World population reduction

[jackkniphe]

This is the link to the site that I got this off of http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-
1038535/How-save-world--dont-children.ht ml I'm posting because I have seen this push for less population in the U.S. and Canada. In fact I've seen things much more scary then this being purposed to dramatically drop the world population. So where do you stand on this? Do you think it is evil like I do? Or a grate work that must be dun?

How to save the world - don't have more than two children
By David Derbyshire
Last updated at 9:27 AM on 25th July 2008

British couples should have no more than two children to save the world from global warming, according to a green think tank.
Campaigners from the Optimum Population Trust said limiting family size was the 'simplest and biggest' contribution people could make to saving the planet.
While Britain need not follow the example of China and ban large families, having more than two children should be frowned upon in the same way as using a patio heater or driving a gas guzzling car.
But critics said doctors and governments had no right to tell parents how many children to have - and that population control could lead to more problems than it solved.

Family of four: The perfect number?

The controversial call comes from Prof John Guilleband, emeritus professor of family planning at Imperial College London, and GP Dr Pippa Hayes.
The Optimum Population Trust was at the centre of a row in 2003 after suggesting the ideal population for the UK was 30 million - around half its current level.
Writing in the British Medical Journal, they called on family doctors to 'break their silence' on the links between large families and climate change.
'Unplanned pregnancy, especially in teenagers, is a problem for the planet, as well as the individual concerned. But what about planned pregnancies?" they said.
'Should we now explain to UK couples who plan a family that stopping at two children, or at least having one less child than first intended, is the simplest and biggest contribution anyone can make to leaving a habitable planet for our grandchildren?'
A child born in the UK will be responsible for 160 times more greenhouse emissions than a child born in Ethiopia, they said.
'We must not put pressure on people, but by providing information on the population and the environment, and appropriate contraception for everyone, and by their own example, doctors should help to bring family size into the arena of environmental ethics, analogous to avoiding patio heaters and high carbon cars," they added.
In the UK which has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in western Europe, population is officially projected to rise from 60.6 million to 77 million in 2050 - more than another two Londons. A 'two child' policy would reduce the figure to 55 million, they said.
The researchers warn with world population exceeding 6.7 billion, humans consumption of fossil fuels, fresh water, crops fish and forests is outstripping the planet's biological capacity.
Countries such as Costa Rica, Sri Lanka and Thailand, have reduced their fertility rates by improving access to contraception and through education, they said.
Critics of population control say it fails to tackle the real threats to the environment. And reducing Britain's population could lead to huge social problems if there were not enough young people to pay for the care of the elderly.
Robert Whelan, of the Civitas think tank, said the way to tackle environmental problems was through eradicating poverty - not limiting population.
'These people think that they know how many children people should have. But the only people who should make that decision are parents themselves," he said.
'We have to treat with great suspicion any attempt to interfere with the choices of parents either in the third world or in the first world.' Most mainstream green groups shy away from discussing overpopulation, believing the subject is too controversial.
The Optimum Population Trust's supporters include actress Susan Hampshire and environmentalist Jonathan Porritt.
Its views echo those of Malthus - the 18th century economist who claimed population would rise more quickly than food production triggering mass starvations.
Until it was discredited by Nazism, population control in the first half of the 20th century was most closely associated with eugenics - the belief that 'undesirable' qualities should removed from populations to improve future generations.
The rise of the green movement in the 1970s and 1980s led to a revival in calls for population control.

[aninjaman]

Great. Who needs more than two children anyway? Illiget children count.

[SolInvictus]

for all those who don't care for population limitation, use it to your advantage. while the masses will be preoccupied "saving the world" by not reproducing, take this chance to give your genes the upper-hand; all it takes are a few more children then the rest of those chumps.

[physicsman09]

I've got a good solution.

People with IQ > 120 can have 4 kids max.

People with IQ < 120 can't have kids at all.

Then the smart people make robots to do the stupid people's jobs.

Then the world will be full of smart, enlightened people who will lead a golden age of prosperity.

Population control is stupid, people are going to have sex and have kids anyway, you can't stop it.
Unless of course you unlease some kind of communist secret police, but I'd have a bigger problem with that than overpopulation.

[Christopherr]

China did this, and I don't consider them a very green state.

[Drakim]

At 7/26/08 08:19 PM, Christopherr wrote: China did this, and I don't consider them a very green state.

But their lack of green skills has nothing to do with their population control system.

[Christopherr]

At 7/26/08 09:09 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 7/26/08 08:19 PM, Christopherr wrote: China did this, and I don't consider them a very green state.

But their lack of green skills has nothing to do with their population control system.

So why the fuck was it suggested as a means of making a country greener?

[CommanderX1125]

Because most "green" people have a distinct dislike for most of humanity. At least, that is my personal experience.

[SmilezRoyale]

Population reduction is not specifically an environmental objective. Limiting worldly Squalor is in many ways an economic objective, and there are many benefits of lowering population, wealth distribution, and public health, namely, increase when population is lower.

[TheLoneReviewer]

Think of it this way.

There is more food to go around,

There are more people in the world than there is available land to grow crops, so we harvest from the oceans.

However there are so many people in the world that the oceans are becoming rapidly depleted.

What puts a damper in the idea of having small families are religious dumb-fucks who think its their sacred duty ordained by god to crank out as much inbred crotchfruit as possible.

You know, the kinds of people who think that god will protect their trailer from an approaching tornado, I guess they think god will replenish the seas, fill their fridge, and their bank accounts when their welfare dries up.

The kinds of people who voted for Bush... Twice...

God doesn't do SHIT.

[jackkniphe]

At 7/26/08 10:24 PM, TheLoneReviewer wrote: Think of it this way.

There is more food to go around,

There are more people in the world than there is available land to grow crops, so we harvest from the oceans.

When I was a kid we could (by we I mean the U.S.) feed the world 3 times over. Are population did not grow to 3 times the world's population in less the 15 years. We are paying framers not to grow food along with taking haft of or corn and making fuel out of it, causing a possible famine in the U.S. in the near future. Places like Africa lose haft of the crops on the way to the market. Africa's famines are from lack of roads, trucks, cops and not a lack of food. Irrigation and tractors can increase the food produced by 10 to 100fold.

However there are so many people in the world that the oceans are becoming rapidly depleted.

What? The oceans are water and water can't be depleted. However if we are taking about over fishing then that is a real problem mainly caused by china. A country that has a 1 child policy.

What puts a damper in the idea of having small families are religious dumb-fucks who think its their sacred duty ordained by god to crank out as much inbred crotchfruit as possible.

"Any society that's not growing is dying." Orson Scott card

You know, the kinds of people who think that god will protect their trailer from an approaching tornado, I guess they think god will replenish the seas, fill their fridge, and their bank accounts when their welfare dries up.

The kinds of people who voted for Bush... Twice...

God doesn't do SHIT.

To me you look like someone out of (Brave New World) but not an elite and certainly not a savage.

[fli]

Nature has a way to fixing things...
food shortage...
pandemic diseases...
war...

I'm very pessimistic... I think that, eventually, we're going to over-consume so much that we won't be able to sustain ourselves and... poof.

Doomsday Argument (or, DA)

[ThePretenders]

Don't worry, the world would suffer from food shortages and the poorest people would starve to death and the population will come to an equillibrium. The replacement rate is 2.1 and all Western countries have lower fertility rate than that. The highest is the USA, with a fertility rate of 2.05. The natural rate is decreasing (birth rate - death rate), which means that the West doesn't have a over-population problem.

MALTHUS FTW!!!

[LammeCholo]

I think we should use birth control to stop the increase of the population.
Earth can barely sustain more humans, especialy if the third world countries would be as wealthy as the western world.

[Slizor]

At 7/26/08 08:19 PM, Christopherr wrote: China did this, and I don't consider them a very green state.

They are actually fairly green. I mean, it's easy to point to their level of pollution, the rise in coal-fired power plants and the projected growth in energy consumption but I would always consider that part of industrial development - Britain, for instance, polluted tons during the industrial revolution, with trees becoming soot-blackened and smog across major industrial cities. If you look at China's long-standing energy conservation policies, its focus on renewable energy sources and the level of per capita energy consumption compared to other states, then it looks fairly green.

[Lambentower]

At 7/27/08 07:22 AM, Slizor wrote:

At 7/26/08 08:19 PM, Christopherr wrote: China did this, and I don't consider them a very green state.

They are actually fairly green. I mean, it's easy to point to their level of pollution, the rise in coal-fired power plants and the projected growth in energy consumption but I would always consider that part of industrial development - Britain, for instance, polluted tons during the industrial revolution, with trees becoming soot-blackened and smog across major industrial cities. If you look at China's long-standing energy conservation policies, its focus on renewable energy sources and the level of per capita energy consumption compared to other states, then it looks fairly green.

This seems like an intelligent response. I'd like to add that things that the West holds dear - labor laws, quality of life, "greenness," are all things we care about because we can afford to worry about them. This ties in to the same complaints that people have about foreign factories paying comparatively small wages to their workers than they would in their own country.

The choice for say people in Vietnam is to work a job for no pay hauling mud on their farms, or get paid to work in a factory. No brainer for them. The same thing applies to environmental pollution; would you rather power the whole city on coal and run it with no restraints, or charge more for power, cut more of the city off, and run it a bit greener...when greenness is something you people don't yet really care about? They would rather have a refrigerator. Wouldn't you?

[zoolrule]

Tell it to the Muslims which are having like 8 kids on average

[D2Kvirus]

You mean to tell me that, by murdering Madeleine and hiding the body before making up a story they still can't get straight, the McCanns are saving the world?

[LammeCholo]

At 7/27/08 08:38 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: You mean to tell me that, by murdering Madeleine and hiding the body before making up a story they still can't get straight, the McCanns are saving the world?

That's just a stupid comment.
If you don't have anything usefull to say than don't.

[morefngdbs]

At 7/27/08 08:34 AM, zoolrule wrote: Tell it to the Muslims which are having like 8 kids on average

Let's not just pick on them...the Africans, the Indians (in India) ,check out the amount of kids in many Central & South American countries... You get everybody on board with that idea...I think not.

Let's just do what they did years gone by, have a nice big WAR involve a couple dozen countries & kill 500 million to a billion people, problem slowed.

Another great option birthcontrol in the vacinations we're giving out for free in 3rd World countries. Make it so the can't reproduce until they hit 30 or so, since most don't make it that far, problem corrected ;)

[D2Kvirus]

At 7/27/08 08:54 AM, LammeCholo wrote:

At 7/27/08 08:38 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: You mean to tell me that, by murdering Madeleine and hiding the body before making up a story they still can't get straight, the McCanns are saving the world?

That's just a stupid comment.
If you don't have anything usefull to say than don't.

How? They had three kids, now they have two. Perhaps they can stop with the unconvincing victim act and move on to being forward-thinking saviours of the world.

[Slizor]

Let's not just pick on them...the Africans, the Indians (in India) ,check out the amount of kids in many Central & South American countries... You get everybody on board with that idea...I think not.

Seems like there is some link between the level of economic development and the growth in population (it doesn't even seem like, there is.)

Maybe the best solution would be creating an equitable world order.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 7/27/08 08:34 AM, zoolrule wrote: Tell it to the Muslims which are having like 8 kids on average

Expendable.

[fli]

At 7/27/08 05:23 AM, ThePretenders wrote: Don't worry, the world would suffer from food shortages and the poorest people would starve to death and the population will come to an equillibrium. The replacement rate is 2.1 and all Western countries have lower fertility rate than that. The highest is the USA, with a fertility rate of 2.05. The natural rate is decreasing (birth rate - death rate), which means that the West doesn't have a over-population problem.

MALTHUS FTW!!!

It will (or does) depending of the mortality rate.
Some places... people may have up 7 children, but only 2 may survive into adulthood.

Here...
I could have one, and I could very well see my child grow into adulthood... and perhaps even old age. But, for me, the problem isn't so much about overpopulation than over-consumption.

[LammeCholo]

At 7/27/08 10:14 AM, Slizor wrote:

Let's not just pick on them...the Africans, the Indians (in India) ,check out the amount of kids in many Central & South American countries... You get everybody on board with that idea...I think not.

Seems like there is some link between the level of economic development and the growth in population (it doesn't even seem like, there is.)

Maybe the best solution would be creating an equitable world order.

There are so many kids there because the parents will have a kind of pension from them when they're old.(The kids will have to care for their parents) In those countries the use of birth control devices like a condom.
In western countries kids aren't needed for a good old day. Raising a kid in these countries is even very expensive... so less children are born. Birth control devices are also extensivly used in these countries.

[D2Kvirus]

Am I alone in seeing a potential black market of adoption going on here? For example, whilst some countries have 2.0 or 2.1 avergaes, like SPain, India and the UK, the US is 2.59 whilst Thailand and Guatemala ar ecloser to 3.

So, how long before children are shipped off to families that can't conceive for a tidy profit or, equally possible, places like Bangladesh or Singapore where the average is below 1.5 start to have a lot of children dumped there in order to massage the figures?

[fli]

Potential black market of adoption?
There's already a few going on in places such as China, Vietnam, and Guatamala. This is one reason why Vietnam has stopped adopting its orphans to United States citizens.. they can't be sure if the babies are true orphans and not kidnapped babies from rural provinces. There were a few discrepencies in the early 90s... but, I think, Vietnam has done any legislation.

[ChaosDragon227]

I know the perfect way to reduce population: Randomly pick 5-10 heavily populated cities in every major country/nation, and then poison their water supply and block all city exits at the same time.

[jackkniphe]

At 7/27/08 09:50 PM, ChaosDragon227 wrote: I know the perfect way to reduce population: Randomly pick 5-10 heavily populated cities in every major country/nation, and then poison their water supply and block all city exits at the same time.

I've seen paper by think tanks that say similar thing. but not for reducing population.

[cutelady]

there's many people in the world!! we shouild start controlling this continous booming of population in every country!!! ^_^ hahaha to serious