WTF? (planetary 1-child law)

[☭proletarian☭]

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?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

So Laura just mentioned this and this is the first thing Google gave me

Canada’s National Newspaper calls for Worldwide One Child Policy

The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.

A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.

WTF?!

The whole point of preserving the planet is so humans can continue to enjoy it, yes? Is not prescribing the forced reduction of the human population counter-intuitive? Is not the right to reproduce among the most fundamental of all rights? What if a woman ends up pregnant? Will they equire her by law to have an abortion and use physical force if she refuses? What the hell is going on in these peoples' minds?

Earth has enough resources to support the current population (and more) if the problem of distribution is overcome, and populations are self-regulatory in that no population will remain above the level that can be supported by available resources (aid counting as available resources)- leaving their arguments empty anyway.

Someone explain this to me; I just don't get it.

How many people do you think the Earth can support 10-20-30-100 BILLION? As for not overproducing you are DEAD WRONG the most impovershed countries have VERY high birth rates.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

 

[Anguille]

How many people do you think the Earth can support 10-20-30-100 BILLION? As for not overproducing you are DEAD WRONG the most impovershed countries have VERY high birth rates.

And the highest infantile death rates. But maybe prole is happy with that.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

How many people do you think the Earth can support 10-20-30-100 BILLION? As for not overproducing you are DEAD WRONG the most impovershed countries have VERY high birth rates.

And the highest infantile death rates.

Pop quiz: does a mortality rate have a positive or negative effect on the population level? I'll give you a hint: dying is basically the opposite of being born.

Funny that you now try to change the subject from forced sterilization to save the polar bears to forced sterilization to prevent dying infants. why have you left the original argument you people were making? Is it because you know you've no leg to stand on?

 

[Anguille]

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.

 

[Anguille]

How many people do you think the Earth can support 10-20-30-100 BILLION? As for not overproducing you are DEAD WRONG the most impovershed countries have VERY high birth rates.

And the highest infantile death rates.

Pop quiz: does a mortality rate have a positive or negative effect on the population level? I'll give you a hint: dying is basically the opposite of being born.

Funny that you now try to change the subject from forced sterilization to save the polar bears to forced sterilization to prevent dying infants. why have you left the original argument you people were making? Is it because you know you've no leg to stand on?

Show me where I advocated for forced sterilization. What polar bears? Before you start handing out pop quizzes, you need to take some remedial reading courses.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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).

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Well that sick ass breeding machine cranked out her NINETEENTH CHILD>>>>> Fucking SICK the human body is not meant to have children for 14-58 years old......


How about THIS for a simple somlution.......Child tax credit limited to the first two children. What is the tax credit now $3,500 PER CHILD!!! I figure Octomom gets SIX FIGURES in tax credits and welfare for her children. I think two or three are disabled of some sort or another so she collects SS insurance for them PLUS child tax credit.


So for all of you "CONSERVATIVES" you should agree with capping the credit at TWO children. You should be 100% behind my idea so let's here how all you "CONSERVATIVES" will attack my idea......I don't nor will I have any children and I am a bit sick of SUBSIDIZING other peoples BREEDING!!! WTF should I have to pay for OTHERS desire to BREED!!!??? I already pay property tax for schools but I am o.k. with that because I see the social GOOD of an educated populace but I am SICK AND FUCKING TIRED of paying taxes to go to people who have 4-5-6-9-10--12 children!!!!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

And the highest infantile death rates.

Pop quiz: does a mortality rate have a positive or negative effect on the population level? I'll give you a hint: dying is basically the opposite of being born.

Funny that you now try to change the subject from forced sterilization to save the polar bears to forced sterilization to prevent dying infants. why have you left the original argument you people were making? Is it because you know you've no leg to stand on?

Show me where I advocated for forced sterilization.

You can't have a worldwide 1-child law and enforce it without forced sterilizations and forced abortions. It is a necessary component of any attempt to effectively implement such a reduction of the human population (I wouldn't be surprised in genocide went along with it as it has in the past).

What polar bears?

Read the fucking OP. Do you even know what this thread is about?

 

[Care4all]

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.

and even genetic modifications that are copyrighted, which increases initial yields, can lead to less food in the long run, for those who need it the most...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

How about THIS for a simple somlution.......Child tax credit limited to the first two children. What is the tax credit now $3,500 PER CHILD!!! I figure Octomom gets SIX FIGURES in tax credits and welfare for her children. I think two or three are disabled of some sort or another so she collects SS insurance for them PLUS child tax credit.

...don't let people use their kids live off the people's tax dollar...

Make people be responsible for their children and we'll be fine. We had no problems for the last 6000 years.

talk to maggie. making people support their children is evil

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

and even genetic modifications that are copyrighted, which increases initial yields, can lead to less food in the long run, for those who need it the most...

A fine argument against capitalism and copyrights when it comes to the means of producing food...

since you have no objection to the technology itself based on your post, I expect your support in the future

 

[Navy1960]

The challenge of growing twice as much food by 2050 to feed nine billion people—with less and less land—is everyone’s problem. But scientists are hard at work fomenting a second green revolution.
The Future of Farming: Eight Solutions For a Hungry World | Popular Science

This is a good article on the subject.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

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.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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.

YOU are the one who CLAIMED that populations are SELF-REGULATORY and I called you out ans said BS. In FACT on the front page of my Sunday paper....."POPULATION BOOM in AFRICA traps many children in poverty"........The ONLY way mankind will "SELF REGULATE" is if we build a germ so deadly that it has a high transmition rate and a VERY high mortality rate, 80-90% and accidentally let it loose. Or mother nature may take care of that by creating her OWN bio-weapon that has similar results. HUMANS ARE, IN FACT, the ONLY species that overbreeds.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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).

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!!!!

Atlanta GA nearly RAN OUT OF WATER which they get from resivors that were damn near EMPTY due to years of drought.

And third we have NO IDEA what genetically modified crops will do in the long term, NONE WHAT SO EVER.

Oh and fouth honey bees are mysteriously DYING!!! Whole populations of BEES needed for polilnation for crops to grow are MYSTERIOUSLY DYING OFF!!! What do you think that may do to world crop production? INCREASE or DECREASE!!!???

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

 

[☭proletarian☭]

YOU are the one who CLAIMED that populations are SELF-REGULATORY

Yep. There can be only as many people as there are enough resources for. That's why people die during droughts and famine.

"POPULATION BOOM in AFRICA traps many children in poverty".......

We give them just enough aid to barely sustain the population in a starving state. Cut off the aid, they stare, and the population drops. Increase aid, and the increase in resources allows for a greater population to bee maintained (fior instance, by lowering the infnt mortality rae because the infants actually have food)

HUMANS ARE, IN FACT, the ONLY species that overbreeds.

Ever heard of a superswarm of locusts? What do you think happens when they eat all the crops (deplete the available resources and experience a drop in the resources available to them)? I'lll give you a hint: they don't keep living in such great numbers. bacterial infections overpopulate all the time, depleting their resources (killing the host more quickly than it can recover). Any bacteria unable to find a new host (iI don't recall whether bacteria form cysts like viruses to survive win stasis) will die. Rabbits are known to do the same thing, much to the dismay of farmers.

The only difference is that our technology and distribution can sustain artificially higher populations longer, sometimes allowing for a surplus of resources that allows a population far above what would be possible without such means of production and distribution. Any time that surplus is disrupted (such as the Dust Bowl), the available resources fall and the population drops as people die from starvation, thirst, and disease.

It's all quite simple, really. If you can't grasp that, I can only imagine you're also a Keyensian who gets confused every time the artificial bubble bursts and and the economy falls.

 

[☭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

 

[Navy1960]

Cold, what comes to mind here is the China "one child policy" because as I hear most of the advocates for this sort of thing, that is what sort of what they wish to see. You do realize that even with such a policy in place China's population is still growing by 10 Million people a year? A few statistics on China

China's total fertility rate is 1.7, which means that, on average, each woman gives birth to 1.7 children throughout her life. The necessary total fertility rate for a stable population is 2.1; nonetheless, China's population is expected to grow over the next few decades. This can be attributed to immigration and a decrease in infant mortality and a decrease in death rate as national health improves.
China Population - The Population of China

Perhaps, as I 've tried to say before, that if you improve the lives of people, through education, food, living conditions, then eventually they will not feel the need to have so many Children. Where I part company with the advocates for this sort of thing, is who is to make that decision, on who is to have Children, you , me? especially for other nations in which we have no say so in their destiny. That sort of thinking leads eventually to the path of one methof of population control known as war and genocide, when personally I like to think that we as a people can offer better solutions that just advocating forced birth control.