STOP HAVING KIDS

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Dec 8 2006, 12:41 PM) [snapback]359317[/snapback]</div>

I'd argue that the OP and many subsequent are being a bit judgmental of people with children. Out of line? I guess not if you agree with the judgment.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 8 2006, 06:41 PM) [snapback]359535[/snapback]</div>

That was exactly my point about the OP. It's hyperbole, and I was using hyperbole in response. Now I know that most people (unfortunately) won't just kill themselves in response to this post because they SELFISHLY love life more than they love the idea of the planet or the human race continuing on in a sustainable way (admit it, you do too).

But for some people, having children is almost as little a matter of choice as continuing to live. Now before people get all bent out of shape about that statement, think about it. I'm not trying to make excuses for someone with children, I'm saying that there are a lot of people in the world who wouldn't or COULDN'T consider NOT having children as an option. To me that seems like the real problem to address. If a few people who drive slightly more energy efficient cars decide not to have kids... I don't think that's really a global solution to over-population.

And I just have to say in response to all the talk about China: If you love their idea so much, go live there. I'm sure you'll like the way their society is structured.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Dec 9 2006, 10:50 AM) [snapback]359708[/snapback]</div>

Why is it that whenever someone says they like something somewhere else, someone who has nothing to say to counter that responds that the person should move there? And I am not talking about just in respect to having kids. I hear this response all the time and I just don't understand that. Does that mean we can't bring ideas and see how others are doing certain things and talk about it?
If I like something in another country does not mean that I like everything there. So why should I move there?
Today I might tell you that I like something , but tomorrow I might tell you about somethng I don't like in a particular country, should I be moving back and fourth?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black2006 @ Dec 8 2006, 05:41 PM) [snapback]359535[/snapback]</div>

well that's great and all, but thanks to the vast reach of a certain belief system, family planning is seen as a horrible sin in many places...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Dec 9 2006, 10:41 AM) [snapback]359777[/snapback]</div>

Well maybe in the future that particular mythological system will be dead once people realize it doesn't work, or it will just adapt like it has been doing. Kinda like all the other systems that have died in the past.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Dec 9 2006, 01:46 PM) [snapback]359780[/snapback]</div>

It's been around over 2000 years, and doesn't show any signs of fading...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 9 2006, 10:50 AM) [snapback]359786[/snapback]</div>

I disagree. The vast majority of people I talk to now label themselves as spiritual but not religious. IE they like the idea of god but the other stuff associated with religion is not for them. Its a start of something IMO.

Regardless, this doesn't really need to be a religion thread. The point is that with our current level of consumption there is no way that the planet can support our population indefinately and if the population grows.... My guess is infectious disease will fix alot of that. Or the nukes will. :/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Dec 9 2006, 02:03 PM) [snapback]359793[/snapback]</div>

i agree. i didn't mean for this to turn to religion but i did want to point out that opposing a group's belief system won't get you far.

anyway, the black plague seemed to knock out a substantial percent of the population way back when, but now that we have medical science and understand the spread of disease i doubt that will do the same trick anymore unless people completely disregard precautions...

 

Yes I was being silly when I said "move to China," but I still think it's more silly to hold them up as a model solution.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 9 2006, 01:10 PM) [snapback]359731[/snapback]</div>

So, I know it sounds like I've argued against the "stop having kids" thing, but I'm really on the same side, I just initially reacted to the over-the-top suggestion because it's not realistic and it's impossible to implement or enforce except by individual will...

Fertility clinics really should be banned though! It's all about people with either the wrong priorities in their lives (having kids WAY too late in life), or people with no Darwinian right to be having kids. A coworker of mine has a sister and brother-in-law, both of whom are incapable of reproducing naturally. I mean, either one of them would be enough to nix children, but here we are with two people incapable of reproducing. But do they take God's advice? No, instead they have an egg extracted from her, sperm extracted from him, eggs fertilized in vitro, and fertilized eggs deposited in... her mother. So now this 50+ year old woman is going to bear her own grandchild.

Apparently it's not all that uncommon either. <_<

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Dec 9 2006, 11:11 AM) [snapback]359798[/snapback]</div>

My guess is starvation unless some new deadly diseases come along that are worse than the ones we have now.

I have been wondering why the human race is engaged in an experiment to see how many people can fit on the surface of the earth. Despite religion and "belief systems" can't people see the end result will be an unprecedented disaster? can't they do the arithmetic?

How many people should there be to survive indefinitely, just enough to have a viable gene pool I would say a few million at most. Socially any more people than you can know in a lifetime are wasted anyway.

 

The number I see most common is somewhere around half a billion people. This would allow everyone to live comfortably and not strain the system. Obviously this is not realisitc but this is what I read most often in books centered on ecology and philosophy.

 

I'm pleased and impressed to find so many PCers discussing human over-population. I thought I was one of very few who even recognize that this is the number one problem facing the world today. Global warming is caused primarily from over-population; disease and malnutrition in 3rd world countries are almost always caused by over-population; tribal and other kinds of warfare are often caused from over-population. These, and many other, world problems can be resolved with population control.

Unfortunately, population control is much easier said than done. The education level and understanding of various cultures, as well as religious beliefs, lead many people to reproduce without even a second thought or consideration of the impact that another child will have on their eco-footprint. That's understandable, though, so where do you start to resolve the problem? Do you presume to go into towns and villages and "educate" people, telling them they shouldn't have more than x number of children? What if they, as a community, just don't agree with your theories about over-population or your conclusions about how to solve the problem? What if they just don't care? Do you then force them to practice birth control methods? How? Obviously, the solution to making people "see the light" is not an easy one.

That's where national and international policy comes in to play. You may not be able to force people in some other country to practice birth control, but you can implement population control measures into your international trade agreements, as was mentioned previously. Tie trade agreements to a standard of how green a country is, both is terms of their carbon footprint and their population control efforts. You will be seen by many as trying to dictate to other countries how they should live, but you are actually just providing them an incentive to clean up their act. After all, you aren't forcing them to do anything, and they don't have to trade with you (it's ironic that we Americans have one of the largest eco-footprints on the planet. A case of "do as I say, not as I do?"). Closing our borders is another way to keep down our own population growth. And I mean closing them down so that immigration, both legal and illegal, becomes a trickle rather than the flood that it currently is. Yes, that's being selfish with our country, but it's also being pragmatic with our limited resources.

Finally, Americans just simply have to get over the emotionally weak beliefs they have that every human is important and deserves to live, no matter the cost. It's easy to be altruistic when you live in an empire that is so unbelievably easy to survive in that you can afford to feel guilty and therefore give food to someone else. But look at human nature and the struggle for survival in a more basic, and biological, light and it becomes clear that it's frequently the more practical choice to allow someone else to die of their own accord. If their environment isn't conducive to sustaining a certain sized population, then they're just going to have to die off until they reach a more sustainable number of people in a certain area. Americans constantly provide free food and medical resources to other countries which only serves to artificially extend lives that would, and should, naturally have been allowed to die off, otherwise. That's why I don't believe in any of these "Save the Children" efforts. Why would I want to save children, or anyone else, in another country who would naturally have died due to the lack of life sustaining resources in their environment?

I'm sure that my views appear extremely heartless, selfish, and cold to many other people, but they're derived from an actual belief system which is based on logical thinking. I try to be pragmatic in my approach to issues and to maintain an objective distance from otherwise emotionally charged issues, which is what I believe is required to solve problems like this. At some point we just have to start making tough choices and following those up with reliable implementation or we're going to outstrip this planet's ability to keep us alive.
[/soapbox]

Vince

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Dec 9 2006, 12:28 PM) [snapback]359815[/snapback]</div>

I don't see it as heartless. It part of the greater good idea. And technically is the only sustainable way to continue living on this planet as of right now. Hard to swallow yes, but reality often is.

 

I'm curious of the Zero Child people are outraged at Bill Clinton and Bill Gates?

Do we really want to be helping the aids problem in Africa if world population is the problem? Do we want Clinton's drug deal for them so they can all live another 5 years each and give birth to even more kids while they are dieing?

Why are we spending money on Stem Cell research and even more, why not drop the embryonic stem cell research so that we can all die earlier rather than later?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daronspicher @ Dec 9 2006, 04:54 PM) [snapback]359913[/snapback]</div>

I am not sure that I find the above a logical follow-up question.

Don't some see the difference between a REAL, sentient being, living in the present, with clear awareness of their own existence, and the IDEA of future beings, who are nothing more than a hypothetical possibility?

Nobody is arguing that we should all die to make space. And nobody is calling for "Zero Child" (it is actually called "Zero Growth" policy: a concept allowing for just over 2 children per family.) I believe most are arguing for a maximum of one child, which, if implemented, would actually lead to a fairly rapid reduction of population, and alleviate the problem. China actually did have a real overpopulation problem, with starvation and disease (of REAL beings) as consequence, but at least they had enough sense to try to do something about it. Places like India, Africa, the Middle East and parts of South America don't seems to have that sense.

It is also true, that the developed world bears some of the blame, because it provided and continues to provide the technology and know-how to support the survival of larger and larger populations in these regions, but without demanding, promoting, and implementing family planning (which does include birth control and abortion.)

As to stem cell research, it has already helped some REAL, LIVING beings, and it has enormous potential to help many, many more, including, I am sure, some on this forum. It amazes me that some of the most promising research is being stifled, because of the self-delusions of some (including our Born-Again President.) But what on earth does it have to do with over-population?! The exponential population increase is due to people having too many kids, not to people living longer. Get it?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Dec 8 2006, 10:13 AM) [snapback]359333[/snapback]</div>

As much as some countries have high birth rates there is also death rates to consider. My mother is nearly 91, poor mobility, eyesight and hearing but healthy heart. When she has been in the hospital she tells them she wants life support if something happens! Our need to extend life at the cost of quality of life is also something to consider.

Nature will take care of population; floods, hurricanes, volcanoes, diseases. She could use some help though in resource management because humans are arrogant and most refuse to conserve.

I had 1 child and I drive the Prius!

 

Interesting responses. I almost feel like I'm back reading the "Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich. Did any of his dire predictions come true?

How many of you are less than 30 years old? By Dr. Ehrlich's prediction, just as strongly believed THEN as any prediction about GW or other pending disasters are now, you should have been prevented from being born.

I guess the advantage of being 50 is that you've seen every nihilistic fad at least once already, and you aren't fooled so easily.

The world is not overpopulated. It isn't a space problem: even with 6 billion people, all of us could live in the state of Texas on 1/8th acre of land. It isn't a food problem, because we can grow enough food in the midwest to feed the entire population. There isn't an "out of control" birth rate problem: in 1950, families in developing countries had about 6 children. Today that number is 3. The birthrate is going down, and so much so that in Europe many governments are starting campaigns to encourage couples to have children. It isn't a problem with Christianity, as that most Catholic of nations, Italy, has a birth rate of 1.2 children per couple, and they are giving cash payments to couples to have kids.

And yes, we should keep trying to save the children, because lowering greenhouse emissions, reducing our "carbon footprint", and hugging trees doesn't mean squat unless its for alleviating human suffering. This rock will survive with or without GW. The only question is if humans will be here, and if the children will be saved.