Professor wants to reduce human population by ‘controlling human fertility’

[Old Rocks]

This reminds me a chapter title in a PJ O'Rourke book - "Just enough of me, way too much of you."

People who think there are too many people in the world should walk the talk and off themselves. After all, the environment is more important than human beings!

OK. Did that. Two children. Period.

Right now, as is, the world is over populated. We are having far too much impact on our environment. And impact that is not good for any of the animals on earth, including us.

 

[Unkotare]

Right now, as is, the world is over populated.

No it's not.

 

[Two Thumbs]

How about instead of limiting the number of kids people can have

We can just stop healing the sick?

It would save a lot of money and we would have more fertilizer for veggies and fruit trees.




I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the people that support population control are atheist.

 

[westwall]

How about instead of limiting the number of kids people can have

We can just stop healing the sick?

It would save a lot of money and we would have more fertilizer for veggies and fruit trees.




I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the people that support population control are atheist.

Hey that sounds like a great idea! Who the heck needs health insurance...do the planet a favor and die when your clock runs out. Oh wait...the bleeding hearts think they're somehow special for some reason...they get to live but others must die.

Pricks.

 

[Toro]

This reminds me a chapter title in a PJ O'Rourke book - "Just enough of me, way too much of you."

People who think there are too many people in the world should walk the talk and off themselves. After all, the environment is more important than human beings!

Gee, Toro, you received the coveted Ukatore thanks for that post. You must be so proud.

Meanwhile, respected scientists acknowledge the reality that we live here, that we will have some impact on the ecology, and also that there are measures to take that will be a benefit to both human life and the ecosystem, helping to improve the sustainability of both. One of those measures is to control our numbers, not just for the earth, but for or continued comfort upon it. Elbow room is mandatory for a happy life.

"Respected scientists?"



This is an argument that has been made for two centuries, if not more. The doomsayers were wrong then. They're wrong now.

The only factor constraining human development is technological innovation. As long as we're not at the end of "science," this world can handle many, many, many more people. Perhaps your "respected scientists" don't have much faith in science.

Liberals are such pessimists.

 

[westwall]

This reminds me a chapter title in a PJ O'Rourke book - "Just enough of me, way too much of you."

People who think there are too many people in the world should walk the talk and off themselves. After all, the environment is more important than human beings!

OK. Did that. Two children. Period.

Right now, as is, the world is over populated. We are having far too much impact on our environment. And impact that is not good for any of the animals on earth, including us.

Two? You dumb ass. You were only supposed to have ONE! That's all I have....what makes you so special? Hmmmm?

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, we all see the stupid far lefties and the stupid far righties talking . . . stupidly.

We will solve this then without your input.

Unsubscribe.

 

[Unkotare]

And there goes the Rain Man...

 

[alan1]

You can reduce the population by making the Catholic Church support birth control.

Then eventually there would be no Africans. Or Asians. I guess the conservatives would like that, though.

What was your solution?
Oh, yeah, it was actually targeted at a specific group of people, followed up by an accusation about a specific group of people.

 

[Barb]

This reminds me a chapter title in a PJ O'Rourke book - "Just enough of me, way too much of you."

People who think there are too many people in the world should walk the talk and off themselves. After all, the environment is more important than human beings!

Gee, Toro, you received the coveted Ukatore thanks for that post. You must be so proud.

Meanwhile, respected scientists acknowledge the reality that we live here, that we will have some impact on the ecology, and also that there are measures to take that will be a benefit to both human life and the ecosystem, helping to improve the sustainability of both. One of those measures is to control our numbers, not just for the earth, but for or continued comfort upon it. Elbow room is mandatory for a happy life.

"Respected scientists?"



This is an argument that has been made for two centuries, if not more. The doomsayers were wrong then. They're wrong now.

The only factor constraining human development is technological innovation. As long as we're not at the end of "science," this world can handle many, many, many more people. Perhaps your "respected scientists" don't have much faith in science.

Liberals are such pessimists.

You say pessimist, I say realist.

I know that the book that was written before women were allowed to read said to be fruitful and multiply, but the commonest fucking sense would suggest that there has come the time that it might be a good idea to consider the fact that THAT edict has been achieved.

Doubling down on stupid just doesn't seem reasonable.

 

[alan1]

Did they tell you 40 years ago it would be happening now? Most professors look to a crisis around 2100, as, if humans keep increasing at the current rate there will be an excess of 10 billion people by then.

Yes, they did. Back in the 1970's the alarmists were telling us that due to overpopulation millions would be starving by the late 1980's. They were just as wrong about that prediction as all the religious fanatics telling us the world is coming to an end.

I'm betting these were the same people who suggested hiding under your school desk could help save you from an A bomb?

I dont think overpopulation is something we should be panicked over. However I do believe it's a good idea to be aware of shifting population numbers, and I wouldn't be opposed to NATO funding sex education, controception and sterilization to impoverished nations.

I see, you want others sterilized, but not your brethren.
Good thing you aren't the dictator in charge.

 

[Noomi]

Right now, as is, the world is over populated.

No it's not.

Only Catholics believe the world needs more children.

 

[koshergrl]

Only progressives think killing the children of oppressed people will save them.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Right now, as is, the world is over populated.

No it's not.

Only Catholics believe the world needs more children.

I'm absolutely certain that you are wrong.

and callous.

 

[Two Thumbs]

How about instead of limiting the number of kids people can have

We can just stop healing the sick?

It would save a lot of money and we would have more fertilizer for veggies and fruit trees.




I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the people that support population control are atheist.

Hey that sounds like a great idea! Who the heck needs health insurance...do the planet a favor and die when your clock runs out. Oh wait...the bleeding hearts think they're somehow special for some reason...they get to live but others must die.

Pricks.

More dead people = fewer needs for abortion.


It's a https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5ARsRUUnUU

 

[koshergrl]

And bigoted.

People used to say the same stupid shit about Jews. "They're overrunning the world! We need to control their numbers! Halp! Halp!"

 

[Toro]

Gee, Toro, you received the coveted Ukatore thanks for that post. You must be so proud.

Meanwhile, respected scientists acknowledge the reality that we live here, that we will have some impact on the ecology, and also that there are measures to take that will be a benefit to both human life and the ecosystem, helping to improve the sustainability of both. One of those measures is to control our numbers, not just for the earth, but for or continued comfort upon it. Elbow room is mandatory for a happy life.

"Respected scientists?"



This is an argument that has been made for two centuries, if not more. The doomsayers were wrong then. They're wrong now.

The only factor constraining human development is technological innovation. As long as we're not at the end of "science," this world can handle many, many, many more people. Perhaps your "respected scientists" don't have much faith in science.

Liberals are such pessimists.

You say pessimist, I say realist.

I know that the book that was written before women were allowed to read said to be fruitful and multiply, but the commonest fucking sense would suggest that there has come the time that it might be a good idea to consider the fact that THAT edict has been achieved.

Doubling down on stupid just doesn't seem reasonable.

Again, that argument has been around for 200 years. And it has been wrong.

Innovation is an amazing thing. Allowing people to profit from their innovations has been one of the greatest concepts ever in the history of humankind. It has increased living standards, life spans, and the capacity of the earth to sustain more and more life.

Your only constriction is the one in your mind.

 

[Unkotare]

Right now, as is, the world is over populated.

No it's not.

Only Catholics believe the world needs more children.

Only subhuman scum like you are so openly hostile to human life.

 

[westwall]

Gee, Toro, you received the coveted Ukatore thanks for that post. You must be so proud.

Meanwhile, respected scientists acknowledge the reality that we live here, that we will have some impact on the ecology, and also that there are measures to take that will be a benefit to both human life and the ecosystem, helping to improve the sustainability of both. One of those measures is to control our numbers, not just for the earth, but for or continued comfort upon it. Elbow room is mandatory for a happy life.

"Respected scientists?"



This is an argument that has been made for two centuries, if not more. The doomsayers were wrong then. They're wrong now.

The only factor constraining human development is technological innovation. As long as we're not at the end of "science," this world can handle many, many, many more people. Perhaps your "respected scientists" don't have much faith in science.

Liberals are such pessimists.

You say pessimist, I say realist.

I know that the book that was written before women were allowed to read said to be fruitful and multiply, but the commonest fucking sense would suggest that there has come the time that it might be a good idea to consider the fact that THAT edict has been achieved.

Doubling down on stupid just doesn't seem reasonable.

Darlin, it's you that is doubling down on stupid. The prognostications that were made back in the 30's, 50's, 60's 70's and today have all been wrong. Havn't you figured that out yet?

 

[Unkotare]

"Respected scientists?"



This is an argument that has been made for two centuries, if not more. The doomsayers were wrong then. They're wrong now.

The only factor constraining human development is technological innovation. As long as we're not at the end of "science," this world can handle many, many, many more people. Perhaps your "respected scientists" don't have much faith in science.

Liberals are such pessimists.

You say pessimist, I say realist.

I know that the book that was written before women were allowed to read said to be fruitful and multiply, but the commonest fucking sense would suggest that there has come the time that it might be a good idea to consider the fact that THAT edict has been achieved.

Doubling down on stupid just doesn't seem reasonable.

Darlin, it's you that is doubling down on stupid. The prognostications that were made back in the 30's, 50's, 60's 70's and today have all been wrong. Havn't you figured that out yet?

Of course these are the same sorts of people who still believe that communism will eventually work despite the lessons of history.