Life and Death

Jack · **Joined:** Wed Aug 11, 2004 12:00 am **Posts:** 5131

holmes wrote:

OIL has created a fantasy of "morals and values". Oil has created a false "compassion" as well. Soon we will find out a swarm has been created and these "morals, values and compassion" are going to go bye bye. Maybe they will return after WE HAVE PAYED THE PIPER. I do have to laugh about how disconnected humans truly and how they think that we are really going to get off scott free and suffer zero or very minimal consequences for our actions. Ludicrous to say the least. Just pass the buck big boys.

Outstanding post. I could not agree more.

kevincarter · **Joined:** Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:00 am **Posts:** 434

Quote:

Population Reduction

Thanks to everyone who contributed to it's completion.

1. A one-child per woman policy along with incentives, such as paying women not to have children.

2. Free abortion, birth control, and sterilization on demand.

3. Advocate careful legal Euthanasia and assisted suicide/promote as a valid, moral choice.

4. Advocate the elimination of assisted life support and extraneous means to prolong life.

5. Advocate an end to most organ transplants/promote a better lifestyle to reduce the need for them.

6. Promote family planning and education/teach population ecology in the schools at an early age.

7. Ban fertility clinics and artificial insemination/give infertile couples preference to adopt.

8. Food production must be planned in concert with projected population decline and be shared equitably.

9. Address religious and other cultural traditions that oppose birth control.

10. Narrow the inequity amongst the world’s people/ promote rural energy development in poor countries.

11. Establish a long-term goal of population reduction through birth control and euthanasia to 2 billion people on earth.

12. Target areas of high birth rate/energy consumption.

Like some of the 911 conspiracy said once, this theory has holes so big that a 747 could fly though them. As I see it it *could* be implemented in the first world only, which does not has an outstanding population growth problem right now if compared to the third world. Try to implement any of this policies in, let's say, India or anywhere in Africa and you've got a 100% chance of failing. Pay women? you'll be broke in a day, that is if the bureaucrats don't rob all the money first. Free abortion? From hindus to muslims they'll want your head, don't talk to them about lifeboats or statistics they'll be flat no. And "Careful legal" does not exist in the third world either.

So, how do we do it? We don't really have to do anything, but still, if we were to do anything at all I would simply stop selling them food, which is of course unviable because there are people making big money out of it just by flooding their markets with cheap machinery-produced food so it becomes cheaper from them to buy form us than to produce it.

But really, there is no viable solution, this population thing has gone out of hand.

gnm · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:00 am

MonteQuest wrote:

gnm wrote:

You accuse people of hubris all the time and then you suggest that rigid population controls should be implemented on a global scale... Thats rich... talk about hubris.

So, are all these people full of hubris as well?

I really don't care who said it... I'm not impressed. Its a far cry from academic theories to reality.

If they seriously believe such plans can be implemented, then yes.... hubris.

You might just as well say you're going to solve the planets energy problems with orbiting solar panels...

Like Kevincarter said.... the odds of that working say in... Indonesia.... zip zero zilch....

-G

MonteQuest · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:13 am

gnm wrote:

MonteQuest wrote:

gnm wrote:

You accuse people of hubris all the time and then you suggest that rigid population controls should be implemented on a global scale... Thats rich... talk about hubris.

So, are all these people full of hubris as well?

I really don't care who said it... I'm not impressed. Its a far cry from academic theories to reality.

If they seriously believe such plans can be implemented, then yes.... hubris.

You might just as well say you're going to solve the planets energy problems with orbiting solar panels...

Like Kevincarter said.... the odds of that working say in... Indonesia.... zip zero zilch....

-G

Well, that's what all these poll questions was about. What do people think.

While it is a small sampling....

87% believe we have overshoot our carrying capacity and that we need to reduce our population.

83% agree it is our responsibility to try and do so.

60% would make hard choices.

That puts you in the minority.

So, do you posit, that just because the challenges are high, we should make no attempt to try and reduce our population?

Rather defeatist, if that's your position.

PenultimateManStanding · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:17 am

gnm wrote:

Like Kevincarter said.... the odds of that working say in... Indonesia.... zip zero zilch....

It won't work anywhere. It's a silly, pointless, naive program. I can respect folks who are seriously planning to get themselves to remote, viable places to attempt complete self-sufficiency. IMO their chances are slim, but that's better than this program where the chances are none. It's too late for that.

MonteQuest · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:20 am

kevincarter wrote:

Like some of the 911 conspiracy said once, this theory has holes so big that a 747 could fly though them. As I see it it *could* be implemented in the first world only, which does not has an outstanding population growth problem right now if compared to the third world. Try to implement any of this policies in, let's say, India or anywhere in Africa and you've got a 100% chance of failing.

Who said it was carved in stone? Who said it was a blanket policy to be applied everywhere or that it would work everywhere?

I said as much up front when this was posted.

Montequest wrote:

Undoubtedly, the current growth must cease and be reversed. But anyone who believes that he can draw a blueprint for the ecological salvation of the human species does not understand the nature of evolution, or even of history — which is that of a permanent struggle for survival in continuously novel forms. So, any blueprint must really be a rough sketch that evolves and changes over time; it can’t be carved in stone.

Quote:

But really, there is no viable solution, this population thing has gone out of hand.

So, we shouldn't even try?

MonteQuest · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:21 am

PenultimateManStanding wrote:

gnm wrote:

Like Kevincarter said.... the odds of that working say in... Indonesia.... zip zero zilch....

It won't work anywhere. It's a silly, pointless, naive program. I can respect folks who are seriously planning to get themselves to remote, viable places to attempt complete self-sufficiency. IMO their chances are slim, but that's better than this program where the chances are none. It's too late for that.

So, we shouldn't even try?

gnm · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:26 am

MonteQuest wrote:

87% believe we have overshoot our carrying capacity and that we need to reduce our population.

83% agree it is our responsibility to try and do so.

60% would make hard choices.

That puts you in the minority.

So, do you posit, that just because the challenges are high, we should make no attempt to try and reduce our population?

Rather defeatist, if that's your position.

Not defeatist... realist... Only a fool would attempt it. Or a megalomaniac dictator.

Hard choices eh? Yeah, thats one way of putting it. You are completely ignoring the fact that in most of the world and indeed in the places with the most rapid growth you would have no way of implementing these policies short of outright dictatorship which would end in civil war.

Its all pointless rhetoric.

-G

Ludi · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:27 am

"As a result of PDA's extensive family planning efforts in conjunction with the national program, Thailand's birth rate experienced a dramatic drop from 3.3% to only 1.2% today."

http://www.geom.unimelb.edu.au/pda/script.htm

PenultimateManStanding · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:30 am

MonteQuest wrote:

So, we shouldn't even try?

"We" aren't ever going to try. I understand where you are coming from with your activist point of view. Kudos for your good intentions. But all the kings horses and all the king's men "tried" to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

MonteQuest · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:35 am

gnm wrote:

Its all pointless rhetoric.

Yet, several examples exist that show it isn't pointless. Ludi just posted one.

And in many developed countries that are either in the 3rd phase or 4 phase of demographic transition have lowered their fertility rates.

If it works in those instances, why can it not work elsewhere?

gnm · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:41 am

Less bad is still "bad"

I see nothing that has resulted in population declines or "negative growth"...

-G

MonteQuest · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:44 am

PenultimateManStanding wrote:

MonteQuest wrote:

So, we shouldn't even try?

"We" aren't ever going to try. I understand where you are coming from with your activist point of view. Kudos for your good intentions. But all the kings horses and all the king's men "tried" to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

So far, the majority of the poll wish to try, and believe it is our responsibility to try.

PenultimateManStanding · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:44 am

Lowering fertility rates is not the point. We are already in overshoot. Lowering fertility rates now is like closing the barn door after the horse is already out. I see this as indisputable but I would like to hear you argue the merits of this point of view.

MonteQuest · **Posted:** Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:50 am

PenultimateManStanding wrote:

Lowering fertility rates is not the point. We are already in overshoot. Lowering fertility rates now is like closing the barn door after the horse is already out. I see this as indisputable but I would like to hear you argue the merits of this point of view.

Then you haven't been paying attention. The goal is not to avoid die-off, but to make an effort to reduce the degree of overshoot to lessen the impact on the carrying capacity.

Life and Death

Who is online