11% of the earth is used to grow food??? why?

because food is a weapon. a means of controlling population.

there is NO FOOD SHORTAGE as vegetation has a way of multiplying the more its picked. so its complete BS

edit on 2-5-2012 by infowarrior9970 because: (no reason given)

If land was free we would not have this problem.

Even if the land was free, a simple fact. If you cannot take care of children, do not have any.

Originally posted by cloaked4u

Originally posted by infowarrior9970

Originally posted by cloaked4u
You see people starving all over the world. If you do not have the means to take care of children, don't have any. I can understand if a farmer had more children to till the land and had the resources to do so. The world is overpopulated and needs to be downsized, this i agree, but genocide is not the answer. The answer is a much more harder feat to achieve and that takes time and people do not like to wait. So you get what you get, a world full of starving people and no resources to feed them. This problem will NOT go away worldwide.

look these 2 facts up on google

11% of the earth's surface is used to grow food
25% of the earth's surface is now considered garbage landfill.


I do not dissagree with you. I am saying that the way the world is run, is making this way. Why, you have to buy land. If you don't have money, you cannot buy land to make a crop on, to sustain your life. If land was free, we would not have a hungry world to begin with. IT IS THE SYSTEM, that controls.


you think there is starving people all over the world, that we can't feed????...then ask yourself why only 11% of the earth is used to grow food??? why?

because food is a weapon. a means of controlling population.

there is NO FOOD SHORTAGE as vegetation has a way of multiplying the more its picked. so its complete BS

edit on 2-5-2012 by infowarrior9970 because: (no reason given)

If land was free we would not have this problem.

edit on 2-5-2012 by cloaked4u because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by cloaked4u

Originally posted by infowarrior9970

Originally posted by cloaked4u
You see people starving all over the world. If you do not have the means to take care of children, don't have any. I can understand if a farmer had more children to till the land and had the resources to do so. The world is overpopulated and needs to be downsized, this i agree, but genocide is not the answer. The answer is a much more harder feat to achieve and that takes time and people do not like to wait. So you get what you get, a world full of starving people and no resources to feed them. This problem will NOT go away worldwide.

look these 2 facts up on google

11% of the earth's surface is used to grow food
25% of the earth's surface is now considered garbage landfill.


I do not dissagree with you. I am saying that the way the world is run, is making this way. Why, you have to buy land. If you don't have money, you cannot buy land to make a crop on, to sustain your life. If land was free, we would not have a hungry world to begin with. IT IS THE SYSTEM, that controls.


you think there is starving people all over the world, that we can't feed????...then ask yourself why only 11% of the earth is used to grow food??? why?

because food is a weapon. a means of controlling population.

there is NO FOOD SHORTAGE as vegetation has a way of multiplying the more its picked. so its complete BS

edit on 2-5-2012 by infowarrior9970 because: (no reason given)

If land was free we would not have this problem.

edit on 2-5-2012 by cloaked4u because: (no reason given)

Your quotes are decieving.
The top quote statement says only 11% of earth's surface is used to grow food. The next statement says, then ask yourself why only 11% of the earth is used to grow food??? why?
SO, which is it? 11% of the earth's surface is used or 11% of earth is used? WELL, considering that the earth is covered mostly by water and another % is covered by desert and another by % covered by lakes and another % is not farm able like mountains and another % is covered by snow and ice and another % is covered by rivers and so on and so on. SO, tell me what you are talking about. I only agree to that if the world's land was free, then we would not have a starvation issue at this moment, but if we keep at this rate, we will have absolutely nothing for our children for resources to farm to eat and so on, SO. why not start NOW to delcline the population so this does NOT happen.