Family planning a major environmental impact

Jul 31, 2009

Some people who are serious about wanting to reduce their "carbon footprint" on the Earth have one choice available to them that may yield a large long-term benefit - have one less child.

A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives - things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

The research also makes it clear that potential carbon impacts vary dramatically across countries. The average long-term carbon impact of a child born in the U.S. - along with all of its descendants - is more than 160 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh.

"In discussions about , we tend to focus on the of an individual over his or her lifetime," said Paul Murtaugh, an OSU professor of statistics. "Those are important issues and it's essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing and increasing global consumption of resources."

In this debate, very little attention has been given to the overwhelming importance of reproductive choice, Murtaugh said. When an individual produces a child - and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future - the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.

Under current conditions in the U.S., for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent - about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

And even though some developing nations have much higher populations and rates of population growth than the U.S., their overall impact on the global equation is often reduced by shorter life spans and less consumption. The long-term impact of a child born to a family in China is less than one fifth the impact of a child born in the U.S., the study found.

As the developing world increases both its population and consumption levels, this may change.

"China and India right now are steadily increasing their carbon emissions and industrial development, and other developing nations may also continue to increase as they seek higher standards of living," Murtaugh said.

The study examined several scenarios of changing emission rates, the most aggressive of which was an 85 percent reduction in global carbon emissions between now and 2100. But emissions in Africa, which includes 34 of the 50 least developed countries in the world, are already more than twice that level.

The researchers make it clear they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, but say they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices.

"Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth," Murtaugh said. "Future growth amplifies the consequences of people's reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance."

Murtaugh noted that their calculations are relevant to other environmental impacts besides carbon emissions - for example, the consumption of fresh water, which many feel is already in short supply.

Source: Oregon State University (news : web)

Explore further: CO2 emissions set to reach new 40 billion ton record high in 2014

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Global emissions to leap 39 percent by 2030: US

May 27, 2009

Global carbon dioxide emissions are set to rise 39 percent by 2030 as energy consumption surges in the developing world, notably in Asian giants China and India, the United States warned on Wednesday.

Alarming acceleration in CO2 emissions worldwide

May 21, 2007

Between 2000 and 2004, worldwide CO2 emissions increased at a rate that is over three times the rate during the 1990s—the rate increased from 1.1 % per year during the 1990s to 3.1% per year in the early 2000s.

China to surpass U.S. emissions levels

Nov 07, 2006

The International Energy Agency says China will surpass the United States in carbon dioxide emissions by 2009, about a decade ahead of previous predictions.

Recommended for you

World greenhouse emissions threaten warming goal

11 hours ago

Emissions of greenhouse gases are rising so fast that within one generation the world will have used up its margin of safety for limiting global warming to 2°C (3.6°F), an international team of scientists ...

Tens of thousands join London climate march

12 hours ago

Tens of thousands of people in London joined a global day of protest Sunday to demand action on climate change, among them British actress Emma Thompson who said the challenge to save the planet was like ...

UN summit to test commitment to climate fund

12 hours ago

A global fund created to spearhead climate change financing faces a key test at a UN summit this week when it looks to the leaders of the industrialised world to stump up billions of dollars to fill its underflowing ...

User comments : 86

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

alpha262
2.8 / 5 (15) Jul 31, 2009
The old religion demands more children, the new religion demands fewer. Mankind saunters from ignorance to insanity.
otto1923
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 31, 2009
Alpha262 what the hell are you talking about? Are you saying there is something wrong with trying to curb overpopulation? Did you know that since the 1940s over 1 BILLION abortions have taken place in the world and yet it is still too overcrowded? We need to end those cultures, those religions which are designed to maximize their growth. Their time is past. They are the cause of all the worlds problems.
QubitTamer
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2009
The new religion is ISLAM and they are obeying and having 3 or 4 times as many children as the average european or american... Muslim Majorities in most european countries within the next 50 years...Us and canada to follow in less than 100... but you liberals go ahead and worry about the planet and stop reproducing...http://www.brooki...nar.aspx
Arkaleus
2.9 / 5 (8) Jul 31, 2009
Nicely stated alpha262.

This new religion really is a threat to human liberty. Just watching dirtbags clamoring over each other to ride this new religion into power is making me sterile.

I'm to the point of starting a hot war against any group trying to force "climate family planning" on my country.

We are extremely foolish and naive to think that federal health care won't eventually be turned into a population control system. Just think, you are and your children are worth nothing more than their carbon equivalents. It's time to bury these new Marxists.
defunctdiety
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2009
Muslim Majorities in...Us ... in less than 100...


That's laughable. To be the majority in U.S. they will have to overtake the Reconquista Mexicana. Not gonna happen.
Velanarris
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2009
otto, Without a baseline capacity figure how can you state that the Earth is overpopulated with human beings?

Secondly, you know that the birthrate in first world countries is not high enough to sustain the current population of those countries don't you?

You can thank capitalism and consumerism for that.
brianweymes
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2009
It's hard to tell if Arkaleus made a parody post or not. It's so hard to know these days.
defunctdiety
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2009
otto1923 you sound like a human super-race Nazi Eugenicist!


Explain to me how the idea that any given race/religion has to "outbreed" any other given race/religion is not Eugenics?

otto is right about one thing, ORGANIZED RELIGION (an oxymoron, IMO, if ever there was one) is gonna be the death of the species, if anything is.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2009
otto1923 you sound like a human super-race Nazi Eugenicist!

Explain to me how the idea that any given race/religion has to "outbreed" any other given race/religion is not Eugenics?

otto is right about one thing, ORGANIZED RELIGION (an oxymoron, IMO, if ever there was one) is gonna be the death of the species, if anything is.

I'd only substitute RELIGION with unsubstantiated belief systems.
defunctdiety
4.8 / 5 (6) Jul 31, 2009
What belief system can be substantiated though? Belief systems were created, presumably, by primitive man out of necessity to explain, what at the time was, the unexplainable. In and of itself it is not a bad thing, I don't think.

Then belief systems were turned into Organized Religion by those who saw they could gain power over others with charisma and preying on this fear of the unexplainable. It was used, and persist to be used, to control any given set of people, and that is evil no matter how you cut it.

Without getting too much into philosophy or semantics, I would say a belief system doesn't have to be anything more than a set of very personal absolute truths. Religion is when you subscribe to someone else's belief system without knowing their reality (which you cannot). Unfortunately few people these days bother to develop their own belief system through intense introspection and the application of fundamental and absolute honesty, and instead follow a religion.
Velanarris
not rated yet Jul 31, 2009
You're right, I can't argue with that.
Damon_Hastings
4.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2009
If everyone who believes in curbing overpopulation starts having fewer children, won't that just guarantee that within a few generations the Earth will be populated with people from religions which mandate large families?
Damon_Hastings
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2009
Hmm... on second thought, there aren't enough people in the US who truly care about overpopulation that their extinction would be relevant. But if there were, they could easily and quickly be replaced by those who don't care.

I'm not sure that "caring about overpopulation" is a trait that children really pick up from their parents... but I am pretty sure that religions (along with their accompanying traditions of family size) have a strong tendency to pass from parent to child.
otto1923
2.8 / 5 (5) Jul 31, 2009
I would say a belief system doesn't have to be anything more than a set of very personal absolute truths
I would say any belief system that says their first and most important commandment is 'Be fruitful and multiply ... Fill up the earth' (with more of us and fewer of them) is obsolete, viral, criminal.

@Velanarris, look around, you'll find adequate info blaming overpop with 90% of food fish gone, rain forests disappearing, species extincting, poverty, starvation, disease. The reason nobody in the west addresses this issue directly is because intelligent, ambitious, pragmatic third worlders are being encouraged to leave their embattled cultures, head north, and have their large families here. This is applied sociopolitics,demographics with a purpose.

@Qubitamer, your kneejerk reaction means you haven't investigated this issue or don't want to think about it. People are dying, children are starving because their cultures demand they reproduce or prevent them from getting birth control instruction and insist they use it. No one should be allowed to bring children into this world they cannot support or aren't capable of caring for. More child abuse takes place before birth than after.       
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2009
-I forgot the most obvious results of forced reproduction: war or rebellion. These religions were designed to outgrow the enemy and replace battle losses faster. Planned wars are the most effective instruments for producing overall Stability and Progress. Do we need more war? Apparently, for as Qubitamer pointed out above, we are again presented with an enemy we absolutely HAVE to fight. JudeoXian Islamism, like chesspieces- their next move may place them on either a black square or a white one. Who moves the pieces? Doesn't matter- both Players are on the Same Side.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Jul 31, 2009
Forced reproduction? Otto, you're off the deep end.

You want to solve overpopulation? Stop professing ignorant views and address the real root of overpopulation, lack of education. Education and wealth (thanks capitalism) are the leading over population deterents.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2009
FORCED my friend. Islamic fundamentalism religated women to one role only- bearing and raising children [and sometimes martyrdom]. Refusing to serve god by bearing children is grounds for divorce; and what happens to her then? Husbands are allowed to beat their wives for refusing this. And it was essentially the same not too long ago in the US when growth was the purpose; women could not work or vote, and were old maids if unmarried by 18. the culture FORCES by eliminating all other options. I am thinking you know this, or should know this.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2009
How do you educate when the culture does not allow this? The recent bloodbath in Nigeria was started by extremists who called themselves 'No Western Education'. They convinced followers that learning English was satanic. Teach them. (most dead now) This is also pretty self-evident sir.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (2) Jul 31, 2009
How do you educate when the culture does not allow this? The recent bloodbath in Nigeria was started by extremists who called themselves 'No Western Education'. They convinced followers that learning English was satanic. Teach them. (most dead now) This is also pretty self-evident sir.


Well since they're dead I guess they're not part of the overpopulation problem now are they?

Although you attempted to disprove my point, you reinforced it albeit in a macabre manner.

As for forced reproduction, that's a social tennet that is a relic of uneducated views. You know this. Educate the culture and society and the archaic view vanishes.

The whole reason for "forced ignorance" is to establish and maintain control. What better way to control your society than to subdue one uneducated half of it with the other uneducated half?

Teach them and the "forced reproduction," as you call it, ceases to exist.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2009
Well since they're dead I guess they're not part of the overpopulation problem now are they?
Exactly. But it wasn't just some random group from the general pop who died- it was mainly the restless, idle, disaffected youth- the first ones to cause problems once the population exceeds the point of stability. That's why this event is suspect- a premeditated act of social engineering.

As far as 'education' goes, if you were them and your baby were starving, who would you believe- the one with food or the one with a book? If your eternal soul were in jeopardy, would you believe what your mother, father, girlfriends, the local imam, and bin Laden himself tells you, all god-fearing individuals, or the funny-smelling stranger from who knows where? HE says souls aren't important.
otto1923
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 31, 2009
This same formula is being used on a much larger scale in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban (means 'student') has been attracting generations of youth and sending them into the guns. The first was when they were obediently led north to form long, straight battle lines against the northern tribes, whereupon they were carpetbombed by the US. ever since they have died by the 1000s in pointless attacks against superior forces. Lately they were convinced they had the chance to take Islamabad. They poured out of mountain strongholds and into the guns of a suddenly competent and committed Pakistan army. Basic military strategy but why so easy? Ask bin Laden.
ArthurX
1 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2009
Population growth => hunger => war.



This has been true for a long time. One can see ugly examples in recent history in Africa. Like the murdering of Hutu's and Tutu's, Ethiopia and Somalia.

And further back in Europe and Asia in WW I and II.



It's also true that religious leaders like the pope, always have put reproduction above all else, just to grow their own populous.



There also is biological reason the youth become more aggressive, if hungry: people in general tend to become more aggressive if there cholestorol levels sing, by losing weight.



Another point from population growth is that it hampers economic development. If everybody has six children, it is much harder to finance all the education.

If there is an over flood of children parents are sooner willing to let them work or even send them in prostitution.

Whilest China's one-child-policy is a bit harsh, seen from the western perspective, one should ask what would have happened without a policy.

Would they have 2 billion people and constant hunger and war?

Would they have achieved the economic growth? Or would they have the child labor like in India or pedo-sex tourism like in Cambodia?



India and China make a good comparison, both started after the second WW as poor countries.

http://www.arthurx.org
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2009
Care to come up with an example from a non-fundamentalist Islamic country?

To your point, those in control do not want to give up control. But simple education brought them to the point where their only way to maintain control was violence.

That alone should show you how much mightier the pen is than the sword. The ones in power feared their populace becomming of their own mind after learning to read so they killed them all off.

Like I said, education is the great liberator.
ArthurX
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2009
The pen is mightier than the sword. The pen has grown into the web.
joefarah
2.7 / 5 (6) Aug 01, 2009
This is insanity. Families make a country. China has too late realized this and is at the brink of social turmoil as each couple tries to care for 4 parents and 8 grandparents without the help of any siblings, cousins, or in-laws.

Also, if one group dominates and has 4 to 6 chilren per couple compared to a national average of under 2, starting from a 10% of population, that group will have a majority of the population before the end of the century. Something to thing about! Don't sell out your country for the "environment".

By the way, I live in Ottawa, and the "Global WARMING" this year has left us with a COLD summer - the coldest I ever remember! So much for Gore's theology!
joefarah
not rated yet Aug 01, 2009
As an add on, note that if the population of a dominant group (see previous post) is only 3.3%, in 25 years, at 6 childrent/couple, it will be over 10%, if the national average is under 2/couple.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2009
Canada, a country where they actually subsidized large families to populate the wilderness. My uncle there had 6 kids and didn't need to work- but he did anyway. Applied demographics. Don't worry, pragmatic fundamentalists who move west bear children who quickly assimilate. Remember Charlie Chans #1 son? "Cool it, Pop!" Those left behind will suffer and die in 120F heat.
otto1923
2 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2009
Control- herding cats is easy: just get a long stick with a smelly fish on the end of it. Works with carrots and mules.
Care to come up with an example from a non-fundamentalist Islamic country?
Should I? Well, cant hurt;

The KKK was used to drive ex-slaves north and west after the Civil War. They werent made citizens and allowed to vote until the 1900s? Once dispersal was complete their growth was subsidized (welfare). Those who didnt leave the ghetto fell prey to poverty, drugs and gangs. In europe, those who remained in ghettos and shtetls did not fare near as well in the 1940s. Islamists there now live in ghetto poverty; they riot and burn cars periodically. Some will leave, many wont. In interwar Germany Nazis gave mothers who bore sons little blue Xian crosses with Hackenkreutze in the middle for serving both god and the Fuhrer. Gott mit uns.

Martin Luther "wrote theses on indulgences and posted them on the church of All Saints on 31 October 1517", and his followers were soon slaughtering popish satanists throughout Europe, giving many ample reason to emigrate. At the same time witchburners were gathering up midwives elsewhere because they taught the satanic practices of abortion and contraception, in defiance of the new edict "Be fruitful and multiply- fill up the colonies" etc.

Humans are a tropical species and their reproductive rate hasnt changed since they left Africa. Once they began hunting the predators which kept their numbers in check, they were in deep, deep trouble. War and suffering ensued, the result of our Fall from Grace. Efforts to contain and domesticate them began some time later, of necessity. So far so good.

Mr. Velanarris would say these are all 'Fundamentalist' ideologies; but thats what theyre FOR. Thats what they were designed to DO. Its called 'education'.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2009
Great, more examples of a people subjugated through a lack of education.

You're doing nothing but futhering my point.

The Nazis burned books that taugh of views other than their own. The KKK would murder people who attempted to educate the blacks.

You can't disprove that education fixes everything, because it does. Education fixes the woes of society. Simply look at Iraq in the 60's. It was beautiful, the muslims there had a great educational system and the people flourished. Europeans and Americans used to vacation there.

Saddam came into power and systematically dismantled the educational system and look where they're at now. Same thing for Iran, 1940's Germany, etc, etc.

You'll never find a way to show that education is detrimental. Just won't happen.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2009
@Velanarris
Youre missing the point I think. Lets see... The Red Guard were high school students who REJECTED what their progressive educators were trying to teach them for what the Maoists had to offer. They were TAUGHT that western influence was going to ruin their culture. And who says the Maoists were wrong? Better question- who says what the west has to offer is good or right or workable in all cases, at all times? It took Maoists to destroy the ancient cultures in that nation which would have prevented the population controls necessary (including the 350 MILLION abortions). The west tried for centuries to destroy those cultures with little effect- opium wars, Xian-inspired rebellion, colonies, etc. It took Communism to control the population. Same in Russia, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. THAT is education with influence. First destroy the cultures, then build your junior colleges and Burger Kings. So just what kind of education are you talking about?
http://www.johnst...339.html (a remarkable website and a commendable effort)
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 01, 2009
Saddam came into power and systematically dismantled the educational system and look where they're at now. Same thing for Iran, 1940's Germany, etc, etc.
Yes, things were fine in Iraq except that populations continued to grow in that Islamic country until they exceeded the point of stability. Saddam and the Baathists took control and instituted martial law as in Iran under both the Shah and the Ayatolla, and in 30s Germany. Things only stabilized in Iran/Iraq after those 2 leaders pitted Shia against Shia in an 11 year war in which a few million died. War was inevitable because of overpopulation; but the people were successfully divided and no Pashtun caliphate could emerge. Western 'education' was powerless against this- it took despots and internecine warfare to solve it. Your education model failed in this case sir.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Aug 01, 2009
You want to pit the Iran Iraq war on overpopulation?

You're out of your mind. Neither side was exactly hurting for resources seeing as they were some of the richest countries in the region.

Religion, the bane of education, took hold in their government, much like it is in the American government. Education declined, and that drove more people to fundamentalism, a form of social control through religion exerted upon the ignorant.

Again, you're proving my point.


You keep bringing up racial and religious conflicts to attempt to counteract the education argument. The problem is racism and religion gain control of populations by making them more ignorant either through propaganda or through force.
otto1923
1.5 / 5 (4) Aug 01, 2009
Baathists were socialist. You can't eat money or oil. You can't live on someone elses property if they don't want you to, unless you take it by force- ask Palestinians. Kurds have one of the highest repro rates in the region. Hard-core ideologies could grab power because the people were suffering. Leaders staged the Iran/Iraq war and the afghan/russian war to preempt total economic collapse and anarchy. Weimar democracy failed because symptoms of acute overpopulation were exacerbated- and because it was SUPPOSED to. I am as insane as you are naive, by your own reckoning ... sir. By mine you are just naive.
otto1923
1 / 5 (3) Aug 01, 2009
Some of you gentlemen here seem to love slapfights. Mr. Velanarris you sound like an educator of some sort, am I right? Science or maths?
austux
5 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2009
Become a vegetarian. It saves more energy than a Prius.

Become Vegan. It saves more energy that _building_ a Prius as well.
QubitTamer
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2009
I would say a belief system doesn't have to be anything more than a set of very personal absolute truths
I would say any belief system that says their first and most important commandment is 'Be fruitful and multiply ... Fill up the earth' (with more of us and fewer of them) is obsolete, viral, criminal.



@Velanarris, look around, you'll find adequate info blaming overpop with 90% of food fish gone, rain forests disappearing, species extincting, poverty, starvation, disease. The reason nobody in the west addresses this issue directly is because intelligent, ambitious, pragmatic third worlders are being encouraged to leave their embattled cultures, head north, and have their large families here. This is applied sociopolitics,demographics with a purpose.



@Qubitamer, your kneejerk reaction means you haven't investigated this issue or don't want to think about it. People are dying, children are starving because their cultures demand they reproduce or prevent them from getting birth control instruction and insist they use it. No one should be allowed to bring children into this world they cannot support or aren't capable of caring for. More child abuse takes place before birth than after. %uFFFD %uFFFD %uFFFD%uFFFD



otto, mr. central planning, what exactly do you propose to DO about it??? Start shooting children whom you find offensive? There was no jerking knee unless you count the mental fantasy of me doing muy thai kicks to your jaw to see how quickly i could break it...
QubitTamer
2.3 / 5 (6) Aug 02, 2009
@otto, you know what would shut you up quick? The pain from a few broken teeth as i slam my colt 1911 commander into your fetid piehole then pull the trigger only milliseconds later... All arguments are won by force, anything that comes before is but simple dancing around the truth... the truth is you're a big mouth meddler who wouldnt have the balls to actually go out and commit the violence necessary to back up your ideas... *I* on the other hand see the world as it really is, where men like Stalin, unafraid to act and exploit a crisis for their own personal benefit are the ones who TRULY impact this world... yeah, thats an UGLY UGLY reality, but REALITY it is... Better to be on MY side when the shit starts hitting the fan as i have the training, the equipment and the WILL to get ahead on the backs of stupid sheeple you seem to want to impress here...
thales
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2009
Wow... really Qubit? I don't think you're going to win over any minds with your foam-at-the-mouth rant there, which by the way was disturbing to say the least. You sound as if you condone the murder of an abortion doctor - is that what you're getting at?
Velanarris
3 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2009
Wow... really Qubit? I don't think you're going to win over any minds with your foam-at-the-mouth rant there, which by the way was disturbing to say the least. You sound as if you condone the murder of an abortion doctor - is that what you're getting at?


No it isn't. He's getting at the hypocrisy of otto's statement.

Otto, what's the most valuable commodity in the world? What was it in the 60's? and 70's?

You want to tell me the Baathists can't eat oil or money, well no shit, but they can certainly BUY food.

And you call me naive. The Iran Iraq war has zero to do with overpopulation. The Russian Afghan war were the political machinations of the Soviet Union and the US to grab more valuable resource territories so they wouldn't have to PAY the Europeans for the goods comming out of those countries.
omatumr
1 / 5 (7) Aug 02, 2009
THE SUN CONTROLS EARTH'S CLIMATE, NOT ABSURD SOCIAL ENGINEERING

Stop the fear-mongering and absurd efforts at social engineering!

Read "EARTH'S HEAT SOURCE - THE SUN", Energy and Environment: SPECIAL ISSUE: Natural drivers of weather and climate, volume 20, numbers 1 & 2, pages 131-144 (2009)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

Look at Figure 4 (p. 136) and this video recording of a solar flare event made with the TRACE satellite: http://tinyurl.com/mz5onp

Why are the obvious solar causes of climate change being ignored by those asking the public to reduce their carbon footprint?

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
http://myprofile....anuelo09
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2009
@queerbitTamer
I'm probably a better shot than you :-) Seriously.
People shouldn't participate here when they're drunk or stoned. Especially on lonely Saturday nights.
otto1923
3 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2009
Otto, what's the most valuable commodity in the world? What was it in the 60's? and 70's?


The most valuable commodity in the world today, as it always has been, is knowledge. Knowledge about the world and the way it works is our only salvation. With it we can analyse our interaction with the world and surmise possible future events. As a result we can take action NOW to mitigate the effects of approaching calamity, and to ensure that it does not endanger those things most important to us; the most important of which is our accumulating store of REAL knowledge, not opinion or sociopolitical propaganda or religious dogma (same thing) or downright fiction.

I started looking around for those facts and figures which I've seen many times before, of projected growth rates for various countries around the globe, but I thought what the hell- this isn't a thesis, and half you people would disregard them in favor of opinion or dogma anyway. Few can really appreciate the explosive potential of pop growth. An adequate infrastructure for one generation can be completely swamped for the next, and by then it may already be too late to avoid collapse, rebellion, starvation, war. Afghanistan, Shiite Iran/Iraq, Pakistan, certainly gaza and the west bank, were or are at that point right now. The reasons the west is involved in all these areas is because waiting for collapse to occur is not an option. Waiting for war to happen and then trying to fix things Is both reckless and unforgivable, if you KNOW what is inevitable and yet fail to act. It is possibly the only true evil in this world. Roosevelt was preaching isolationism because he HAD to, while all the time preparing and arranging for war. Because he HAD to. They all did. They had no choice. 

I think it's like riding a surfboard. You can go out there and fight against each wave, or you can use a board to ride them, get where you want to go with some satisfaction, and have a little fun.

Educate yourselves gentlemen. Use your heads instead of your hearts.     
otto1923
1.5 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2009
I think it's like riding a surfboard. You can go out there and fight against each wave, or you can use a board to ride them, get where you want to go with some satisfaction, and have a little fun.
-And save the world. I forgot to add that.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2009
The most valuable commodity in the world today, as it always has been, is knowledge.


Glad to see you're submitting to the truth. Now how does one go about getting knowledge?

Oh yeah, education.

I started looking around for those facts and figures which I've seen many times before, of projected growth rates for various countries around the globe, but I thought what the hell- this isn't a thesis, and half you people would disregard them in favor of opinion or dogma anyway.

I'm guessing you saw the projected growth rates and they didn't wow you, especially seeing as they're an easy search on Google.
http://www.nation...n-growth

The weighted average from 2000 to 2050 is 64.6% increase. That means about 10 billion. Scientists, economists, transportaion and infrastructure engineers and multiple other field experts have estimated that the world, at our current level of technological sophistication, could support 27 billion.

So, seeing as we're not even going to be halfway there by 2050, and our energy sources are becomming more refined and technologically sophisticated, where's your issue?
otto1923
1.8 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2009
Imagine a fictional country with a population of one million people and apply the 2003 population growth rate of Qatar, which was 2.87 percent.
The population would increase by 28,700 the first year. The second year, assuming the growth rate stayed the same, the population would grow by 29,524 people. The third year it would increase by 30,371.
After five years, the population would have grown by 151,988 people, or about 15 percent. After 10 years, the population would be 1,327,063. That%u2019s almost a 33 percent increase.
Afghanistan as I recall was 3.5%? before the US got there, set to double in 20yrs. I know, how many mitigating factors can you and I think of? Hard to know what these figures take into account. Global warming? Malaria vaccine? A new pandemic? The accelerated spread of islamism into depopulating northern lands? 

Half of the 'plus' countries are already overcrowded and mired in armed conflict. Half are facing ecological ruin. Half the people in gaza are school age. What kind of education do you think they're getting? 

Velanarris, I would say that your education is somewhat lacking without including Malthus and the real impact of the Rockefeller-funded 'family planning' efforts throughout the world in the last century. Today is not yesterday- they are making progress, numbers are down. There are no longer vast numbers of Eurasian men to build red and white and nationalist armies and still fight 2 world wars. Not in the north anyways. 

27 billion. Prove it. Underwater maybe? Greenland without ice? The great brazilian plains? I do have great faith in the mysterious availability of technological solutions. It's like- all we have to do is look and we find an answer. I believe the world is being prepared for this technology, which explains all we see happening in it today. 
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2009
Prepared- as in how Napoleon prepared Europe for the Industrial Revolution. Or how Lee, Grant, Sherman and their colleagues from West Point prepared the US for it.
otto1923
2 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2009
OK here's a statistic I've seen in one form or another many times:
Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes. So says Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation in the United Kingdom and the author of a book titled, %u201CEnvironmental Refugees: The Case for Recognition.%u201D
Want more?
otto1923
2 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2009
Another one [of dozens]:
Worst Environmental Problem? Overpopulation, Experts Say

ScienceDaily (Apr. 20, 2009) %u2014 Overpopulation is the world%u2019s top environmental issue, followed closely by climate change and the need to develop renewable energy resources to replace fossil fuels, according to a survey of the faculty at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF).
again it's not the number of people, it's the cultures, the demographic mix, and their potential for disruption.
otto1923
2 / 5 (4) Aug 02, 2009
Here's yet another common take:
Population Growth Puts Dent In Natural Resources
ScienceDaily (Oct. 10, 2008) %u2014 It's a 500-pound gorilla that Robert Criss, Ph.D., professor of earth and planetary sciences in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis, sees standing on the speaker's dais at political rallies, debates and campaigns. Its name is population growth.
"Population growth is driving all of our resource problems, including water and energy. The three are intertwined," Criss says. "The United States has over 305 million people of the 6.7 billion on the planet. We are dividing a finite resource pie among a growing number of people on Earth. We cannot expect to sustain exponential population growth matched by increased per capita use of water and energy. It's troubling. But politicians and religious leaders totally ignore the topic."
More related:  
Long-term Global Food Crisis Looms: Experts Urge Immediate Action
ScienceDaily (Sep. 22, 2008) %u2014 Declining agricultural productivity and continued growing demand have brought the world food situation to a crossroads. Failure to act now through a wholesale reinvestment in agriculture%u2014including research into improved technologies, infrastructure development, and training and education of agricultural scientists and trainers%u2014could lead to a long-term crisis that makes the price spikes of 2008 seem a mere blip.
This stark warning, in line with calls from organizations such as the World Bank, the World Food Program, and Asian Development Bank (ADB), was issued by members of the Board of Trustees (BOT) of the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) following their meeting on 16-19 September at Institute headquarters in Los Baños, Philippines.
Still more:
Sub-Saharan Africa: The Population Emergency
ScienceDaily (Jan. 9, 2008) %u2014 Sub-Saharan Africa has been experiencing phenomenal population growth since the beginning of the XXth Century, following several centuries of population stagnation attributable to the slave trade and colonization. The region's population in fact increased from 100 million in 1900 to 770 million in 2005. The latest United Nations projections, published in March 2007, envisaged a figure of 1.5 to 2 billion inhabitants being reached between the present and 2050.
The report of a demographic study, coordinated by the Centre Population et Développement (CEPED), commissioned by the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), was published recently. The work was performed by a joint team involving scientists from the IRD and specialist academics from Belgium, Cameroon, France and the Ivory Coast (2). They examined the recent and projected future population trends in Sub-Saharan Africa and the relationships between these tendencies and the development of the region. This review effectively demolished some generally accepted ideas, in particular the one that Sub-Saharan Africa is underpopulated.
Today, two out of three inhabitants of this large region of Africa are under 25 years of age (twice the number prevailing in Europe) and, with 32 inhabitants per km2, Sub-Saharan Africa is more densely populated on average than Latin America (28 inhabitants/km2). And although two-thirds of its population still live in rural areas, massive migration to the towns and cities is under way. Thus, whereas in 1960, just one city, Johannesburg, had a population of over one million, Africa now has about 40 of them.
At the present rate of rural exodus, half Sub-Saharan Africa's population would be urban dwellers by 2030. This transition should be met by huge investments in construction of new infrastructures, wastewater drainage and treatment and refuse reprocessing in the great agglomerations, whose management threatens to become more and more problematic. [...]
The possibilities for emigration to industrialized countries are increasingly subject to control and are more difficult, particularly for the migration candidates with few qualifications. [...]
A parallel factor at work is fecundity, equal to or higher than 5 children per woman. This is two to three times higher as in the rest of the world, an important factor being that four out of five African women live in countries where there is little access to contraception. Indeed less than 20% of women use modern contraceptive methods, as against 60% or more in Latin America and Asia. The fact that the use of contraception is progressing very slowly contributes to the strong population growth. [...]
However, campaigns promoting the balanced family such as those successfully run in other developing countries (Bangladesh, Jamaica for instance) have never really been implemented in Sub-Saharan Africa. Thus, whereas the overall demographic trend points towards a stabilization of world population, that of Africa is continuing on a substantial rise. [...] In 2004 for example, only six countries out of 48 obtained a growth rate equal to or greater than 7%, the threshold considered essential for achieving the first MDO--in other words the halving of poverty between now and 2015.
The prime effect of this exceptional, continuing population growth in Sub-Saharan Africa is its role as a major handicap to economic and social development of most of the region's countries. The conclusion from the research is that if the African nations want to take up the double challenge of their demographic transition and reduction of their poverty, development policies must be completely rethought. [...] This perspective makes it imperative to place the population question, one of the crucial issues for the future of most of the countries concerned, at the core of their development policies.
-Hard to teach them when their bellies are empty and they have an RPG in their hands. 
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2009
One more- about a misguided solution for an energy-hungry world population:
http://www.time.c...,00.html
JohnCan
5 / 5 (1) Aug 04, 2009
Why stop there? If you are really serious about reducing your carbon footprint then you can just eliminate YOURSELF, and as a bonus you don't have worry about reproducing!

Great editorial in today's Wall Street Journal about this story, titled "American Babies Are Ruining Everything" at http://online.wsj...930.html
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 05, 2009
You first Pudel
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 06, 2009
You first Pudel

You're the one preaching of overpopulation. Practice what you preach.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2009
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2009
@velanarris
OKLAHOMA CITY %u2014 The Oklahoma Department of Human Services has taken custody of three boys whose hands were covered in blood and feces when they were rescued from a locked bedroom in an Oklahoma City apartment. The parents, Roy Lee Phillips and Elizabeth Phillips, were arrested on child neglect and enabling child abuse.

SALT LAKE CITY %u2014 A teenage mother has been sentenced to 15 years to life in prison after being found guilty of snapping the spine of her 2-year-old son. Lucero was 17 when the boy died Aug. 24, 2008. Before she was sentenced, Lucero told the court that she didn't kill the boy and that she's wrongly being held responsible.

TWIN FALLS, Idaho %u2014 Authorities in Twin Falls County say a father and his son are being held on separate charges of sexual assault. The elder Osterhoudt faces five counts of lewd conduct with a minor under 16, one count of incest and one count of rape %u2026 His son faces two counts of statutory rape for two incidents involving a 15-year-old girl.

DEFUNIAK SPRINGS, Fla. %u2014 A Florida woman faces a felony charge after a toddler she was supposed to be watching was found in the middle of a DeFuniak Springs street.

MONITOR TOWNSHIP, Mich. %u2014 Police in Michigan say a man resisted arrest and used his 5-month-old niece as a shield %u2014 threatening to break her neck %u2014 before he was Tasered. "I will kill this baby, I will break its neck."

Suffolk County Child Protective Services has opened a formal investigation to learn how much Daniel Schuler knew about his wife's drinking and marijuana use the day of the Taconic Parkway crash that killed eight people, including four children.

A man whose wife and daughter were moving away from the Roslyn Heights home where they had been living apart from him for the past year shot them and his mother-in-law Friday before turning the gun on himself.

-One day only, one newspaper. Tell me sir why any of these people deserved the right to breed? Because God gave them the ability to do so? Parenting is the only profession which requires absolutely no training or qualifications to practice. But yet it is the most important one. How do propose that this be resolved?
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 09, 2009
At no point in time did I say everyone should be able to have kids.

But to remove the right to reproduce is eugenics, Nazi style.
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 09, 2009
By the way:
http://www.physor...339.html

Just more examples of how op is a ridiculous thing to worry about in an educated world.
Ethelred
not rated yet Aug 09, 2009
[Q]A man whose wife and daughter were moving away from the Roslyn Heights home where they had been living apart from him for the past year shot them and his mother-in-law Friday before turning the gun on himself.[/Q]

It is so rare that these Darwin Award winners get this right. They are so badly educated. The correct order is:

FIRST - Kill Self

Second - Kill others.

Why is they just can't get that right?. The only case I know of where the Award Winner got the order right was the porn actor Cal Jammer. Of course his wife/girlfriend did give him a lot of help in getting the order right by dodging out the back door when he came to 'talk to her'.

Ethelred
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2009
Because they are defective. As are we all. 'Let he who is without defect cast the first stone.' See? It's in the bible! Everythings there. It's not a doorstop. :-O
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2009
At no point in time did I say everyone should be able to have kids.
But to remove the right to reproduce is eugenics, Nazi style.
you realize you just contradicted yourself here? Maybe if we can stop using words like eugenics and Nazi we can look at the problem face-on and begin to find real answers. Eugenics is occuring in a big way even as we speak: bright young people are being removed from their incipient cultures and sent to universities where they will most likely pair with those of similar ability; as do those left behind. Intelligent, well-off families are generally healthier and happier, being less prone to pressures like crime and substance abuse [and country music?] which destabilize others.
Just more examples of how op is a ridiculous thing to worry about in an educated world.
Well, the trend includes white women too, who opt to marry later on or not at all. Did you consider that some might percieve this world as a dangerous and overcrowded world and consider parenting as not worth the effort? A few generations ago we had cultures which supported families. Now we have fear-mongering on tv. Result: indigene birthrates in western countries are falling, allowing room for emigration Of the brightest from all the ghastly overcrowded, strife-ridden Third World. This is a Plan a Process, and it's not mine. I is just da Messinger.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) Aug 10, 2009
At no point in time did I say everyone should be able to have kids.
But to remove the right to reproduce is eugenics, Nazi style.
you realize you just contradicted yourself here?

No contradiction. To restrict the biological rights of another is not acceptable. That being said, not everyone should be pursuing their biological imperatives, but if they choose to do so, I should not be able to stop them until they actually make the mistake.

Sad for the children I know, but, there's an ethical line there. Yeah I know, ethics to mathusians are fairly skewed, it's a lot of "do what I say but I'll do what I want because I'm better than you" thinking. I call it classism, racism, sexism take your pick.
I is just da Messinger.


Cute. Ruth Messinger is a big time Malthusian. Whether you intended that or not, it's fairly priceless.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2009
Danke.
But the environmental group said the vital habitats of the mountain range were facing growing pressures from unsustainable development in the region, which spans Nepal, China, India, Bhutan and Myanmar.
In a report released here, it said climate change, deforestation, overgrazing by domestic livestock and illegal poaching and wildlife trading threatened one of the biologically richest areas of the planet.
"In the last half-century, this area of South Asia has faced a wave of pressures as a result of population growth and the increasing demand for commodities," said the report, "The Eastern Himalayas -- Where Worlds Collide."
"Only 25 percent of the original habitats in the region remain intact. For the unique species of the Eastern Himalayas, this means that today 163 are considered globally threatened," it said.
http://www.physor...679.html
-So what do we do? Time's running out.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2009
I should not be able to stop them until they actually make the mistake.
-Aand would you consider it a mistake if a crack-addicted woman or alcoholic was too lazy to get an abortion? If we could determine the fetus she was carrying would need a lifetime of intensive medical care? Or an HIV positive woman on an obsolete culture which teaches that a woman needs to concieve to be fulfilled? We are almost able now to provide expectant mothers with implant monitors which can alert authorities if she drinks past the limit, smokes, or does drugs. Is it ethical to ensure that an entire life is not ruined because a woman proves she is not responsible enough to concieve on her own? Damaged brains might well be the source of most crime, which is societys problem. Similarly, Is it ethical to allow women to conceive despite the high probability they may pass on serious genetic disease or deformity? Should prenatal screening be mandated or not? What do you think I think? Nobody should have to suffer a lifetime of pain due to the ignorance or selfishness or carelessness or laziness of a Dimwit parent.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2009
A wreckless or drunken driver who causes serious harm to others is liable for the pain and suffering and treatment of those they harm. It should be the same with a mother and her fetus. Much better to be able to prevent it from happening in the first place, which we have the ability and the moral imperative to do.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2009
You say sir that it is immoral to require a woman to prove herself fit to bring a life into this world. I say that point of view is a relict of those religions you profess to reject.
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 10, 2009
You say sir that it is immoral to require a woman to prove herself fit to bring a life into this world. I say that point of view is a relict of those religions you profess to reject.


Yes, but along your line of thought Stephen Hawking would have been Euthanised at age 29. Long before he made any of the prodigous advances in the world of physics.

The value of individual life is not for anyone to judge as we have an inherent conflict of interest. Couple that with our inability to pre-determine anything when it comes to the future values of said people.

Even the biggest genetic deformity can save mankind or alter our prospects as a species.

Who gets the right to determine what should and shouldn't be? The only correct answer is noone. Otherwise you're establishing a "Godhood" whether it be driven by man, or by institution as religion has been.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2009
Yes, but along your line of thought Stephen Hawking would have been Euthanised at age 29
Naw, I'm saying that if Stephen hawking had married a falling-down drunk then she would have had to prove she could sober up long enough to concieve. And if she chanced to take one drink while pregnant she would be locked in a clinic until she gave birth. I think steve would agree. She would also have to prove she stayed sober enough to raise thT child without driving the wrong way down the parkway some day. Motherhood is a special condition which requires extra-ordinary safety measures. It should absolutely be a priviledge not a right. Parents put their children in daycare and those people have to be certified but the parents themselves do not. What makes a tenuous biological connection different? The guiding hand of God?
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2009
Here's one: http://www.boston...rvc=home&position=0
-I think it would have been easy enough to determine that both these women had proven themselves unfit to raise children, let alone produce any more. Another one - "Octomom" A final question: how many Hawkings have we lost to bad parenting? How much better might the world be if they weren't so rare?
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 10, 2009
How many Hawkings have we lost by preventing their birth?

For every example you bring of a bad parent, I can bring an example of a good parent. So who decides which is which? I know I can't tell the future. Can you?
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2009
So only only half the kids in the world are screwed up? We're not talking about restricting good parents- only those who have demonstrated they aren't or wouldn't be. We do this with adoption. Why not prospective birthing parents??
Try this- gods and godesses abound:
http://www.salon....of_care/
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 10, 2009
If you're unsure of the future, shouldnt you want to err on the side of protecting those who have their entire lives yet to live, rather than those who just want to have a baby?
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 11, 2009
If you're unsure of the future, shouldnt you want to err on the side of protecting those who have their entire lives yet to live, rather than those who just want to have a baby?

How do you do one without doing the other?

We do this with adoption. Why not prospective birthing parents??
I'm guessing you don't have children. There's a strong psychological change that occurs when you have kids. It has profound effects on personality, behavior, etc. There's no yard stick to determine whether someone will become an alcoholic, abuser, sexual predator, until they perform the act.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2009
There's no yard stick to determine whether someone will become an alcoholic, abuser, sexual predator, until they perform the act.
Yes there are. In all the examples I noted above, there was ample evidence. The 'womb raider' women left a trail of unwanted children across the country. The tech is there or almost there to monitor and control. I'm not even saying 'before' but 'after', at least, initially.
I'm guessing you don't have children. There's a strong psychological change that occurs when you have kids
Some but not all. Not by a long shot. You give God way too much credit. Time to let go of vestigial religious fantasy. Cleaning up the human race- by minimizing damage to the young and unborn- is not eugenics or Nazism. It is mercy. The RIGHT to the chance at a life undamaged and pain-free takes precedence over the desire to procreate.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2009
Velanarris you understand that your strong feelings about this are also biological in nature. Whether you believe Dawkins and the 'selfish gene' theory or not, to a parent the idea that someone somewhere could have the power to prevent you- or your offspring- from passing on your genes causes reaction without thought. The primal urge to protect ones only true chance at 'eternal life', the legacy we leave to subsequent generations. It makes us want to be good parents and hate ourselves for the mistakes we make. But some people- many people- just don't have those mechanisms. Their legacy is perhaps the damage they themselves recieved. They shouldn't be allowed to pass it on, either before or after they give birth.
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 11, 2009
Some but not all. Not by a long shot. You give God way too much credit. Time to let go of vestigial religious fantasy. Cleaning up the human race- by minimizing damage to the young and unborn- is not eugenics or Nazism. It is mercy. The RIGHT to the chance at a life undamaged and pain-free takes precedence over the desire to procreate.

First, never confuse ethics with religion, they are wholly separate things. And never include me with the dogmatic religious bunch, that's borderline offensive.

Second, whose right takes priority? The right of the child to life or the right of the parent to life? Whose pain are we talking about? If you were told you're not allowed to have kids do you think that would be painful? I certainly do. Let's play the statistics game. People indigenous to North America have a 12.5% chance of being an alcoholic. Caucasian Americans have a 2% chance.

Does that mean that we should further reduce the ability of the indigeous peoples to breed? Sounds an awful lot like eugenics to be. How about Western Europeans vs Eastern Europeans? Western Europeans have 1/4th the addiction rate to hardcore drugs that Eastern Europeans have. Does that mean the poles and slavs are shit out of luck? More eugenics.

Their legacy is perhaps the damage they themselves recieved. They shouldn't be allowed to pass it on, either before or after they give birth.
I think you'd very quickly change your tune if you were an abused child.

How about all the people who are perfectly normal, no problems, then whoa, they're found cutting peoples heads off in a trailer park (it actually happened in the Northeast US a few years ago). They had good parents, wealth, many other great things going for them. Should their parents have been allowed to breed? What about their other 2 children, ones a doctor, the other a professional lawyer? Should we invalidate their lives because their older brother was broken?

[read this part carefully for humor]

Seriously, this level of elitism is typically the purview of teenaged white suburbanites. Maybe we should just prevent them from being born.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2009
whose right takes priority? The right of the child to life or the right of the parent to life?
Theyre only children for a short time. They will always be people. "It is MERCY. The RIGHT to the chance at a life undamaged and pain-free takes precedence over the DESIRE to procreate." Always.
First, never confuse ethics with religion, they are wholly separate things.
Well, religions do include ethics and were their only organized vehicle for 1000s of years. They kept people relatively honest and civil when there was nothing else to do so. They convinced us to restrain ourselves and live with less than we wanted when nothing else could. Sure, by scaring the hell out of us and our neighbors. What the hell, it worked.
Let's play the statistics game. People indigenous to North America have a 12.5% chance of being an alcoholic. Caucasian Americans have a 2% chance.
They are individuals and must be evaluated as such. Just because a woman is member of some minority it dont give her the right to produce an FAS baby. If she cant sober up then shes unfit to be a mother.
How about all the people who are perfectly normal, no problems, then whoa, they're found cutting peoples heads off in a trailer park
Thats what I like about these science websites- they give me hope that we're going to solve all these problems sooner than we think. We'll be able to look at brains and genes and know who has the propensity for what; and whether it is fixable. We'll empty all the prisons and fire all the lawyers. And it will give us the solid moral authority to tell a very few that they cannot reproduce. And it will allow us to determine with a greater degree of confidence who can reproduce with suitable help, and with guidance and monitoring. This is freedom- from worry, from guilt, from pain, from defect.

In the meantime we can do all we can to ensure that the next generation is as healthy and capable and as clear-headed as they can be. It will be their world soon and they will be deciding how it should work. Hopefully we've left a good example by treating them the way we ourselves would want to be treated (the biblical Golden Rule) and theyre not wasting their lives resenting us because of the selfish or unthinking things we did as parents.

Does evil exist in the world only so that we can learn how to avoid it? Maybe. Maybe the true evil is in not learning from tragedy and acting upon what we learn.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2009
I think you'd very quickly change your tune if you were an abused child.
If I had been abused I would tend to resent 2 people- the abusers and the people who could have prevented it. Or I could realise that resentment was my worst enemy and work hard to get on with my life. And I could also realise that my memories were colored by things like depression and that I might tend to remember only the bad things. But seriously, nobody should have to deal with any of that.
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 11, 2009
And it will allow us to determine with a greater degree of confidence who can reproduce with suitable help, and with guidance and monitoring.

Eugenics enabled via technocracy.
This is freedom-

Yep, I think we're done discussing this.

So for my last reply:
If I had been abused I would tend to resent 2 people- the abusers and the people who could have prevented it. Or I could realise that resentment was my worst enemy and work hard to get on with my life.

Or under your plan you would have been aborted and not had the ability to do either.

It's very simple, when someone says "there ought'a be a law" there probably shouldn't. When someone professes to have a solution, have them apply that solution to themselves first. Can you say your parents, and their parents, your siblings and further family would have the right to reproduce in your world?

The answer is most likely "no". With that, I'm going to withdraw from this conversation as this is purely a subjective conversation. Meaning, there is no correct and factual answer, just an educated (or non depending on the readers' views) guess.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2009
So in other words I won, right? Woohoo!
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2009
Just remember my friend, in an overcrowded world it is your childrens job to replace you, the sooner the better for them. They can be extremely ruthless and devious in this pursuit. The first thing they will do is convince you that youre old. Take Heed!
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 11, 2009
Just remember my friend, in an overcrowded world it is your childrens job to replace you, the sooner the better for them. They can be extremely ruthless and devious in this pursuit. The first thing they will do is convince you that youre old. Take Heed!

The sooner my children can replace me, the better a job I did as a parent. I welcome obsolencense.

You can't be relevant forever, regardless of how many you can crush under your boot.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2009
So I see that youve already been devoured. No matter, Otto is victorious! Otto is dancing de Polka!
SteveS
not rated yet Aug 11, 2009
The sooner my children can replace me, the better a job I did as a parent. I welcome obsolencense.


A young persons view of the world.

Value experience
Ethelred
not rated yet Aug 11, 2009
It is possible that Valinarris wants to die young. If he does then won't have to find out if he is right or wrong on oh say global warming.

Me I am planning to live long enough to find out how we humans are going handle that and overpopulation. Of course we will need significant life extension for that. Since it is possible for that the happen in my lifetime I feel that long term consequences may very well become personal rather than intellectual.

And Otto and Valinarris are having a pissing match so it might be wise to stay out unless you reeeaaallly want to get involved. Not that I have anything against pissing matches. I just can't see any future in this one.

Ethelred
Velanarris
not rated yet Aug 11, 2009
The sooner my children can replace me, the better a job I did as a parent. I welcome obsolencense.

A young persons view of the world.

Value experience

An ignoramuse's interpretation.

The sooner my children can replace me, the better a job I did as a parent.

As you said, value experience.... the rest of that line is "it's irreplacable". Enjoy otto.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 11, 2009
Naw we're done. Victory is only ever temporary. Peace is only the preparation for war. 2 months to Oktoberfest!