These sentiments have been around for a long time. According to this author... the solution to the problem of global warming is very simple...
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438
QuoteThe real inconvenient truth
The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy
Diane Francis, Financial Post
Published: Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.
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.
The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate.
Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world's leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.
The intelligence behind this is the following:
-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world's population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.
-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world's forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.
-Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.
Humans are the only rational animals but have yet to prove it. Medical and other scientific advances have benefited by delivering lower infant mortality rates as well as longevity. Both are welcome, but humankind has not yet recalibrated its behavior to account for the fact that the world can only accommodate so many people, especially if billions get indoor plumbing and cars.
The fix is simple. It's dramatic. And yet the world's leaders don't even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.
None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world's big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control. And most political leaders in emerging economies perpetuate a disastrous Catch-22: Many children (i. e. sons) stave off hardship in the absence of a social safety net or economic development, which, in turn, prevents protections or development.
China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.
For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.
The point is that Copenhagen's talking points are beside the point.
The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures.
dfrancis@nationalpost.com
I may be off base, but it seems like a declining population would be unsustainable as well. To me it seems like many would go broke if the population decreased.
Fewer people equals less consumption, less consumption equals less demand, less demand equals loss of businesses.
Since most land is inhabited now, not the same issues we had in the 1700s, it would seem to me that we will see yearly or monthly meetings of the "greenhouse" gangs. What I find amusing is how the mature nations that comprise North America, Europe and Asia can tell the middle east, South America and African nations what they can and cannot do to contribute to greenhouse effects. How their economies are in their infancy using raw materials to grow their countries.
Really, its no different from an US versus THEM scenario. How do you tell families they cannot procreate anymore? That their life of breathing oxygen is more important than an unborn or that nature is not allowing anymore births in the animal kingdom? Someone better snip the rabbits.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm
QuotePopulation control called key to deal
By Li Xing (China Daily)
Updated: 2009-12-10 07:37
COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .
"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.
Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.
"Calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 percent of emissions growth," so stated by the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by the UN Population Fund.
Although China's family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China's population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society.
As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.
The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, "it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions".
Meanwhile, she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: "Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton" whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 electric vehicles.
She admitted that China's population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance.
"I'm not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I'm sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited," she said.
She said some 85 percent of the Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world. This has been achieved largely through education and improvement of people's lives, she said.
This holistic approach that integrates policy on population and development, a strategy promoting sustainable development of population, resources and environment should serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation, she said.
Psssh like that would ever happen here. All the jesus "freedom loving" freaks would cry out "We need to make more jesus babies cause god told us to! You can't deny our freedom to spawn 8 kids at a time!"
I do agree though that over population is a huge issue and it needs to be taken cared of on a global scale. At least the Chinese have it right.
Seeing that the officially atheist Chinese have contributed more to the population boom than anyone else maybe it's a problem of atheist freaks.
Seriously though, a 2006 study at the University of Michigan estimated that 98% of worldwide population in 2025 will be in underdeveloped countries especially in Africa which still averages 5 children per woman. The only thing that has dramatically slowed Africa's rate is the HIV epidemic. Most European birth rates are negative and North America has stabalized. The majority of population rise in these regions is due to immigration.
If any government, organization, or entity, believes it has the right to control the only basic, discernable purpose of life, then it should be fought at all costs.
Quote from: Reaper man on December 13, 2009, 01:54:34 AM
Psssh like that would ever happen here. All the jesus "freedom loving" freaks would cry out "We need to make more jesus babies cause god told us to! You can't deny our freedom to spawn 8 kids at a time!"
I do agree though that over population is a huge issue and it needs to be taken cared of on a global scale. At least the Chinese have it right.
So does thatmake you a Jesus hating, Freedom hating well adjusted person?
Hate breeders much?
Quote from: jaxnative on December 13, 2009, 02:02:48 PM
Seeing that the officially atheist Chinese have contributed more to the population boom than anyone else maybe it's a problem of atheist freaks.
One, they aren't all atheists over there. From my understanding the Chinese practice a number of faiths. Secondly, these freak atheists as you claim saw their overpopulation problem and decided to fix it. Where's the problem there?
Quote from: jaxnative on December 13, 2009, 02:02:48 PMIf any government, organization, or entity, believes it has the right to control the only basic, discernable purpose of life, then it should be fought at all costs.
We'll see if you hold the same opinion when our population gets to a point where it's impossible to have the resources to sustain all of us.
Quote from: buckethead on December 13, 2009, 02:11:14 PM
So does that make you a Jesus hating, Freedom hating well adjusted person?
Hate breeders much?
I would say I'm more of a hater of Christianity in general (and most other forms of organized religion). As for the freedom thing, I support it as long as it's reasonable. If the goverment limited my freedoms for the benefit of humanity in the long run, I'd gladly support it.
And just for your information, if I do have kids, there's no way in hell I'm having more than 2.
IIRC, the Nazis were limiting the freedom of Jews for the betterment of humanity... I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin".
I welcome you to have as few children as you see fit.
Quote from: buckethead on December 13, 2009, 04:33:50 PM
IIRC, the Nazis were limiting the freedom of Jews for the betterment of humanity... I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin".
Uhm, I think there's quite a difference between limiting one's freedoms and mass genocide. ;p
Quote from: Reaper man on December 13, 2009, 04:41:40 PM
Quote from: buckethead on December 13, 2009, 04:33:50 PM
IIRC, the Nazis were limiting the freedom of Jews for the betterment of humanity... I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin".
Uhm, I think there's quite a difference between limiting one's freedoms and mass genocide. ;p
You said you would gladly support any restrictions by a government on your freedoms if it was for the benefit of humanity. Are you suggesting that the Nazi party did not think their actions were appropriate? Did they not believe they were being reasonable and benefitting humanity?
What I think you meant to say was that you support any restrictions of your personal freedoms that
You find reasonable, so long as it is for the long term benefit of humanity.
That isn't how such things are decided.
Whoa...I'm almost tempted to get out my soapbox on "breeders" and "inbreeders". Nyah. You figure it out.
QuoteUhm, I think there's quite a difference between limiting one's freedoms and mass genocide.
Im glad you see that distinction...
Quote from: Reaper man on December 13, 2009, 01:54:34 AM
Psssh like that would ever happen here. All the jesus "freedom loving" freaks would cry out "We need to make more jesus babies cause god told us to! You can't deny our freedom to spawn 8 kids at a time!"
I do agree though that over population is a huge issue and it needs to be taken cared of on a global scale. At least the Chinese have it right.
Well one could define the differences as a religious one. But quite frankly its more between the relationship of the individual and the state. Does the state own the individual, certainly in china and other countries thats the case, but thank god not here. If thats attractive by all means advance that attitude, the eugenics fans would love that. But most of the first world is barely replacing themselves, most of europe and japan is in decline. The real issue is in the developing world, so maybe those koran thumping muslims or whatever the hindus thump may be more relevent.
The more ironic issue is that" Diane Francis" has two kids as you might guess posters are asking what one will she off to maintain her philosiphy. My guess is that she never would have thought those rules would be applied to her, just THOSE people you know the ones. The ones that don't go to the right schools, eat the right food, don't live in the right place, don't participate in the right social activities.
Since it takes two people to produce an offspring, then two people should produce two offspring in order to keep the population stable. Essentially each person reproduces his or herself.
Since wealthy nations have a stabilized or declining birth rate, I do think it is up to developing nations to limit the amount of children they produce. I could care less about most religious views that tell you to be fruitful and multiply. They should just have much less children. Let's spend global warming money on condoms, birth control pills and safety-nets for those people so they don't view children as a retirement investment.
Rich nations must cut down their carbon and consumption footprint. Resources are scare and much of the world would still like to develop too. Nations like ours can lead the way for other nations to about efficient, sustainable development. In exchange for our cost of cutting emissions and resources, it is only fair to ask developing nations to be responsible and push birth control as much as possible. As nations develop and become wealthier with more social safety-nets, children move from becoming assets to become liabilities that you spend money and time on educating, entertaining, nurturing and developing.
In our rich nation, someone really needs to send an over-consumption tax bill to the Duggar family, John & Kate, and Octo-mom. I don't believe in breeders. Those people act like dogs and cats having litters of babies.
Your reasoning, carried to it's inevitable outcome, ends with euthenasia and mass murder.
Let's just hope the only people killed are those like the Duggars, and others you disapprove of.
We need less people? Why wait?
Huh? How would it end with euthanasia? That is absurd. Developing nations can throw out economic incentives such as healthcare and social safety-nets (like retirement accounts) to families that have less children. Rich nations like ours could subsidize them with carbon taxes on any non-essential energy usage (like boating, planes, SUVs, fast cars, RVs, etc.) Besides, as developing nations become richer, people will naturally have less children because it becomes an economic hardship.
I also don't believe anyone should harm the Duggar family or anyone like that. At the same time, people like that should not be celebrated on television or even congratulated for their irresponsible and selfish behavior. Having 20 kids isn't exactly cute, it is just insane.
I definitely would not advocate an sort of forced euthanasia or murder.
The goal
Quote from: buckethead on December 13, 2009, 11:15:32 PM
Your reasoning, carried to it's inevitable outcome, ends with euthenasia and mass murder.
Let's just hope the only people killed are those like the Duggars, and others you disapprove of.
We need less people? Why wait?
The goal here is to eventually save lives, not place more value on life over another. We need all people in every country to become aware of the dangers of overpopulation, over-consumption and resource scarcity. if we all pitch in just a little bit, the entire world can gain a better standard of living and diminish the risk of famine, poverty and armed resource conflicts.
The goal is to save lives? The response seems like spin. Perhaps it's my feeble mind failing to grasp the nuance.
Does that mean you are in favor of mandatory reproductive restrictions over reproductive rights?
Should declining populations have more leeway over burgeoning segments of the population?
Should restrictions be placed on any nation, race, culture or creed while not on others? Who enforces, and how?
If we could just get a couple really smart people to decide who should be allowed to breed and when they may be permitted to do so, things would be better! Any volunteers?
QuoteAt least the Chinese have it right.
Do they? Their policy has resulted in untold abortions of female fetus and murders of female children in an effort to have a male offspring. Another unintended consequence of "getting it right" is a skewed ratio of males to females resulting in a lack of mates for males. The Chinese population continues to grow and is projected to do so until around 2030.
QuoteRich nations must cut down their carbon and consumption footprint.
This may very well be the eventual method used to force couples to comply with a one child policy.
QuoteHuh? How would it end with euthanasia? That is absurd.
Really? The beginnings of this debate are already in progress. Of course it is not called euthanasia... it is referred to as "high costs of medical care in life years gained". Why spend x amount of health care dollars to extend the life who is at the "end of life"?
Be careful what you ask for... you just may get it... :)
Have we really come to a point where we are wishing for the nanny state? This reeks of "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs". For years we have been told that a woman should have the right of choice and it is her body. Now we are willing to say she has the right of choice "Once". I hate to use the "slippery slope" argument but, what next? Do we cap the age at which citizens live? Do we have forced euthanasia of children with Down Syndrome? or children deemed unable to contribute to the common good?
Quote from: JagFan07 on December 14, 2009, 08:23:31 AM
Have we really come to a point where we are wishing for the nanny state? This reeks of "From each according to his means, to each according to his needs". For years we have been told that a woman should have the right of choice and it is her body. Now we are willing to say she has the right of choice "Once". I hate to use the "slippery slope" argument but, what next? Do we cap the age at which citizens live? Do we have forced euthanasia of children with Down Syndrome? or children deemed unable to contribute to the common good?
I wouldn't agree with your initial reference to Marxist theory, but the rest is on point.
The Holocaust started in such a manner: controlling population. They wanted Jews out of Germany, then europe, then existence. I doubt we would move towards another holocaust of any particular creed, but who knows.
So far the overwhelming sentiment of those in favor of birth limits are anti-Christian.
I suppose it would be okay to eliminate the religious. After all, they are clearly idiots.
Let's get to it, my fellow wellbred and intelligent elitists!
Looks like this is not a bad policy after all.......if you are male.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/10/chinas-population-laws-th_n_185626.html
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/10/chinas-population-laws-th_n_185626.html)
First two paragraphs says it all.
32 million ... Even Reaper man will be unable to get a date... ;)
QuoteChina has 32 million more young men than young women _ a gender gap that could lead to increasing crime _ because parents facing strict birth limits abort female fetuses to have a son, a study released Friday said.
The imbalance is expected to steadily worsen among people of childbearing age over the next two decades and could trigger a slew of social problems, including a possible spike in crime by young men unable to find female partners, said an author of the report published in the BMJ, formerly known as the British Medical Journal.
Quote from: buckethead on December 14, 2009, 08:30:35 AM
Quote from: JagFan07 on December 14, 2009, 08:23:31 AM
I suppose it would be okay to eliminate the religious. After all, they are clearly idiots.
Let's get to it, my fellow wellbred and intelligent elitists!
Wow. So this part of society that has so proudly hailed itself as "tolerant" is actually intolerant if you are anything but what it wants you to be. Who knew shallow could be so deep...
The proven method of reducing birth rates is to educate women and give them control of their own fertility. Nothing more drastic needs to be done. This has been demonstrated over and over again. Few women are voluntary breeding machines.
My opinions on the subject will probably get me yelled at, so I'll tread lightly.
I think this whole issue is a thrift paradox type scenario. Everyone is advocating for this one child policy, but if it actually happens we'll be in dire straights. I think we need to inform and provide the means to safely prevent massive growth in developing nations....
I have to wonder what it is about a segment of our society and our society as a whole that so many are willing to turn this type of power over to government. Is it the fact that the public schools, media, and the organized propaganda machines are feeding a continuous agenda of gloom and doom crisis scenarios? And be very careful about having the audacity to question the truth and actual magnitude of these "crises". What happened to the confidence of the American people in facing and confronting challenges without handing over the power of force and coercion to a "benevolent" government?
Presently, with our current government, we have a great example of the intoxicating and detrimental effects of mostly unchecked power. Turning over the most personal of choices to government would be even more detrimental.
Quote from: sandyshoes on December 14, 2009, 09:11:35 AM
Quote from: buckethead on December 14, 2009, 08:30:35 AM
Quote from: JagFan07 on December 14, 2009, 08:23:31 AM
I suppose it would be okay to eliminate the religious. After all, they are clearly idiots.
Let's get to it, my fellow wellbred and intelligent elitists!
Wow. So this part of society that has so proudly hailed itself as "tolerant" is actually intolerant if you are anything but what it wants you to be. Who knew shallow could be so deep...
Methinks the sarchasm was not detected.
I say forcibly censor shows like 16 and Pregnant, or Teen Moms, or even John and Kate + 8. We don't need to glamorize and celebrate those situations.
Quote from: jaxnative on December 14, 2009, 10:00:47 AM
I have to wonder what it is about a segment of our society and our society as a whole that so many are willing to turn this type of power over to government. Is it the fact that the public schools, media, and the organized propaganda machines are feeding a continuous agenda of gloom and doom crisis scenarios? And be very careful about having the audacity to question the truth and actual magnitude of these "crises". What happened to the confidence of the American people in facing and confronting challenges without handing over the power of force and coercion to a "benevolent" government?
Presently, with our current government, we have a great example of the intoxicating and detrimental effects of mostly unchecked power. Turning over the most personal of choices to government would be even more detrimental.
I have nothing to add here, well said.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 14, 2009, 10:19:01 AM
I say forcibly censor shows like 16 and Pregnant, or Teen Moms, or even John and Kate + 8. We don't need to glamorize and celebrate those situations.
Seriously? Forced censorship? I wonder how many things in your house, on your computer or things you do daily could eventually fall under some agenda rule that can become censored later. As someone said earlier, slippery slope!
Johnny, I totally agree with you. I realize exactly the kind of trend that could result. I believe however, that these shows are so lacking in substance and so reprehensible that they should be removed from television in a public manor.
Quote from: buckethead on December 14, 2009, 12:48:20 AM
Does that mean you are in favor of mandatory reproductive restrictions over reproductive rights?
No, I'm not in favor of mandatory reproductive restrictions. It is my belief people generally respond quite well to economic incentives. Naturally, given enough money, people will ave less children. It is like paying governments and tribes to not cut down their rainforests.
QuoteShould declining populations have more leeway over burgeoning segments of the population?
Yes they should. However since declining populations tend to be in industrialized nations, then they should also be forced to drastically reduce thier consumption of resources in order to make more available to developing nations.
QuoteShould restrictions be placed on any nation, race, culture or creed while not on others? Who enforces, and how?
No restrictions should be placed on any nation. Though a few nations do have massive uncontrolled populations, we cannot tell them to stop have kids. We can only provide economic assitance to countires that help promote birth control through general academic education, reproductive education, and promoting womens' rights (so that the woman can choose not to have children).
I don't think about the slippery slope others are thinking about. Naturally richer nations have less children. Developing nations ill also oe day have less children. I think the goal should be set to provide assistance to any couple who belives that procreates in order to insure thier economic survival.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 14, 2009, 07:03:25 AM
Do they? Their policy has resulted in untold abortions of female fetus and murders of female children in an effort to have a male offspring. Another unintended consequence of "getting it right" is a skewed ratio of males to females resulting in a lack of mates for males. The Chinese population continues to grow and is projected to do so until around 2030.
The abortions I agree with. The selective gender choosing causing an imbalance? Not so much.
QuoteWhy not simply solve the problems?
THIS is the solution of course. The Chinese have it wrong and will pay for it in the future. I think their proposal to curb population growth was an attempt to change the conversation in Copenhagen.
QuoteThe abortions I agree with.
You DO realize that many of these are
forced abortions...
everyone should just buy silk socks. problem solved.
IMO, watching John & Kate or Octomom should be ENDORSED. After seeing the hell they go through I'll certainly think twice about the Trojans.
So if we nuke China we cure globle warming?
Quote from: Sportmotor on December 15, 2009, 06:12:44 PM
So if we nuke China we cure globle warming?
I don't care who you are, that funny right there...!!!
Quote from: Sportmotor on December 15, 2009, 06:12:44 PM
So if we nuke China we cure globle warming?
We can't do that...then we would have no one to lend us money.
Quote from: iluvolives on December 16, 2009, 10:43:46 AM
Quote from: Sportmotor on December 15, 2009, 06:12:44 PM
So if we nuke China we cure globle warming?
We can't do that...then we would have no one to lend us money.
But our debt would be forgiven.....
Quote from: JagFan07 on December 16, 2009, 10:46:52 AM
Quote from: iluvolives on December 16, 2009, 10:43:46 AM
Quote from: Sportmotor on December 15, 2009, 06:12:44 PM
So if we nuke China we cure globle warming?
We can't do that...then we would have no one to lend us money.
But our debt would be forgiven.....
That, and we'd have to start making our own stuff again... which means our economy would get a boost. It's a win-win!
Over population will eventually put an end to our planet. With the human life expectancy continuing to stretch, over population will still happen even at a one child per person birth rate. There will come a time when there isn't enough food, water and inhabitable land to sustain the global population.
Alternative living and energy are the options that will help, but in the end the lack water and food will put the nail in the coffin.
QuoteOver population will eventually put an end to our planet.
There are a multitude of things more likely to "put an end to our planet". In fact... "over population" is probably one of the more easy problems to overcome.
I remember a tv show or something from decades ago, it had a lotto where people would win an opportunity to give their life for the greater good of the planet. They seemed excited... Anyone willing to be first?
IMO, this feels uncomfortably close to people's Civil Liberties...if the gov't starts dictating who can reproduce, that's a freedom of choice they're taking away from the individuals. Consider this; how many other individual choices will get taken away? (Our Constitution still guarantees "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".) A good lawyer (and the Pope) could argue that this whole issue is attacking "Life", in one context, since this subject is largely about placing limits on human reproduction, in the name of protecting the environment. Liberty - it's your privilege, in a free country, to do what you want as long as it's not against the law and not harmful or injurious to others, for example. Pursuit of happiness - if reproduction makes some people happy, do they have a right to do it, according to our constitution? If drinking beer after work makes you happy, do you have a right to go do it? Is it one of your civil liberties? I want less government in my life, not more. Why do you think the pilgrims came over here? Government began telling them how they could worship; they didn't like it, so they left to come where they could decide for themselves. Where does it start, where does it end? Scary to think about. As I am not relaying this message with venom, I don't consider this a rant, so I'll thank you not to label it such. I am trying to clarify a point and get you to consider yet another angle of the issue that I haven't seen addressed. Thanks.
One of the four horsemen will eventually control the human population. We don't have to plan a thing.
Almost all wars were fought over resources, originally farm land or water, often over labor resources. The Black Plague reduced the population of Europe so much that the century after was very prosperous and creative. (See Barbara Tuchman's, "A Distant Mirror". The Maya civilization collapsed when their water resources crashed and they starved.
In modern times, Japan invaded China and Southeast Asia because it had one of the highest rates of population growth in the world at the time and had run out of farm land and natural resources. Even Nazi Germany was looking for leibensraum (room to live) and intended to enslave and exterminate the Slavic peoples, Russians and Poles, who were occupying the land they wanted.
What will happen to our worldwide civilization when oil and gas get depleted? That will control population.
Quote from: Johnny on December 16, 2009, 12:59:21 PM
I remember a tv show or something from decades ago, it had a lotto where people would win an opportunity to give their life for the greater good of the planet. They seemed excited... Anyone willing to be first?
Logan's Run http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074812/). One of my favorite 70's movies.
@jagfan07, that's not the show I was talking about, but I'll check it out. Thanks
QuoteOne of the four horsemen will eventually control the human population.
We are more likely to be hit by one of the many asteroids randomly circling the sun. They have hit the earth many times in the past and caused wholesale change of lifeforms. Notice I said "change". Even these cataclysmic events failed to extinguish life on this planet. This third rock from the sun is pretty resilient... life here is pretty resilient.
BT, Isn't natural disaster one of the horsemen? The planet will certainly survive any or all of them. Humans might not.
QuoteAlthough scholars disagree as to what exactly each horseman represents, the four horsemen are often referred to as Conquest, War, Famine, and Death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse
Huh! I'd always remembered it as Disaster, War, Famine, and Disease.....age must be scrambling the synapses. Wonder why they thought Conquest and War were different? Death-Disease, same diff.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 16, 2009, 03:12:33 PM
QuoteAlthough scholars disagree as to what exactly each horseman represents, the four horsemen are often referred to as Conquest, War, Famine, and Death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Apocalypse
He says with a sly grin......
It seems to me the Four Horsemen were part of the WWF in the late 80's.
Arn Anderson, Ric Flare, Lex Luger and Barry Windham were the core group.
Now we know what YOU like to watch on TV! :o
There appears to be a link between economic freedom, respect for the rule of law and lower fertility.
From: http://reason.com/archives/2009/06/16/the-invisible-hand-of-populati
"In 2002, Seth Norton, a business economics professor at Wheaton College in Illinois, published a remarkably interesting study on the inverse relationship between prosperity and fertility. Norton compared fertility rates of over 100 countries with their index rankings for economic freedom and another index for the rule of law. "Fertility rate is highest for those countries that have little economic freedom and little respect for the rule of law," wrote Norton. "The relationship is a powerful one. Fertility rates are more than twice as high in countries with low levels of economic freedom and the rule of law compared to countries with high levels of those measures."
"Norton found that the fertility rate in countries that ranked low on economic freedom averaged 4.27 children per woman while countries with high economic freedom rankings had an average fertility rate of 1.82 children per woman. His results for the rule of law were similar; fertility rates in countries with low respect for the rule of law averaged 4.16 whereas countries with high respect for the rule of law had fertility rates averaging 1.55."
"Economic freedom and the rule of law produce prosperity which dramatically lowers child mortality which, in turn, reduces the incentive to bear more children. In addition, along with increased prosperity comes more education for women, opening up more productive opportunities for them in the cash economy. This increases the opportunity costs for staying at home to rear children. Educating children to meet the productive challenges of growing economies also becomes more expensive and time consuming."
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 16, 2009, 12:50:10 PM
QuoteOver population will eventually put an end to our planet.
There are a multitude of things more likely to "put an end to our planet". In fact... "over population" is probably one of the more easy problems to overcome.
overpopulation will expand all the other issues into a global catastrophe
They made it work in Fifth Element
Quoteoverpopulation will expand all the other issues into a global catastrophe
"global catastrophe" and "end to our planet" are very different things. Which apocalyptic vision do you have for this over population issue you seem to find so dire?
there are many possibilities that could turn the human race upon itself even greater than it is now creating global war and destruction that could make this planet uninhabitable:
lack of clean water
lack of enough farm land for adequate food production
lack of enough energy
lack of ways to eliminate waste
pollution that turns our oceans an other waterways even more toxic
religious clashes due to population densities
political clashes due to population densities
cultural clashes due to population densities
financial issues with supply and demand of life sustaining products
the disparager between the rich and poor will grow even greater
the lack of inhabitable land for population expansion without leveling the rain forests
I’m sure there are many more items to put on this list, but I really don’t care to put the energy into it.
Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 17, 2009, 11:47:27 AM
there are many possibilities that could turn the human race upon itself even greater than it is now creating global war and destruction that could make this planet uninhabitable:
lack of clean water
lack of enough farm land for adequate food production
lack of enough energy
lack of ways to eliminate waste
pollution that turns our oceans an other waterways even more toxic
religious clashes due to population densities
political clashes due to population densities
cultural clashes due to population densities
financial issues with supply and demand of life sustaining products
the disparager between the rich and poor will grow even greater
the lack of inhabitable land for population expansion without leveling the rain forests
I’m sure there are many more items to put on this list, but I really don’t care to put the energy into it.
Won't all of those clashes and limited resources, in effect, limit the population growth?
On the discovery channel one show said in prim-apes sperm count goes up with competition for females and down in apes more assured of their position with their mates.
????? That doesn't effect population, if that's what you are getting at. It only takes one or two if she is going to have twins.
Quote from: JaxNative68 on December 17, 2009, 11:47:27 AM
lack of enough energy
...
I’m sure there are many more items to put on this list, but I really don’t care to put the energy into it.
See, we're already having to conserve energy! We're doomed! ;p
Quote from: Johnny on December 16, 2009, 12:59:21 PM
I remember a tv show or something from decades ago, it had a lotto where people would win an opportunity to give their life for the greater good of the planet. They seemed excited... Anyone willing to be first?
I think that was part of the plot of an episode of Sliders.
That's it... good job Doctor! Only an episode too, it must have had some impact for both of us to remember it.
Not willling to be first, but can I nominate a few people?
I found it, for anyone that wants it for research. lol
http://www.hulu.com/watch/13494/sliders-the-luck-of-the-draw
there are several episodes in Star trek discuss various way of dealing with limited resources. We can discuss the detail in a different thread.
As for population control, consider our current government policy:
1. for people who pays tax: each child means more tax deduction
2. For people receive refundable tax credits: each child means eligibility and/or more tax credit
3. For people receive assistant in housing: children means eligibility and/or larger house
4. For people receives food stamps: each additional children means more food stamps
5. For people without children: pay for the public schools and youth programs that spend on other people's children and donate to the boy scout/girl scout like organization that children of your neighbors or colleagues.
if people react to incentives, what is the motivation of giving all these incentives?
A tax on consumption rather that taxing income with deductions, would de-incentivize overbreeding, while rewarding conservation, saving and investment.
Too bad nothing of the sort has ever been proposed. :-X
Quote from: buckethead on December 24, 2009, 08:34:01 AM
A tax on consumption rather that taxing income with deductions, would de-incentivize overbreeding, while rewarding conservation, saving and investment.
Too bad nothing of the sort has ever been proposed. :-X
The Fair Tax addresses this while not penalizing our most needy citizens.
http://fairtax.org (http://fairtax.org)
Quote from: JagFan07 on December 24, 2009, 10:02:53 AM
The Fair Tax addresses this while not penalizing our most needy citizens.
http://fairtax.org (http://fairtax.org)
Indeed
Quote from: Johnny on December 24, 2009, 10:09:28 AM
Quote from: JagFan07 on December 24, 2009, 10:02:53 AM
The Fair Tax addresses this while not penalizing our most needy citizens.
http://fairtax.org (http://fairtax.org)
Indeed
So you guys are telling me that a consuption tax, that eliminates the poorest Americans from any tax liability (including payroll taxes), eliminates taxation on income, eliminates corporate taxes (a huge boon to our econonmy... Watch the investment money rush back to our shores), rewards saving and investment, is revenue nuetral, effectively puts imports on a level playing field with American produced goods, encourages conservation, and does not reward overbreeding has been proposed?
There is no way, because congress would be foolish not to enact such smart and effective legislation.
Sorry, I don't believe you.
Buckethead -- I enjoy your facetiousness, for those who don't get it.
HR 25
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.25: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.25:)
Repeals the 16th amendment abolishing the Payroll tax and establishing a national sales tax.
I strongly support it but it will never pass as Congress will no longer have an ambiguous tax code to hide their actions. If everyone knew exactly how much they paid in all federal taxes they would be astonished.
My favorite conversation that happens every year around April 15th:
"so, how much did you pay in taxes this year?"
"Oh, I didn't pay anything, I got money back"
QuoteMy favorite conversation that happens every year around April 15th:
"so, how much did you pay in taxes this year?"
"Oh, I didn't pay anything, I got money back"
:D :D I love that too!
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 24, 2009, 11:29:10 AM
QuoteMy favorite conversation that happens every year around April 15th:
"so, how much did you pay in taxes this year?"
"Oh, I didn't pay anything, I got money back"
me too :(
:D :D I love that too!