ForumGarden

Let's face it...we have too many people and many of which are in various stages of economic development throughout the world. This presents many challenges on many fronts.

Population control measures are in effect in many civilized and third world countries, but to truly "save" the planet, all roads lead to genocide in one form or other. ex. "Chinese data show that 13 million abortions are performed each year, for an average rate of 35,000 abortions per day.Xinhua News, 2/22/2010, http://news.boxun.com/news/gb/health/20 ... 0029.shtml Read more: http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/forced-a ... z2H7Y1AVZq

As dark and morbid as it sounds, ALL logical steps in "curing" our planet and "correcting" human behavior lead to the required massive population reduction. On a global scale, this is a priority whether you see it or not.

Without population reduction....passionate activists are left with guilt, anguish, and measures that only "dent" a mighty big problem.

i doubt that, though I am a pro choice individual. Education, knowledge and understanding is the answer in my mind.

Of special note is India and it's rapid path to middle class lifestyles. This is a demand by the public of which almost 30% are below the poverty line. The government must facilitate this to maintain control. In doing so, the effects on the environment are devastating.

Not only does India's situation pose a significant and potentially catastrophic result on it's own people, but the effects are felt throughout the globe in terms of climate change, population, and resource depletion.

http://www.clraindia.org/include/Climate.pdf

All roads lead to.......

What specific measures do you favor to control population?

What in God's name has population control to do with climate change? They're absolutely unremittingly unassociated. Climate change is a function of the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The population can increase by a factor of ten and so long as we completely stop burning fossil fuels climate change will happily reverse itself in decades.

halfway;1415437 wrote: Let's face it...we have too many people and many of which are in various stages of economic development throughout the world. This presents many challenges on many fronts.

Population control measures are in effect in many civilized and third world countries, but to truly "save" the planet, all roads lead to genocide in one form or other. ex. "Chinese data show that 13 million abortions are performed each year, for an average rate of 35,000 abortions per day.Xinhua News, 2/22/2010, ¸¾Å®Á÷²ú4´Îºó²»ÔÐÊ¿É´ï92% Read more: Forced Abortion Statistics | All Girls Allowed

As dark and morbid as it sounds, ALL logical steps in "curing" our planet and "correcting" human behavior lead to the required massive population reduction. On a global scale, this is a priority whether you see it or not.

Without population reduction....passionate activists are left with guilt, anguish, and measures that only "dent" a mighty big problem.


The best form of population control is education and, paradoxically, reducing child mortality.

The Chinese have opted for an extreme solution to the problem - it does not have to be that way.

halfway;1415437 wrote: Let's face it...we have too many people and many of which are in various stages of economic development throughout the world. This presents many challenges on many fronts.

Population control measures are in effect in many civilized and third world countries, but to truly "save" the planet, all roads lead to genocide in one form or other. ex. "Chinese data show that 13 million abortions are performed each year, for an average rate of 35,000 abortions per day.Xinhua News, 2/22/2010, ¸¾Å®Á÷²ú4´Îºó²»ÔÐÊ¿É´ï92% Read more: Forced Abortion Statistics | All Girls Allowed

As dark and morbid as it sounds, ALL logical steps in "curing" our planet and "correcting" human behavior lead to the required massive population reduction. On a global scale, this is a priority whether you see it or not.

Without population reduction....passionate activists are left with guilt, anguish, and measures that only "dent" a mighty big problem.


The best form of population control is education and, paradoxically, reducing child mortality.

The Chinese have opted for an extreme solution to the problem - it does not have to be that way.

halfway;1415442 wrote: Of special note is India and it's rapid path to middle class lifestyles. This is a demand by the public of which almost 30% are below the poverty line. The government must facilitate this to maintain control. In doing so, the effects on the environment are devastating.

Not only does India's situation pose a significant and potentially catastrophic result on it's own people, but the effects are felt throughout the globe in terms of climate change, population, and resource depletion.

http://www.clraindia.org/include/Climate.pdf

All roads lead to.......


Do you recall India's attempted solution to its population problem back in the late 80s / early 90s?

Bryn Mawr;1415479 wrote: Do you recall India's attempted solution to its population problem back in the late 80s / early 90s?


yes

Whose population you all want to control?

I have a couple of suggestions, but guess what? I don't want to take the heat.

tude dog;1415509 wrote: Whose population you all want to control?

I have a couple of suggestions, but guess what? I don't want to take the heat.Taking heat shouldn't be a problem if you can offer a compelling argument for your idea.

Let's hear it - along with valid reasoning for your conclusion of it, of course.

Tube dog.....it is an inevitability, not a "want", and certainly not from me.

The point being that nearly every solution is temprorary when the big picture is "too many people".

Source: International strategic studies, international resource management, trans national organized crime, global demographic statistics and modeling.....

Nonsense. And your source doesn't work.

halfway;1415498 wrote: yes


Would you care to discuss it and it's outcome?

Ahso!;1415516 wrote: Taking heat shouldn't be a problem if you can offer a compelling argument for your idea.

Let's hear it - along with valid reasoning for your conclusion of it, of course.


Hey, I am not the one who brought up population control.

To me it is a valid question, who are the people we have to many of?

Týr;1415463 wrote: What in God's name has population control to do with climate change? They're absolutely unremittingly unassociated. Climate change is a function of the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The population can increase by a factor of ten and so long as we completely stop burning fossil fuels climate change will happily reverse itself in decades.


Why has nobody pulled you up for such an obvious error ?

More people equals more every bloody thing.

tude dog;1415707 wrote: Hey, I am not the one who brought up population control.

To me it is a valid question, who are the people we have to many of?Yeah, but you then went ahead and said this:tude dog;1415509 wrote: Whose population you all want to control?

I have a couple of suggestions, but guess what? I don't want to take the heat. The lesson is that if you're going to make claims you just might get called on them regardless who started the thread. And in an honest mature adult discussion you're obligated to explain yourself, therefore backing away afterwards could make one appear either dishonest or over their head.

I'd bet you have no problem pinning Obama down on every word the man says. Walk the talk!

tude dog;1415707 wrote: Hey, I am not the one who brought up population control.

To me it is a valid question, who are the people we have to many of?


Whose population you all want to control?

I have a couple of suggestions, but guess what? I don't want to take the heat.




Then you shouldn't have said you have suggestions if you can't stand the heat. You may not have brought up the original topic, but you did bring up the question of who & then saying you had ideas which you won't share. Like a tease. Hmmm. Since you think you asked a valid question & can supply the answer..........

I guess you re-considered & maybe it's not such a good final solution after all.

What you fell into, this muck, is of your own doing. Sometimes, even though this board would not exist without discussion, well sometimes we all have to keep our fat mouths shut. Am I getting warm?

My goodness Ahso! Same wavelength.

I didn't see your post when I began mine.

Bruv;1415710 wrote: Why has nobody pulled you up for such an obvious error ?

More people equals more every bloody thing.


Why?

If, tomorrow, somebody invents cold fusion and, over the next fifty years we convert from burning fossil fuels to generate electricity and propel our vehicles then, despite the fact that the world population has increased markedly in those fifty years the amount of global warming will reduce due to a reduction in the CO2 levels.

I fail to see the difficulty.

Bryn Mawr;1415729 wrote: Why?

If, tomorrow, somebody invents cold fusion and, over the next fifty years we convert from burning fossil fuels to generate electricity and propel our vehicles then, despite the fact that the world population has increased markedly in those fifty years the amount of global warming will reduce due to a reduction in the CO2 levels.

I fail to see the difficulty.


You start by asking why, followed by "If"

If my Aunty had testicles she would be my Uncle......(I cleaned that up a bit)

But seriously.......in the real world, growing populations around the world wherever they are are a burden on the resources of the world.

They cut down forests for fuel or farming, they pollute and grow richer and want a car and TV and PCs .............that is the reality, no Ifs involved.

Bruv;1415735 wrote: You start by asking why, followed by "If"

If my Aunty had testicles she would be my Uncle......(I cleaned that up a bit)

But seriously.......in the real world, growing populations around the world wherever they are are a burden on the resources of the world.

They cut down forests for fuel or farming, they pollute and grow richer and want a car and TV and PCs .............that is the reality, no Ifs involved.


And in the, perfectly possible, scenario I suggested?

Bryn Mawr;1415737 wrote: And in the, perfectly possible, scenario I suggested?
My aunts my uncle...........obviously.

But until then, it might be wise to restrict population if at all possible, the degree of manipulation by government to be restricted where possible.

I have a grudging admiration of the Chinese resolve in doing something, for the betterment of future generations

Bruv;1415739 wrote: My aunts my uncle...........obviously.

But until then, it might be wise to restrict population if at all possible, the degree of manipulation by government to be restricted where possible.

I have a grudging admiration of the Chinese resolve in doing something, for the betterment of future generations


You claim a direct relationship between population and climate change and I posit a case where that relationship does not exist, of course it starts with an if - if the situation is thus the relationship does not hold therefore the relationship is not cause and effect.

Bryn Mawr;1415746 wrote: You claim a direct relationship between population and climate change and I posit a case where that relationship does not exist, of course it starts with an if - if the situation is thus the relationship does not hold therefore the relationship is not cause and effect.


It seems simple to me.

The world doesn't pollute itself, people do.

More people equals more pollution.

If all the people in the world were self sufficient vegetarians with no oil burning vehicals and no electricity, then everything would be OK.

Sure enough the stats for car, PC and TV sales in emerging economies might say more than I could ever say.

Bruv;1415754 wrote: It seems simple to me.

The world doesn't pollute itself, people do.

More people equals more pollution.

If all the people in the world were self sufficient vegetarians with no oil burning vehicals and no electricity, then everything would be OK.

Sure enough the stats for car, PC and TV sales in emerging economies might say more than I could ever say.


That's where the relationship breaks down. Rephrase that as "all things being equal, more people equal more pollution" and you'd be close. Trouble is that you are relying on other factors not changing - such as technology or attitude.

As people have become more aware of the effects of pollution they have, consciously, taken steps to avoid it (compare early industrial revolution Britain with now). The more it becomes apparent how much harm it is doing the more their behaviour modifies. Thus it is possible, even without the technological change I posited, for the link between population and pollution to be broken.

Bruv;1415754 wrote: It seems simple to me.

The world doesn't pollute itself, people do.

More people equals more pollution.

If all the people in the world were self sufficient vegetarians with no oil burning vehicals and no electricity, then everything would be OK.

Sure enough the stats for car, PC and TV sales in emerging economies might say more than I could ever say.


Bravo.

Bryn Mawr;1415762 wrote: That's where the relationship breaks down. Rephrase that as "all things being equal, more people equal more pollution" and you'd be close. Trouble is that you are relying on other factors not changing - such as technology or attitude.

As people have become more aware of the effects of pollution they have, consciously, taken steps to avoid it (compare early industrial revolution Britain with now). The more it becomes apparent how much harm it is doing the more their behaviour modifies. Thus it is possible, even without the technological change I posited, for the link between population and pollution to be broken.


You are not living in the same world as me.

The rich educated western world is modifying their attitudes to a greener lifestyle, while driving to their Green Party meetings in cars after arranging strategies on the internet in their homes with TVs, Fridges, PCs, Central heating, Air conditioning.

They stack all their glass bottles, beside their mounds of paper in blue plastic bins, beside the plastics in yellow plastic bins,all for weekly collections by motor vehicals.

Meanwhile in the emerging economies, they are creating factories to grow the wealth of people who aspire to have what the west is getting bored with, cutting down forests to feed them, mining anything that will enrich their populations, to provide the TVs, Cars, etc. etc.

halfway;1415765 wrote: Bravo.Try to resist the cheer leading please.This is not a show, it's two mature people exchanging views where both make a valid argument.

Ahso!;1415711 wrote: Yeah, but you then went ahead and said this: The lesson is that if you're going to make claims you just might get called on them regardless who started the thread. And in an honest mature adult discussion you're obligated to explain yourself, therefore backing away afterwards could make one appear either dishonest or over their head.

I'd bet you have no problem pinning Obama down on every word the man says. Walk the talk!


OK, fine it stuck my foot in it.

Fact is, we don't have to many people on the Earth, we have horrible people who have to much control of the land and resources. Through dictatorships and tyranny create a lot of grief.

Few examples,

Hugo Chavez

Fidel/Raul Castro

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Motubu

Kim Jong-il

The above are not isolated in my contempt.

In no way would I ever suggest the elimination of entire populations of people, which is what I perceive is the solution of this "over population" concept.

tude dog;1415771 wrote: OK, fine it stuck my foot in it.

Fact is, we don't have to many people on the Earth, we have horrible people who have to much control of the land and resources. Through dictatorships and tyranny create a lot of grief.



Few examples,

Hugo Chavez

Fidel/Raul Castro

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Motubu

Kim Jong-il

The above are not isolated in my contempt.

In no way would I ever suggest the elimination of entire populations of people, which is what I perceive is the solution of this "over population" concept.


Bravo.

This statement means I like the post so I say "bravo". I am not rallying, calling for audience participation, acting as an emotional mob, or any other meaning than saying "bravo".

Bravo.

On another note: Is there an "ignore" feature on this forum? Maybe someone should use it.

Bruv;1415767 wrote: You are not living in the same world as me.

The rich educated western world is modifying their attitudes to a greener lifestyle, while driving to their Green Party meetings in cars after arranging strategies on the internet in their homes with TVs, Fridges, PCs, Central heating, Air conditioning.

They stack all their glass bottles, beside their mounds of paper in blue plastic bins, beside the plastics in yellow plastic bins,all for weekly collections by motor vehicals.

Meanwhile in the emerging economies, they are creating factories to grow the wealth of people who aspire to have what the west is getting bored with, cutting down forests to feed them, mining anything that will enrich their populations, to provide the TVs, Cars, etc. etc.


And which of those emerging economies is doing so to a greater extent that we did ourselves when we were an emerging economy?

Our once forest encrusted land is now denuded (although we're now replanting).

Our once pure rivers became so polluted it was death to swim in them (but otters are now returning even to the Thames).

Our once green and pleasant land was covered with dark satanic mills - the fires of hell burnt over Middlesbrough, the Black Country was truly black and the Pea Souper covered London (but now we can breathe clean air the length and breadth of the country).

Yes, I live in a different world from you - one where the emerging economies are making mistakes but are already leaning from the mistakes that we made and are avoiding the worst excesses, one where they are pushing us to cut pollution (India ratified the Koyoto Protocol ten years ago, even China has done so but the US still refuse to ratify the treaty). In short a world that still has hope (if only just).

tude dog;1415771 wrote: OK, fine it stuck my foot in it.

Fact is, we don't have to many people on the Earth, we have horrible people who have to much control of the land and resources. Through dictatorships and tyranny create a lot of grief.

Few examples,

Hugo Chavez

Fidel/Raul Castro

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Motubu

Kim Jong-il

The above are not isolated in my contempt.

In no way would I ever suggest the elimination of entire populations of people, which is what I perceive is the solution of this "over population" concept.




Best be careful - all (bar one) of those either have a lower population density or a lower rate of growth than you so it is moot where the over-population lies.

Add those all together. Add together all of the land and resources that they control - it is tiny compared to that of the US but they have all ratified the Koyoto Protocol where the Us has not. Which populations are harming the world more?

Population control is not a matter of killing off those you don't like - that's eugenics!

Bryn Mawr;1415779 wrote: Best be careful - all (bar one) of those either have a lower population density or a lower rate of growth than you so it is moot where the over-population lies.

Add those all together. Add together all of the land and resources that they control - it is tiny compared to that of the US but they have all ratified the Koyoto Protocol where the Us has not. Which populations are harming the world more?

Population control is not a matter of killing off those you don't like - that's eugenics!


OK, I did say I stuck my foot in it. My oraiional post was

Whose population you all want to control?

I have a couple of suggestions, but guess what? I don't want to take the heat.




GAWD, I gatta watch myself here. I remember back in the days when

The Population Bomb

Somehow we all still survived that panic.

The OP suggested population control.

OK, so I said I could suggest a couple.

Now I took the heat.

Holy cow!

If clean energy were cheaper than the dirty stuff, would industry use it? If developing countries had clean water and decent healthcare, would they need to have large families just to guarantee that a couple of children would survive?

Wandrin;1415795 wrote: If clean energy were cheaper than the dirty stuff, would industry use it?


NAW, industry has other motives than profit. What that may be, I have no idea. Then there are those who hate industry because it is profit driven.

Wandrin;1415795 wrote: If developing countries had clean water and decent healthcare, would they need to have large families just to guarantee that a couple of children would survive?[/url]


Like in China where government forbids large families?

tude dog;1415787 wrote: OK, I did say I stuck my foot in it. My oraiional post was



GAWD, I gatta watch myself here. I remember back in the days when

The Population Bomb

Somehow we all still survived that panic.

The OP suggested population control.

OK, so I said I could suggest a couple.

Now I took the heat.You might have taken some heat had your post meant anything or made any sense whatsoever. It doesn't. It's what's called gibberish.

Bryn was being kind to you.

This thread has so much anger and many who troll looking for arguments under the veil of "conversation", when in fact, it is merely an outlet for their very rigid beliefs systems.

It is indeed a forum to argue and bicker for some pretentious sorts. And those are likely the "most compassionate" and "open-minded" as they see themselves.

Ha!

Quasi-intellect.

I am sure bryn will have no clue whatsoever in interpreting the above post. But he will counter nonetheless. :wah:

halfway;1415850 wrote: This thread has so much anger and many who troll looking for arguments under the veil of "conversation", when in fact, it is merely an outlet for their very rigid beliefs systems.

It is indeed a forum to argue and bicker for some pretentious sorts. And those are likely the "most compassionate" and "open-minded" as they see themselves.

Ha!

Quasi-intellect.


I have come to the opinion that you are a bit of a knob sir, without an ounce of anger or pretension in my body.

Bruv;1415863 wrote: I have come to the opinion that you are a bit of a knob sir, without an ounce of anger or pretension in my body.


Of course, because you disagree.

Knob is better than wanker or tosser right? Well very well then. Toss on.

Bruv;1415863 wrote: I have come to the opinion that you are a bit of a knob sir, without an ounce of anger or pretension in my body.


I don't think he was referring to you Bruv. I think he was zeroing in on Ahso.

halfway;1415865 wrote: Of course, because you disagree.

Knob is better than wanker or tosser right? Well very well then. Toss on.


Not because I disagree no.

It is due to your obvious disdain for other's opinions.

A truly clever man never talks down to his lessers, or boasts he knows best, even if it is true.

Knob is almost a term of endearment...........but not quite.

YZGI;1415872 wrote: I don't think he was referring to you Bruv. I think he was zeroing in on Ahso.
I know Wisey.............same applies though

Bruv;1415876 wrote: Not because I disagree no.

It is due to your obvious disdain for other's opinions.

A truly clever man never talks down to his lessers, or boasts he knows best, even if it is true.

Knob is almost a term of endearment...........but not quite.


I've been met with nothing less than what you speak of.

Are you saying my retort was spicy? Why the hell not in the face of some dim-witted comments and requests for clarity.

Boasting and condescension....no...but I do tend to seek that behavior out and use it against them.

halfway;1415879 wrote: I've been met with nothing less than what you speak of.

Are you saying my retort was spicy? Why the hell not in the face of some dim-witted comments and requests for clarity.

Boasting and condescension....no...but I do tend to seek that behavior out and use it against them.


I rest my case Me Lud

halfway;1415851 wrote: I am sure bryn will have no clue whatsoever in interpreting the above post. But he will counter nonetheless. :wah:


Well I had decided to give it the notice it deserved and ignore it but, as you expect me to respond, I'll point out that most of the anger in this thread is coming from you with very little by way of logical response to the points being put to you.

Ho-hum, it takes all sorts.



There, are you happy now?

Bryn Mawr;1415762 wrote: That's where the relationship breaks down. Rephrase that as "all things being equal, more people equal more pollution" and you'd be close. Trouble is that you are relying on other factors not changing - such as technology or attitude.

As people have become more aware of the effects of pollution they have, consciously, taken steps to avoid it (compare early industrial revolution Britain with now). The more it becomes apparent how much harm it is doing the more their behaviour modifies. Thus it is possible, even without the technological change I posited, for the link between population and pollution to be broken.


China is learning, tomorrow India will have to learn, then any newly emerging industrialised economy......pick any from a long list.

Bruv;1416655 wrote: China is learning, tomorrow India will have to learn, then any newly emerging industrialised economy......pick any from a long list.


Indeed, they are learning and a lot more quickly than we did during the first wave of industrialisation.