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

[Oddball]

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.

Not only that but it's been shown over and over again that the more technologically advanced the society, the more it trends toward zero population growth...When you take out immigration, most of Europe, Canada and America have been at zero population growth for decades.

Liberals are such pessimists.

Yes, yes they are....Pessimists at the very least.

Behind every environmentalist wackadoodle beats the heart of a eugenicist.

 

[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.

Not only that but it's been shown over and over again that the more technologically advanced the society, the more it trends toward zero population growth...When you take out immigration, most of Europe, Canada and America have been at zero population growth for decades.

Liberals are such pessimists.

Yes, yes they are....Pessimists at the very least.

Behind every environmentalist wackadoodle beats the heart of a eugenicist.

Actually the most technologically advanced have NEGATIVE growth. The only thing keeping them populated is immigration.

 

[Unkotare]

...but Chicken Little gotta do his thing...

 

[daveman]

Professor wants to reduce human population by ‘controlling human fertility’
Campus Reform ^

Professor wants to reduce human population by

A professor at the University of California recently gave a middle school presentation in which he claimed the earth has “too many people” and proposed a reduction of the population through “vegetarianism” and “controlling human fertility.”

Professor Richard Cardullo, a professor of biology at the University of California – Riverside (UCR), told a group of seventh grade students that the environment’s well-being was in jeopardy “if we don’t do anything about population.”

“If we want to decrease our population, we can do it through any number of ways,” he said.

Most of the energy needs to be focused on areas that have a population rate of 4-7 children per family. Middle east, Africa and central Asia.

We need to do this by giving these people books and education. Making them not want to have 10 children apiece. Right? It really doesn't make sense to focus on area's that are having 1-2 children a piece as you're just destroying the educated area's anyways.

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

Or you can pay for your own damn birth control.

More government is not the solution to every problem.

 

[daveman]

We can reduce population by giving strellizion and birth control by the ton to Africa and central Asia.

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

You guess wrong.

 

[daveman]

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.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

 

[daveman]

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.

Not only that but it's been shown over and over again that the more technologically advanced the society, the more it trends toward zero population growth...When you take out immigration, most of Europe, Canada and America have been at zero population growth for decades.

Liberals are such pessimists.

Yes, yes they are....Pessimists at the very least.

Behind every environmentalist wackadoodle beats the heart of a eugenicist.

Every solution they propose involves death on a massive scale.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Not only that but it's been shown over and over again that the more technologically advanced the society, the more it trends toward zero population growth...When you take out immigration, most of Europe, Canada and America have been at zero population growth for decades.

Liberals are such pessimists.

Yes, yes they are....Pessimists at the very least.

Behind every environmentalist wackadoodle beats the heart of a eugenicist.

I was subscribed to this thread WAITING for someone to come up with REASONS why birthrates are higher in underdeveloped countries. And FINALLY -- the real answer to this "overpopulation" problem starts to get revealed.

FIRST-off -- the professor in the OP is a mental midget jerkoff with his "Vegetarian prescription" for population control and shouldn't be ALLOWED to address grade-schoolers.

But the important point is that WE don't have to SUGGEST OR DICTATE birth control to the teaming masses as many here suggest.. Don't NEED birth control or eugenics. Because WE KNOW what drives smaller families and longer lifespans.

That's FREE economies and economic development. When your lifespan is short and you're trying to eek out an existence (made substantially worse by the moron professor and his veggy diet crap) --- you NEED larger families.

Do me a favor and WATCH this TED presentation about family size and economic development.. Besides the fact that this prof is entertaining as hell -- it's almost joyful to see the TREMENDOUS development of the WHOLE WORLD towards longer life and smaller family sizes --- ALL WITHOUT coercion or imperialistic demands or eugenic motives..

Hans Rosling: Stats that reshape your worldview | Video on TED.com


NOTE -- TED.ORG has recently changed it's video player scheme. You might need to update Flash Players or Mobile players to see these. I lost connection with TED about a week ago and just tonight get it work again....

 

[Politico]

Even scientists can dream the dream.

 

[Two Thumbs]

We can reduce population by giving strellizion and birth control by the ton to Africa and central Asia.

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

You guess wrong.

Negged her.

No conservative would support genocide.

 

[Noomi]

We can reduce population by giving strellizion and birth control by the ton to Africa and central Asia.

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

You guess wrong.

i am probably right but conservatives won't ever admit they see black people as less than human.

 

[westwall]

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

You guess wrong.

i am probably right but conservatives won't ever admit they see black people as less than human.

Conservative Republicans forced Congress to pass the Civil Rights bill over the massive protestations of the Democratic party...led by Al Gores father. The evidence doesn't support your contention.

 

[Unkotare]

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

You guess wrong.

i am probably right but conservatives won't ever admit they see black people as less than human.

Fuck you, idiot. It is death-worshipping scum like you who are much, much less than human. Go flip those burgers and shut the fuck up, you low-life.

 

[koshergrl]

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

You guess wrong.

i am probably right but conservatives won't ever admit they see black people as less than human.

Yeah, that explains our long history of championing the rights of blacks and establishing blacks in positions of power before anyone else was willing to.

 

[flacaltenn]

WTF?? Republicans pushing sterilization and birth control in AFRICA??

Think I'll go back to the Titans game..

 

[daveman]

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

You guess wrong.

i am probably right but conservatives won't ever admit they see black people as less than human.

Pointing to your own bigotry against conservatives does not prove that conservatives are bigots.

It proves YOU are.

But then, the left believes that blacks can't succeed without the help of white liberals.

So who's racist, again...?

 

[mamooth]

Conservative Republicans forced Congress to pass the Civil Rights bill over the massive protestations of the Democratic party...led by Al Gores father. The evidence doesn't support your contention.

And all those racist Democrats became Republicans shortly after. Rather dishonest of you to leave that little detail out, don't you think?

So, why all the hatred of this professor for stating common sense? It appears he committed the sin of being politically incorrect by talking about population growth. Since the American economy is modelled after a cancer cell -- unrestricted eternal population growth -- talking about ending population growth is sort of talking treason. Trouble is, a finite amount of land can't support an infinite population. Growth has to stop sometime. It's hard no matter how you do it (see Japan's example), but it's a lot harder if it gets to the point where nature does it.

As far as the USA goes, it's easy. Heavily restrict immigration, and the USA hits zero population growth quickly. However, no politician on either side wants that. But I do. It's not that I don't want Mexicans here, it's that I don't want anyone here, and restricting immigration is the only realistic way to achieve that.

And by the way, logic doesn't dictate that environmentalists should kill themselves. It dictates that environmentalists should kill conservatives, being conservatives are the raging environmental rapists. At least that's the logical conclusion of the conservative "environmentalists must kill those who are hurting the earth" logic. I don't hold to it, of course. I'm just pointing out that many conservatives are telling us about the necessity of killing them, and I think that's very strange.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, the scum infilterated our party then just like they're infilterating it now...when you get found out, you hide with a group of decent people until you contaminate them, then you move on.

The racists have returned to the Dem party, which is the party that loves them.

 

[westwall]

Conservative Republicans forced Congress to pass the Civil Rights bill over the massive protestations of the Democratic party...led by Al Gores father. The evidence doesn't support your contention.

And all those racist Democrats became Republicans shortly after. Rather dishonest of you to leave that little detail out, don't you think?

So, why all the hatred of this professor for stating common sense? It appears he committed the sin of being politically incorrect by talking about population growth. Since the American economy is modelled after a cancer cell -- unrestricted eternal population growth -- talking about ending population growth is sort of talking treason. Trouble is, a finite amount of land can't support an infinite population. Growth has to stop sometime. It's hard no matter how you do it (see Japan's example), but it's a lot harder if it gets to the point where nature does it.

As far as the USA goes, it's easy. Heavily restrict immigration, and the USA hits zero population growth quickly. However, no politician on either side wants that. But I do. It's not that I don't want Mexicans here, it's that I don't want anyone here, and restricting immigration is the only realistic way to achieve that.

And by the way, logic doesn't dictate that environmentalists should kill themselves. It dictates that environmentalists should kill conservatives, being conservatives are the raging environmental rapists. At least that's the logical conclusion of the conservative "environmentalists must kill those who are hurting the earth" logic. I don't hold to it, of course. I'm just pointing out that many conservatives are telling us about the necessity of killing them, and I think that's very strange.

They did? Do tell...and with links for every Senator that switched sides Ms. silly person.

 

[Barb]

Conservative Republicans forced Congress to pass the Civil Rights bill over the massive protestations of the Democratic party...led by Al Gores father. The evidence doesn't support your contention.

And all those racist Democrats became Republicans shortly after. Rather dishonest of you to leave that little detail out, don't you think?

So, why all the hatred of this professor for stating common sense? It appears he committed the sin of being politically incorrect by talking about population growth. Since the American economy is modelled after a cancer cell -- unrestricted eternal population growth -- talking about ending population growth is sort of talking treason. Trouble is, a finite amount of land can't support an infinite population. Growth has to stop sometime. It's hard no matter how you do it (see Japan's example), but it's a lot harder if it gets to the point where nature does it.

As far as the USA goes, it's easy. Heavily restrict immigration, and the USA hits zero population growth quickly. However, no politician on either side wants that. But I do. It's not that I don't want Mexicans here, it's that I don't want anyone here, and restricting immigration is the only realistic way to achieve that.

And by the way, logic doesn't dictate that environmentalists should kill themselves. It dictates that environmentalists should kill conservatives, being conservatives are the raging environmental rapists. At least that's the logical conclusion of the conservative "environmentalists must kill those who are hurting the earth" logic. I don't hold to it, of course. I'm just pointing out that many conservatives are telling us about the necessity of killing them, and I think that's very strange.

They did? Do tell...and with links for every Senator that switched sides Ms. silly person.

You ass. The switch, a la the southern strategy is the commonest knowledge.

George Wallace and the 1968 Election

George Wallace and electoral opposition to civil rights, 1968

Political analyst and Nixon campaigner Kevin Phillips, analysing 1948-1968 voting trends, viewed these rebellious Southern voters as ripe for Republican picking. In The Emerging Republican Majority (Arlington House, 1969), he correctly predicted that the Republican party would shift its national base to the South by appealing to whites' disaffection with liberal democratic racial and welfare policies. President Nixon shrewdly played this "Southern strategy" by promoting affirmative action in employment, a "wedge" issue that later Republicans would exploit to split the Democratic coalition of white working class and black voters. (See John Skrentny, The Ironies of Affirmative Action (U Chicago Press, 1996)). This strategy soon produced the racial party alignments that prevail today.

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

By Mike Allen
Thursday, July 14, 2005

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."