Population control. All Problems = Too Many people

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

First thing, who is it that we should exterminate? Africans? Asians? Europeans? We've got to start thinking about who to eliminate in order to leave the world a better place.

First, I know lawrocket posted this as sarcasm.

If we would quit taking care of those too lazy to do for themselves the problem would take care of itself.

[quade 4]

Quote

If we would quit taking care of those too lazy to do for themselves the problem would take care of itself.

One of the most arrogant and ignorant things I've heard
all day...and I've been working in Hollywood.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[nanook 1]

Quote

Quote

I'll take today's "world problems" than the middle ages any day of the week.

Personally your right but worldwise?? Technology and health is better but i don;t think its so black and white as one might assume.



As the food and water supply becomes more and more rare one can only fear what will happen and who will get to drink and eat and who will not. We will notice things last as we are generally much richer than most of the planets population.

The Math does not add up. Limited resources

It was like that in the olden days also. Lots of limited resources too. The resources of today are different from the resources of yesterday.

And you are right. It's not black and white. Resource requirements are different culture to culture, but I've been to many third world countries over the years of Service. And they have higher survival rates than comparatively, the middle ages' general population.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[diablopilot 2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo

Make everyone watch this....

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Arvoitus 1]

Quote

The government subsidies your kids and people who do not use the same resources end up paying for it.

Does it make sense that a single person should pay more taxes then one with kids????
One single adult is one for one he is a 1 consumer and a 1 producer. A family of 6 has two producers and 6 consumers yet they get a tax break???

The system was set up not on logic or a give and take but to encourage family and marriage.

You can flip it any way you like it but the money has to come from somewhere and it comes from the single people who use less resources but get taxed more. Simple as that on whatever kind of a horse you want.

That’s only on a national level to answer you original questions. on a global level it is ridiculously irresponsible. But most parents get there panties in bunch when you talk to them because you know THERE KIDS ARE SPECIAL. The problem is everyone feels that way and that is why we as a species can’t reach a logical solution.

It was already explained once but I'll repeat. The system is set up around continuous population growth to pay for all the expenses. Since nobody no longer takes care of their older people the government stepped up and made a system where everybody pays to take care of everybody. Single people are acting against this system and therefore get punished in the form of taxes.

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[Gravitymaster 0]

It's time to make those with children start "paying their fair share". Why should those who don't have children be required to subsidize education and damage to the environment by thoughtless pro creators?

We need to impose a huge tax increase for having children. Maybe then the pro creators will think twice before spreading their seed.

[lawrocket 3]

I think I've noticed that the common thread of complaint about kids is whether they contribute to or drain the system.

The problem isn't kids. The problem is socialism.

And with socialism you have people who self-righteously tell people how to live their lives because of some idea of societal costs and benefits. Because socialism empowers others to say what's best for you and what isn't (what's best for you being what is best for them, of course).

See what socialism has brought us? People telling others how to live. What a fantastic world, eh?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Shotgun 1]

One thing I've learned in Speakers Corner is that "The Problem" (any problem) is usually what someone else is doing.

[billvon 2,991]

>One thing I've learned in Speakers Corner is that "The Problem" (any
>problem) is usually what someone else is doing.

Yep. And it can be avoided once people "see the light" (which, of course, happens to coincide with the poster's opinion.)

[lawrocket 3]

I agree with that. But I saw the reasons why having kids is considered "bad" were focusing substantially on kids being a drain on the system.

So I just decided to look at the system. And stated my opinion that the system to be drained is a socialist system. And adherence to a socialist belief means that it is acceptable - if not necessary - to tell individuals how to act. It's not for the individual to decide what is best for him or herself. It's up to another individual to state that individual's personal opinion of what is best for society.

So, yes, I blame socialism. The argument comes from the notion that a person's mere existence should be predicated upon what benefit to society that person will provide. "Benefit" being, of course, a subjective thing.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ManagingPrime 0]

I don't see human reproduction as the overall problem, after all it's important for the continuation of the species. I take issue with the poor and the stupid reproducing. They are the ones with the higher birth rates, those children tend to be the drain on the economy and those genetics dilute the pool. Let's call a spade a spade.

I'm required to have a license to drive, skydive, work and for various other activites...basic proficiency and responsibility is required...why not the same for reproduction?

[billvon 2,991]

>They are the ones with the higher birth rates, those children tend to be the
>drain on the economy and those genetics dilute the pool. Let's call a
>spade a spade.

I'd hesitate to advocate eugenics. It has a sort of spotted history.

>I'm required to have a license to drive, skydive, work and for various other
>activites...basic proficiency and responsibility is required...why not the
>same for reproduction?

Because you don't come equipped from birth with a car in your pants . . .

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

I'd hesitate to advocate eugenics. It has a sort of spotted history.

Just because some took it to far does not mean it does not have its merits. I would venture to say that planned parenthood has been a success to some degree.

Quote

Because you don't come equipped from birth with a car in your pants . .

That's not the best analogy. If I was born with a gun in my hand could I then use it however I wanted?

[Shotgun 1]

"Socialism" is such a broad term to blame for this or any other problem, yet it seems pretty popular these days. What is the opposite of "socialism"? Is it "every man for himself"?

[lawrocket 3]

Who is going to determine whether a person is or is not allowed to have children? Under what standards will that determination be made?

And I note - this wouldn't be an issue if not for socialism. Think of "right to choose" being coopted by forced abortions.

Individual freedoms? SEEYA!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Who decides if we can drive a car, carry a concealed weapon, practice law, etc.? Seeing as how the welfare rolls would drop I'm sure there would be many idle government employees that could administer the program.

Standards? Let's start with sufficient finances to support a child WITHOUT government support. A high school education. A class on parenting. No history of violent crime.

I'm not advocating forced abortions or sterilization. I do however think that if someone is not a "qualified" parent there should be consequences...starting with disqualification for certain government support and tax penalties.

Quote

Individual Freedom

I think this is the EGO thing people are referencing. Why should someone be allowed to have a child (or 15) just because they CAN? Human rights need to be balanced with human responsibility, the two are complementary.

[billvon 2,991]

>If I was born with a gun in my hand could I then use it however I wanted?

There'd be a lot more uses for them if you were born with them, yes. You still couldn't do whatever you wanted with it (much like fists and penises, which many people are currently born with.)

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

>If I was born with a gun in my hand could I then use it however I wanted?

There'd be a lot more uses for them if you were born with them, yes. You still couldn't do whatever you wanted with it (much like fists and penises, which many people are currently born with.)

Exactly. When people fail to balance their rights with responsibility others (govt) steps in to "define" how people can responsibly exercise their rights. We can witness in any number of situations.

I can't think of any case were someone can not exercise their "right" to reproduce. I say that since so many people seem unable to temper that right with responsibility it's time for it to to become a priviledge like so many other "rights".

[Darius11 12]

Quote

It will not change - people naturally have sex, so we reproduce. Add that to our ability to master technology and dominate, in general, all things in the world, we will continue to grow until likely disease or other natural catastrophe.

Used to be the population of the world would grow to 750M or so, then get wiped out by plague, back down to 250-300M. Since the industrial revolution, that has changed.

So what will the new '750M' number be? Most articles I read say about 10-11B, so likely in our lifetimes...

it will be interesting to see, and I hope I am one of the survivors.

I was under the impression that the planet could hold 3.5bil people until genetics allowed us to harvest wheat twice a year. I also thought the number where it starts to no longer make sense was right around 7 bil.

This is just food and not fresh water, not to mention they think we will fish the ocean completely in 25 years or less.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

Granted some things have gotten better but at the same time somethings have gotten much worst.

There were wars but at the same time you couldn’t destroy a whole country in a weeks or a day (if you think of nukes). I am sure for kids in Africa yes the whole continent, Iraq, and Afghanistan the horrors are even worst then they were 100 years ago.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo

Make everyone watch this....

hallelujah and the truth shell set you freeeeeeeeeeeeee

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

The government subsidies your kids and people who do not use the same resources end up paying for it.

Does it make sense that a single person should pay more taxes then one with kids????
One single adult is one for one he is a 1 consumer and a 1 producer. A family of 6 has two producers and 6 consumers yet they get a tax break???

The system was set up not on logic or a give and take but to encourage family and marriage.

You can flip it any way you like it but the money has to come from somewhere and it comes from the single people who use less resources but get taxed more. Simple as that on whatever kind of a horse you want.

That’s only on a national level to answer you original questions. on a global level it is ridiculously irresponsible. But most parents get there panties in bunch when you talk to them because you know THERE KIDS ARE SPECIAL. The problem is everyone feels that way and that is why we as a species can’t reach a logical solution.

It was already explained once but I'll repeat. The system is set up around continuous population growth to pay for all the expenses. Since nobody no longer takes care of their older people the government stepped up and made a system where everybody pays to take care of everybody. Single people are acting against this system and therefore get punished in the form of taxes.

yes i get this however geting it does not make it logical, and i belive logic is the answer to our problems

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

geting it does not make it logical

It is illogical coming from some perspectives. The reason why you aren't seeing the logic is that you are looking at it from a different perspective.

From my perspective it is illogical for a person to travel wstward to go to Denver. For you, it would be illogical to travel eastward to get there. The logic depends on your starting point.

But to follow your logic I need to know your starting point. That is, what is illogical about what you describe?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Darius11 12]

Logic would state.

That if each person needs x to survive and the number of Xs is not finite but limited then we need to watch the number of persons we have as well.


If we have more people than Xs then we have a problem. And yes it very convenient not to notice a problem if you are not experience it YET, but it would be irresponsible to pretend such a problem does not exist.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[lawrocket 3]

Okay. That is position.

Proposition: each person needs x to survive and the number of Xs is finite then we need to watch the number of persons we have as well

So: People need x to survive.
Step 2 - how much x is needed per person?
Step 3 - how much x do we have?
Step 4 - how much x can we get?
Step 5 - how many people are there?

Conclusion: need the math

What you are positing is something that has been done in the past. Google "Julian Simon Paul Ehrlich Bet." Paul Ehrlich posited that materials are finiste and will be used up, becoming more expensive and more scarce. (Note: Ehrlich was assisted in his bet by John Holdren.

Ehrlich lost the bet. Because in the long run scarcity means people figure out ways to use resources more efficiently and thus lower the cost of the item. History has repeatedly demonstrated it. When items become too expensive, nobody uses them anymore. In a sense, for economic products we never, ever run out. (Cows are in no danger of extinction. Other species - for which there is no commercial value - are in danger of extinction).

If we need x and it gets scarce we learn to get by with part x or, by golly, we find something else that works for it. HEnce whale oil got really expensive and we learned that kerosene does a fine job in its place, paraffin is also useful, etc.

What you wrote has been written before. Look at Paul Ehrlich.

My wife is hotter than your wife.