WTF? (planetary 1-child law)

[☭proletarian☭]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Navy1960 again.

he gets it!

 

[Cold Fusion38]

So let's see about increased food production..........HORMONES, INSECTICIDES, FERTILIZERS, GENETIC MANIPULATION........Did I mention how GREAT we thought DDT was?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So let's see about increased food production..........HORMONES, INSECTICIDES, FERTILIZERS, GENETIC MANIPULATION........Did I mention how GREAT we thought DDT was?

wow.. we were wrong about one thing... we should stop farming, go back to living like naked Africans, and sacrifice any children beyond the first to Gaia...

Crown vics and Pintos caught fire, does that mean electric cars are evil?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

remember when we thought mercury-based preservatives weren't a problem? We should stop using penicillin and Purel immediately!!!!!!!!!!


Cold, you're the dumbest fucking scaremonger I've seen on this board

 

[Navy1960]

Thats exactly the reason why I offered in a previous post a few examples of new methods of food production Cold. Of course no one wants DDT or harmful things like that, or at least I hope not, but frankly I like to think we can solve this issue. One thing that I have seen in my career is the sheer number of people the world over that live in poverty, and even though some may not agree with me, I have come to believe that if we address just that little part of it, it will provide a firm foundation in which to build from. If we and other nations put as much effort as we did in building Missile technology to uplifting the poor and no I'm not talking about giving handouts. here, I'm talking about true help, roads, bridges, schools, dams, etc. then that effort will eventually be rewarded in my opinion with a new generation of young people that want more than those that came before them and that includes a world not so crowded.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well first of all DDT didn't have long term effects until it HAD long term effects. Second there is only SO MUCH WATER.........People need to drink it to live and crops need it to grow........IT IS A FINATE SOURCE YOU FUCKNG MORON!!!!

So? You're the one arguing that the available resources have nothing to do with how many people there can be. By your reason, we can have 3 trillion people living on the moon.

I'm sorry pal but you have shown in three posts that you have NO CLUE about Ecology.

says the idiot who thinks people don't need food to live

WTF I am the one who IS talking about RESOURCES!!! You are the fucking fool who isn't. You are the dumb fucker who thinks the planet can sustain as many people as we WANT it to.


You ALSO ignore the FACT that ALL those niffty ways to increase crop yields could EASILY have long term effects. Ever hear how the effects of hormones to make cows produce more milk have BUILT UP in girls bodies? They are maturing earlier than they should. TEN YEAR OLDS HAVING MENSTRAL CYCLES!!!! You just can't see past the PROMISE of tomorrow to the TERROR of the future if we CONTINUE to fuck with nature.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Thats exactly the reason why I offered in a previous post a few examples of new methods of food production Cold. Of course no one wants DDT or harmful things like that, or at least I hope not, but frankly I like to think we can solve this issue. One thing that I have seen in my career is the sheer number of people the world over that live in poverty, and even though some may not agree with me, I have come to believe that if we address just that little part of it, it will provide a firm foundation in which to build from. If we and other nations put as much effort as we did in building Missile technology to uplifting the poor and no I'm not talking about giving handouts. here, I'm talking about true help, roads, bridges, schools, dams, etc. then that effort will eventually be rewarded in my opinion with a new generation of young people that want more than those that came before them and that includes a world not so crowded.

a hand up....

Spoken like a true delusional Utopian liberal

You forgot one thing: If you want Americans to do it, you have to convince them that they'll go to hell for eternity if they don't and/or that there's money to be made

 

[Shorebreak]

most respectable people only have 1 or 2 kids anyway. this will help curb the overtaking of the world by ignorant poor people who cant keep their dick out of every girl they come across. I have been for sterilization of people unfit to raise kids for a long time.

So long as you're the one who gets to decide whose unfit, I bet.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

So let's see about increased food production..........HORMONES, INSECTICIDES, FERTILIZERS, GENETIC MANIPULATION........Did I mention how GREAT we thought DDT was?

wow.. we were wrong about one thing... we should stop farming, go back to living like naked Africans, and sacrifice any children beyond the first to Gaia...

Crown vics and Pintos caught fire, does that mean electric cars are evil?

You are the one who wants to pretend that there are no LONG TERM effects. We have NO FUCKING IDEA what these methods of increased production will do in 10-20-30 years and by that time it may be impossible to reverse.


Have you had long enough to consider the massive die-offs of bees?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Well first of all DDT didn't have long term effects until it HAD long term effects. Second there is only SO MUCH WATER.........People need to drink it to live and crops need it to grow........IT IS A FINATE SOURCE YOU FUCKNG MORON!!!!

So? You're the one arguing that the available resources have nothing to do with how many people there can be. By your reason, we can have 3 trillion people living on the moon.

I'm sorry pal but you have shown in three posts that you have NO CLUE about Ecology.

says the idiot who thinks people don't need food to live

WTF I am the one who IS talking about RESOURCES!!! You are the fucking fool who isn't.

I can accept that w/o some massive technological explosion in space colonization there is a chance we'll reach the point of a 20 billion human planet. How about 40 billion?

Perhaps at that time a universally applied "replacement voucher" system could be necessary.

Something like "117 year old Myrtle has died so now you're permitted to have a child".

Superficially I would think this would lead to about 1.9 children per couple.

The population will never remain higher than Earth can support. It's self-regulating like that (if we stop feeding Africa, the population will drop to a sustainable level). What right do you have to arbitrarily decide what a 'desirable' population is for Earth and prevent others from reproducing to fit your twisted vision? What justification can you possibly offer for forced abortions, forced sterilization, and the other horrendous acts necessary to carry out your vision?

How many people do you think the Earth can support 10-20-30-100 BILLION?

Depends on the methods used to harvest resources. Modern farming techniques enable much larger populations to be sustained, for instance.

As for not overproducing you are DEAD WRONG the most impovershed countries have VERY high birth rates.

You went from overpopulation to high birth rates. Are you retarded? Those are two different things. Population is a function of both birth and mortality, as well as em- and -immigration.

Depends on the methods used to harvest resources. Modern farming techniques enable much larger populations to be sustained, for instance.

In the short term but not in the long term when you consider what the ultimate effects of increased petrochemical based fertilizer and insecticide will be.

Superlocusts?

There exist fertilizers with no significant long-term negative environmental impact. The right fertilizers combined with crop rotation, selective breeding, and possibly genetics in the future, allow for a level of sustainable production unheard of 1000 years ago. Aquifers and irrigation revolutionized farming a few thousand years ago, and farming itself allowed much larger populations to be maintained than hunter-gatherer societies could sustain.

Modern distribution has allowed food to be sent far from where its grown, allowing nations like the US to have a massive population even in areas with little farmable land (sending food from Kansas to Arizona, for instance) and even allowing artificially high populations to be sustained in Africa (without US aid, the population would fall drastically and the natural regulators of such things would soon restore the population to a sustainable level).

Much of the problem is less an issue of resources than of distribution. Americans waste enough food every year (half a burger @ MCDs, for instance) to feed a lot of people.

Moron

You ALSO ignore the FACT that ALL those niffty ways to increase crop yields could EASILY have long term effects. Ever hear how the effects of hormones to make cows produce more milk have BUILT UP in girls bodies? They are maturing earlier than they should. TEN YEAR OLDS HAVING MENSTRAL CYCLES!!!!

Do you have evidence thaT COW'S MILK IS TO BLAME?

How much of it is diet and social factors?

You just can't see past the PROMISE of tomorrow to the TERROR of the future if we CONTINUE to fuck with nature.

You're too busy being an ignorant fear-monger to see that iif done carefully, emerging technologies could help alleviate Man's burden of trying to sustain himself when he is born in an area with precious few resources. I guess the fact that we could develop Dioxin means we shouldn't put Aloe Vera on sunburns, take asprin, or fix a man's broken arm.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Father absence and age at menarche

 

[Navy1960]

Thats exactly the reason why I offered in a previous post a few examples of new methods of food production Cold. Of course no one wants DDT or harmful things like that, or at least I hope not, but frankly I like to think we can solve this issue. One thing that I have seen in my career is the sheer number of people the world over that live in poverty, and even though some may not agree with me, I have come to believe that if we address just that little part of it, it will provide a firm foundation in which to build from. If we and other nations put as much effort as we did in building Missile technology to uplifting the poor and no I'm not talking about giving handouts. here, I'm talking about true help, roads, bridges, schools, dams, etc. then that effort will eventually be rewarded in my opinion with a new generation of young people that want more than those that came before them and that includes a world not so crowded.

a hand up....

Spoken like a true delusional Utopian liberal

You forgot one thing: If you want Americans to do it, you have to convince them that they'll go to hell for eternity if they don't and/or that there's money to be made

To bad I'm a lifelong Republican Cold lol, liberal is not a word often attached to me, however it means that I am advocating for making the world a better place for those that come after me then so be it. I do think however, that theres a LOT of money to be made, in doing this, those roads, schools, dams, bridges, etc. and I don't think you will have to look hard for the number of companies to do it should enough money a resources be put into doing it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I was using liberal in the sense of p Classical Liberal Idealism. I think it's applicable here.

Such actions can only bring about long-term success, however, with major changes to the sociopolitical makeup of the region in many places. Put a bunch of people from Uganda in New York city and they'll turn it into Uganda if they still think the same way.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

So? You're the one arguing that the available resources have nothing to do with how many people there can be. By your reason, we can have 3 trillion people living on the moon.


says the idiot who thinks people don't need food to live

WTF I am the one who IS talking about RESOURCES!!! You are the fucking fool who isn't.

Moron

You ALSO ignore the FACT that ALL those niffty ways to increase crop yields could EASILY have long term effects. Ever hear how the effects of hormones to make cows produce more milk have BUILT UP in girls bodies? They are maturing earlier than they should. TEN YEAR OLDS HAVING MENSTRAL CYCLES!!!!

Do you have evidence thaT COW'S MILK IS TO BLAME?

How much of it is diet and social factors?

You just can't see past the PROMISE of tomorrow to the TERROR of the future if we CONTINUE to fuck with nature.

You're too busy being an ignorant fear-monger to see that iif done carefully, emerging technologies could help alleviate Man's burden of trying to sustain himself when he is born in an area with precious few resources. I guess the fact that we could develop Dioxin means we shouldn't put Aloe Vera on sunburns, take asprin, or fix a man's broken arm.

And you are too busy ASSUMING that chemical incecticides will not show LONG TERM effects. What is long term to you TWO years TEN you have no fucking CLUE what could result from ALL THESE DIFFERENT chemicals could be. Shit it may just STERILIZE us wouldn't THAT be a twist of fate.



Oh have I even mentioned what is in the WATER supply? Look it up I am sure you will just say it is GOOD to have pharmesuticles in our water supply.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Thats exactly the reason why I offered in a previous post a few examples of new methods of food production Cold. Of course no one wants DDT or harmful things like that, or at least I hope not, but frankly I like to think we can solve this issue. One thing that I have seen in my career is the sheer number of people the world over that live in poverty, and even though some may not agree with me, I have come to believe that if we address just that little part of it, it will provide a firm foundation in which to build from. If we and other nations put as much effort as we did in building Missile technology to uplifting the poor and no I'm not talking about giving handouts. here, I'm talking about true help, roads, bridges, schools, dams, etc. then that effort will eventually be rewarded in my opinion with a new generation of young people that want more than those that came before them and that includes a world not so crowded.

a hand up....

Spoken like a true delusional Utopian liberal

You forgot one thing: If you want Americans to do it, you have to convince them that they'll go to hell for eternity if they don't and/or that there's money to be made

To bad I'm a lifelong Republican Cold lol, liberal is not a word often attached to me, however it means that I am advocating for making the world a better place for those that come after me then so be it. I do think however, that theres a LOT of money to be made, in doing this, those roads, schools, dams, bridges, etc. and I don't think you will have to look hard for the number of companies to do it should enough money a resources be put into doing it.

Uh confused? I don't think I commented on your political leanings.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

And you are too busy ASSUMING that chemical incecticides will not show LONG TERM effects

Do cite where I said any such thing. I never advocated using DDT or other contemporary chemical insecticides, dumbass.

So you support forced sterilization because the population isn't naturally limited by available resources because the population is limited by available resources and DDT is evil...

Perhaps you should read the thread again fro the beginning.

 

[del]

"oil" as an energy source will never become obsolete,

I wonder if people used to think that about steam and slavepower...

...which are both still widely used.

 

[Toronado3800]

The population will never remain higher than Earth can support. It's self-regulating like that (if we stop feeding Africa, the population will drop to a sustainable level). What right do you have to arbitrarily decide what a 'desirable' population is for Earth and prevent others from reproducing to fit your twisted vision? What justification can you possibly offer for forced abortions, forced sterilization, and the other horrendous acts necessary to carry out your vision?

For any given level of technology there is a limit to the population the earth can sustain.

My goal would be to create a stable world. I have a theory mass upheaval and resource shortages lead to dramatic changes. Also I notice the cruddiest parts of the world seem to be the worst off politically so I'd like to keep the whole planet from heading that way.

My idea of what gives "me" the right to enforce any means of population control on folks is the same idea that allows me to impose the Constitution of the U.S. on folks in Minnesota who belong to a libertarian militia. For the general welfare of the United States we force me not to drive faster than 60mph to work even though I could get there faster and be more productive. We also regulate what kinds of pesticides I can use next door to your house. We also regulate how many people I can have living in my house, or attending a concert.

For the general welfare we collect taxes from me to pay for our military and some nuclear weapons I'd prefer never to have to use. Even if its against my neighbor's ideals he has decided this representative government is generally the best idea so he'll pay taxes to support a war in Iraq or elsewhere even though he voted against it.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

For any given level of technology there is a limit to the population the earth can sustain.

I'd say it's both technology and available, sustainable resources

My goal would be to create a stable world. I

Then focus on resources. If men didn't have to struggle for resources, much of the world's strife would cease. Rather than creating strife by trying to wipe people out, strive to increase prosperity.


You want to argue general welfare? You are harming the vast majority of humanity by depriving them of a right to reproduce and start have a family. You deny one of the most fundamental biological liberties and what is widely held to be the most basic means of emotional fulfillment. By treating humanity strictly as a virus, you deny, in effect, the right for Mankind as a whole and people as individuals to exist and bring into existence other people. If you wish to bring Utilitarian ethics into the mix, you'll find yourself on the wrong end of it,

 

[Rozman]

aww, touched a nerve.
do you get upset when people call round, shiny red fruits *apples*?
how about if the govt euthanizes childless people over the age of 40?
much less disruptive of families with the same end result.
plus we could then redistribute their accumulated wealth to other, more deserving poor people.

and, it's still fascism-a win-win for the govt knows best group

More like I touched a nerve with you.



What does your rant about euthanizing childless couples have to do with the question of how to ethically reduce overpopulation by lowering the birthrate?

I guess you were unable to answer my question so you threw out a strawman.

doofus!

no strawman. what use to childless people serve?

they don't help to improve the gene pool, which is the reason for human life.

if the goal is population reduction, why should euthanasia not be considered?

The childless people will be considered an elite part of society.They have no emotional
attachment to people that have too many children. They will be better able to handle the situation..

Look where we are now as a society. We reward people who are baby making factories
with fame fortune and tv shows. anyone ever hear of Jon and Kate plus 8,or Octomom,
who by the way is considering having babies again because she is not happy with the label Octomom that people gave her.