Whats more important?

[-Demosthenes-]

The part about culture and religion supporting large families. I have a problem with that.

unfortunately, those are the hardest things to change.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I take back my statement of government attempt to limit population.

The part about culture and religion supporting large families. I have a problem with that. Though I respect such establishments I also believe that when it comes to population and the sustainable amount in the world particularly in each individual country, with specific regards to already massively populated countries such as China and India, I believe that much more stringint measures need to be taken such as contraception as well as specific surgical proceedures such as sterilizations after a given number of pregnancies.
I recognize that it would be very difficult to implement any sterilization measures as mostly due to human nature there will be great ethical concerns.
I still don't believe however that enough is being done in India to control it's population growth and this needs to be an issue that should require much more attention as it really impacts all parts of any nation.

Yeah, the Nazis did experiments with sterilization, too.

What gives any government the authority to tell people how many kids they can have? What a frightening notion.

 

[jfuh]

Yeah, the Nazis did experiments with sterilization, too.

What gives any government the authority to tell people how many kids they can have? What a frightening notion.

Actually every industrialized nation and a few developing nations played around with "forced" sterilizations. China is probably the only country today that actively sterilizes everyone after concieving of thier first child.
The problem with former sterilizations was that only a minority of people that were believe "inferior" were sterilized and not others. Which is what you are referring to with the Nazis (Back to godwin's law). The US also did such with the eugenics movements.
Sterilization I feel should be given more consideration by high growth rate nations in order to control out of control population growth. However there are still many other options that need to be further explored.

Now on your last argument of what government has the authority to tell ppl how many offspring to have. Singapore actually does also just that as well, the US does it too, only indirectly. How does the US do it? Through welfare control. It is a statistical fact that most families in poverty have the most children, mostly this has to do with innate survival instincts and lack of education. Thus in the US those in poverty are most affected when the government in the Clinton years and again in '01 set more and more limitations on the methodology in which social welfare can be spent and given.

Bottom line of my argument however remains that population control should be the number one agenda of all countries. The world's resources are finite and so should population.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Actually every industrialized nation and a few developing nations played around with "forced" sterilizations. China is probably the only country today that actively sterilizes everyone after concieving of thier first child.

You post some of the most arrant nonsense I've ever seen. What people in the US today are subject to forced sterilization as a matter of ongoing public policy? No one.

The Tuskegee Experiments were just that, experiments.

Sterilization I feel should be given more consideration by high growth rate nations in order to control out of control population growth.

I agree completely. All persons advocating sterilization should be required to hold their own testicles or ovaries over their heads to show their dedication, and the severed heads of all but one of their children.

However there are still many other options that need to be further explored.

Yeah, like industrialization leads to higher standards of living that lead to a declining birth rate. It's not like my grandmother didn't have 17 children of her own. (She was BUSY!)

Now on your last argument of what government has the authority to tell ppl how many offspring to have. Singapore actually does also just that as well, the US does it too, only indirectly.

Power is different from authority.

The US doesn't do it at all.

How does the US do it? Through welfare control. It is a statistical fact that most families in poverty have the most children, mostly this has to do with innate survival instincts and lack of education. Thus in the US those in poverty are most affected when the government in the Clinton years and again in '01 set more and more limitations on the methodology in which social welfare can be spent and given.

Had nothing to do with birth control, everything to do with balancing budgets.

Bottom line of my argument however remains that population control should be the number one agenda of all countries. The world's resources are finite and so should population.

Oh, well that's easily done. Pick the countries that are too populous, and I'm sure you'll pick the ones with higher concentrations of melanin, and nuke 'em. Only take fifteen minutes or so.

 

[jfuh]

You post some of the most arrant nonsense I've ever seen. What people in the US today are subject to forced sterilization as a matter of ongoing public policy? No one.

Eugenics movement, check into it. no? here's a link.
I hope that you feel PBS to be a credible source.

The Tuskegee Experiments were just that, experiments.

I never referred to the Tuskegee experiments.

Tuskegee ExperimentsI agree completely. All persons advocating sterilization should be required to hold their own testicles or ovaries over their heads to show their dedication, and the severed heads of all but one of their children.

Un huh. Care to read all of what I've written as opposed to only a select few edited sentences? Do you even know what the Tuskegee experiments involved? It was of the research of syphillis, nothing to do with what I have written thus far.

Yeah, like industrialization leads to higher standards of living that lead to a declining birth rate.

Have you been paying any attention to what has been posted thus far or are you just pulling crap and venting anger from your ass?

The US doesn't do it at all.

Read, it might do you some good.

Had nothing to do with birth control, everything to do with balancing budgets.

Oh? Budget balancing? Tell me then, how exactly does builidng a million dollar bridge in Alaska to an island with only a population of roughly 50 and other pork barrael spending contribute to balancing the budget? Please, there are many other useless funds available that needn't interfere with providing reasonable social wellfare. But then you may indeed be part of that top 20% elite that the government made considerable tax cuts for.
Not to mention it was what I refered to as indirect population control. Could you try reading?

Oh, well that's easily done. Pick the countries that are too populous, and I'm sure you'll pick the ones with higher concentrations of melanin, and nuke 'em. Only take fifteen minutes or so.

So now you're trying to discredit me by callingl me a racist. Just to give you a little information I happen to have "higher concentrations of melanin".
Interesting how you have not presented any arguments of what is more important in an environmental thread. But now are turning into pointless mudslinging. Perhaps this is how you debate?
Well perhaps I'm over reaching, alright so what do you think is more important?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Eugenics movement, check into it. no? here's a link.
I hope that you feel PBS to be a credible source.

The link says that private citizens formed eugenics societies. So? When someone claims the United States does something, they're implying an official action by the government. Your link doesn't state that.

And since PBS is a flagship "Blame America Firster", and the link doesn't blame America, it's probably quasi-reliable and I certainly won't expend effort digging up information that supports your case. That's your job.

I never referred to the Tuskegee experiments

Okay, got me there. It's been almost thirty years since I read about it, and it wasn't that big a deal anyway. Reading your link, were the fathers that infected the children with syphillis arrested?

Have you been paying any attention to what has been posted thus far or are you just pulling crap and venting anger from your ass?

I'm not an astronaut, I don't have to pull crap from my ass. Gravity does it for me.

Oh? Budget balancing?

Budget balancing.

Tell me then, how exactly does builidng a million dollar bridge in Alaska to an island with only a population of roughly 50 and other pork barrael spending contribute to balancing the budget? Please, there are many other useless funds available that needn't interfere with providing reasonable social wellfare. But then you may indeed be part of that top 20% elite that the government made considerable tax cuts for.

Nothing. It's for buying votes.

Let's see....spend a hundred megabucks on a bridge, get six votes for Senator Bob (whoever!)....save a hundred gigabucks on other giveaways and get a dozen votes for Congressmen Fred, Ted, Jed, and Ned...

That's what federal spending/cutting is all about. Grow up and learn about the real world.

So now you're trying to discredit me by callingl me a racist. Just to give you a little information I happen to have "higher concentrations of melanin".

That's good to know. I guess. Does that mean you'de be more likely to claim Norway has too many people in it?

Interesting how you have not presented any arguments of what is more important in an environmental thread.

Oh. That. You want to know? You really want to know what the biggest environmental threat to the planet is? It's certainly not too many people.

It's too many stupid people.

But now are turning into pointless mudslinging. Perhaps this is how you debate?

Who says it's mud? Didn't you just now (incorrectly) say I pull crap from my ass?

And who says I'm "debating" anyting right now? That would require work, effort, intense concentration, and an effective opponent.

Well perhaps I'm over reaching, alright so what do you think is more important?

The most important thing in the world is the number of minds wasted by religious dogma. The Christians, the muslims, the jews, the hindus, the liberals. So many lives wasted. It's a real shame.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Eugenics movement, check into it. no? here's a link.
I hope that you feel PBS to be a credible source.

The link says that private citizens formed eugenics societies. So? When someone claims the United States does something, they're implying an official action by the government. Your link doesn't state that.

And since PBS is a flagship "Blame America Firster", and the link doesn't blame America, it's probably quasi-reliable and I certainly won't expend effort digging up information that supports your case. That's your job.

I never referred to the Tuskegee experiments

Okay, got me there. It's been almost thirty years since I read about it, and it wasn't that big a deal anyway. Reading your link, were the fathers that infected the children with syphillis arrested?

Have you been paying any attention to what has been posted thus far or are you just pulling crap and venting anger from your ass?

I'm not an astronaut, I don't have to pull crap from my ass. Gravity does it for me.

Oh? Budget balancing?

Budget balancing.

Tell me then, how exactly does builidng a million dollar bridge in Alaska to an island with only a population of roughly 50 and other pork barrael spending contribute to balancing the budget? Please, there are many other useless funds available that needn't interfere with providing reasonable social wellfare. But then you may indeed be part of that top 20% elite that the government made considerable tax cuts for.

Nothing. It's for buying votes.

Let's see....spend a hundred megabucks on a bridge, get six votes for Senator Bob (whoever!)....save a hundred gigabucks on other giveaways and get a dozen votes for Congressmen Fred, Ted, Jed, and Ned...

That's what federal spending/cutting is all about. Grow up and learn about the real world.

So now you're trying to discredit me by callingl me a racist. Just to give you a little information I happen to have "higher concentrations of melanin".

That's good to know. I guess. :roll: Personally I'm an excellent hybrid strain of Celtic and Nazi progenitor.

Can you name any melanin deficient nations that are "overpopulated"? How about Norway or Sweden?

Interesting how you have not presented any arguments of what is more important in an environmental thread.

Oh. That. You want to know? You really want to know what the biggest environmental threat to the planet is? It's certainly not too many people.

It's too many stupid people.

But now are turning into pointless mudslinging. Perhaps this is how you debate?

Who says it's mud? Didn't you just now (incorrectly) say I pull crap from my ass?

And who says I'm "debating" anyting right now? That would require work, effort, intense concentration, and an effective opponent.

Well perhaps I'm over reaching, alright so what do you think is more important?

The most important thing in the world is the number of minds wasted by religious dogma. The Christians, the muslims, the jews, the hindus, the liberals. So many lives wasted. It's a real shame.

 

[jfuh]

The link says that private citizens formed eugenics societies. So? When someone claims the United States does something, they're implying an official action by the government. Your link doesn't state that.

And since PBS is a flagship "Blame America Firster", and the link doesn't blame America, it's probably quasi-reliable and I certainly won't expend effort digging up information that supports your case. That's your job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html

Okay, got me there. It's been almost thirty years since I read about it, and it wasn't that big a deal anyway. Reading your link, were the fathers that infected the children with syphillis arrested?

Perhaps you are ignorant of how syphillis can be transmitted aside from engaging in intercourse? Well if a woman has sex with a carrier she has syphillis, as does any offspring she then has if she is not treated, as was the case.

Nothing. It's for buying votes.

Let's see....spend a hundred megabucks on a bridge, get six votes for Senator Bob (whoever!)....save a hundred gigabucks on other giveaways and get a dozen votes for Congressmen Fred, Ted, Jed, and Ned...

That's what federal spending/cutting is all about.

That's very true.

That's good to know. I guess. Does that mean you'de be more likely to claim Norway has too many people in it?

Have I ever made any claim as to which country has population growth out of control?

Oh. That. You want to know? You really want to know what the biggest environmental threat to the planet is? It's certainly not too many people.

It's too many stupid people.

So then, you think the same as I.

And who says I'm "debating" anyting right now? That would require work, effort, intense concentration, and an effective opponent.

Let's see, you're registered on a site called "debatepolitics.com" What else do you think you are doing on such a site if you are not debating?

The most important thing in the world is the number of minds wasted by religious dogma. The Christians, the muslims, the jews, the hindus, the liberals. So many lives wasted. It's a real shame.

With high concentrations of populations will always come a populice that doesn't know what to do and requires religious dogma to "guide" them. Hence again, population control.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Yeah, the Nazis did experiments with sterilization, too.

What gives any government the authority to tell people how many kids they can have? What a frightening notion.

I think that we can agree that incentives can be used in dire situations like India's.

PS, don't get to fair trying to associate others points with negative things. (ex: associating sterilization with Nazis to make it seem evil). It makes it harder to judge the points fairly.

Actually every industrialized nation and a few developing nations played around with "forced" sterilizations. China is probably the only country today that actively sterilizes everyone after concieving [sic] of thier first child.
The problem with former sterilizations was that only a minority of people that were believe "inferior" were sterilized and not others. Which is what you are referring to with the Nazis (Back to godwin's law). The US also did such with the eugenics movements.
Sterilization I feel should be given more consideration by high growth rate nations in order to control out of control population growth. However there are still many other options that need to be further explored.

The forced sterilization according to most intellectual opinions gives the government a power that belongs to individuals.

Now on your last argument of what government has the authority to tell ppl how many offspring to have. Singapore actually does also just that as well, the US does it too, only indirectly. How does the US do it? Through welfare control. It is a statistical fact that most families in poverty have the most children, mostly this has to do with innate survival instincts and lack of education. Thus in the US those in poverty are most affected when the government in the Clinton years and again in '01 set more and more limitations on the methodology in which social welfare can be spent and given.

My parents actually make money of taxes we have so many kids I don't know how that makes them want to have less children...

In my area families have a lot of kids, and we're not poor. I don't know a family that has less than three kids (besides a newly wed couples, and older couples). Our area is normal middle class, and I think that children just might out number the adults, in my neighborhood at least.

The theory, More kids = Poverty, is flawed.

Bottom line of my argument however remains that population control should be the number one agenda of all countries. The world's resources are finite and so should population.

When areas reach their carrying capasity [sic] then the population will level out, big deal.

Yeah, like industrialization leads to higher standards of living that lead to a declining birth rate.

The mere fact that a nation is going through a industrial (or service based economy transformation) means that the birth rate will drop signifigantly in that nations near future, provided little cultural resistance is present.

But now are turning into pointless mudslinging. Perhaps this is how you debate?

Bah, you both do it

The most important thing in the world is the number of minds wasted by religious dogma. The Christians, the muslims, the jews, the hindus, the liberals. So many lives wasted. It's a real shame.

Oh bother.

Have I ever made any claim as to which country has population growth out of control?

Meh, scarecrow'll get over it.

With high concentrations of populations will always come a populice [sic] that doesn't know what to do and requires religious dogma to "guide" them. Hence again, population control.

One of those interesting theories that is sometimes true and sometimes not. That's not a theory so much as a possibility.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
http://personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/eugenics/eugenics.html


Perhaps you are ignorant of how syphillis can be transmitted aside from engaging in intercourse? Well if a woman has sex with a carrier she has syphillis, as does any offspring she then has if she is not treated, as was the case.

Oh, that's right. I forgot what the silver nitrate drops in the newborn's eyes were for. Never mind.

Have I ever made any claim as to which country has population growth out of control?

You're the one justifying aggressive population control measures. You must feel some place needs it.

So then, you think the same as I.

Don't flatter yourself.

Let's see, you're registered on a site called "debatepolitics.com" What else do you think you are doing on such a site if you are not debating?

Debating is a team effort requiring at least parties to participate.

With high concentrations of populations will always come a populice that doesn't know what to do and requires religious dogma to "guide" them. Hence again, population control.

That's a ridiculously sad commentary on humanity. They need guiding because religion prevents them from thinking. They don't need religion because they can't think.

 

[jfuh]

You're the one justifying aggressive population control measures. You must feel some place needs it.

Yes, any country that is not at equilibrium with self sustaining in terms of food and drinking water productions.

Debating is a team effort requiring at least parties to participate.

Really? Interesting:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
debate
One entry found for debate.
Main Entry: 2debate
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): de·bat·ed; de·bat·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French debatre, from Old French, from de- + batre to beat, from Latin battuere
intransitive senses
1 obsolete : FIGHT, CONTEND
2 a : to contend in words b : to discuss a question by considering opposed arguments
3 : to participate in a debate
transitive senses
1 a : to argue about b : to engage (an opponent) in debate
2 : to turn over in one's mind
synonym see DISCUSS
- de·bate·ment /-'bAt-m&nt/ noun
- de·bat·er noun

Where does neccessity of team come in to play again?

They need guiding because religion prevents them from thinking. They don't need religion because they can't think.

Just what are you saying here exactly? Need religion because it prevents them from thinking, yet don't need religion because they can't think?

 

[libertarian_knight]

Yes, any country that is not at equilibrium with self sustaining in terms of food and drinking water productions.


Really? Interesting:

Where does neccessity of team come in to play again?



Just what are you saying here exactly? Need religion because it prevents them from thinking, yet don't need religion because they can't think?

Religion breaks a man's mind and supplies a crutch for man to walk again. that help?

Relgion (particularly relgions with central churches) prevent people from using the full resources of God's Gifts of Reason and Consciousness, and supplant man's device of Control and Obedience.

Thus a religion (again, those with central churches) takes away the fullness of the adherents mind, and replaces it with an inferior way of thinking.

They take 50% of man's mind, and give back a specific 5%, a net loss of 45%.
(The numbers are random and for example, not to be taken literally).

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Just what are you saying here exactly? Need religion because it prevents them from thinking, yet don't need religion because they can't think?

I said:

"They need guiding because religion prevents them from thinking. They don't need religion because they can't think."

And I suppose for some, it requires a final sentence:

"They need to learn how to think."

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Religion breaks a man's mind and supplies a crutch for man to walk again. that help?

Relgion (particularly relgions with central churches) prevent people from using the full resources of God's Gifts of Reason and Consciousness, and supplant man's device of Control and Obedience.

Thus a religion (again, those with central churches) takes away the fullness of the adherents mind, and replaces it with an inferior way of thinking.

They take 50% of man's mind, and give back a specific 5%, a net loss of 45%.
(The numbers are random and for example, not to be taken literally).

Oh, no, you don't have to limit it to those religions with walls. ALL religions dull the mind's ability to think. Believing ain't thinking, and the toughest walls of all are the limits a man places on his own mind.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

Religion breaks a man's mind and supplies a crutch for man to walk again. that help?

Each individual case is different.

ALL religions dull the mind's ability to think.

Each religion is different.

 

[civien]

human traits, it should start first within ourselves.

 

[jfuh]

The forced sterilization according to most intellectual opinions gives the government a power that belongs to individuals.

I'm not advocating forced sterilizations, I'm only coming up with ways that work. Because lets face it, people are not going to stop having sex. Too many religions around then advocate giving birth to the child regardless of circumstances (even rape victims).
Tieing the ovaries or testies would be good in such cases.

My parents actually make money of taxes we have so many kids I don't know how that makes them want to have less children...

In my area families have a lot of kids, and we're not poor. I don't know a family that has less than three kids (besides a newly wed couples, and older couples). Our area is normal middle class, and I think that children just might out number the adults, in my neighborhood at least.

The theory, More kids = Poverty, is flawed.

AS you point out, your area. That hardly represents the majority of the country. Also what you've pointed out is you are "normal middle class". Thus you get tax deductions not social care, big difference. My theory is not "more kids = poverty, but more so "poverty = more kids = more poverty".

When areas reach their carrying capasity [sic] then the population will level out, big deal.

And just through which method will the population level out? and at what cost? Ancient mesopotamia over irrigating the land and causing salt to leak out onto the surface creating a now complete wasteland? Or the Ancient Cambodian empire that grew too quickly and then became an empire in ruins? These are all examples of once great civilizations that because of an overrun of population annihalated themselves.

The mere fact that a nation is going through a industrial (or service based economy transformation) means that the birth rate will drop signifigantly in that nations near future, provided little cultural resistance is present.

Not true, the US the most industrialized nation has the highest birth rate of any industrialized nation. India switching greatly towards a services based economy (IT) still has incredibly large population rate.
The world can not sustain every country to go through an industrialization with a baby boom era.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

I'm not advocating forced sterilizations...

Good.

...I'm only coming up with ways that work. Because lets face it, people are not going to stop having sex. Too many religions around then advocate giving birth to the child regardless of circumstances (even rape victims).
Tieing the ovaries or testies would be good in such cases.

First of all, there is a rather large contradiction here, I don't know what to tell you.

Second of all, in some areas such as Europe they could actually use more births. Nations that have moved into the service based economy all have waning birthrates. There are areas that need lower birthrates, but these places are man fewer than you make them out to be.

Lastly, in the long run, we'll all be service based eventually, and birthrates will drop. Certainly not for many decades, but still, all fixes such as sterilization or temporary fixes.

Again, saying, "I'm not advocating forced sterilizations," in the same paragraph as, "Tieing the ovaries or testies would be good in such cases," will just confuse us. Chose an opinion.

My theory is not "more kids = poverty, but more so "poverty = more kids = more poverty".

I think you mean, "poverty + more kids = more poverty" may be true, but I'd question how useful that theory is. You theory doesn't predict that people with more kids will be poorer, but that those that are already poor will be poorer if they have more children. That leaves us with sterilizing the poor, or eliminating the poor (not killing them , improving their conditions somehow). The point is, forced and random sterilization would not solve the problem that you put forth, in effect your solution does not fit your theory.

And just through which method will the population level out? and at what cost? Ancient mesopotamia over irrigating the land and causing salt to leak out onto the surface creating a now complete wasteland? Or the Ancient Cambodian empire that grew too quickly and then became an empire in ruins? These are all examples of once great civilizations that because of an overrun of population annihalated themselves.

My wording was rather misleading, the economy will limit the birthrate, that is the service based economies will after they form. As soon as populations live in cities, their birthrates are never the same.

Not true, the US the most industrialized nation has the highest birth rate of any industrialized nation. India switching greatly towards a services based economy (IT) still has incredibly large population rate.
The world can not sustain every country to go through an industrialization with a baby boom era.

There are many industrialized and service based countries, and most of them have very low birthrates. As I've said, some countries in Europe need higher birthrates. The US can be considered the most "industrialized" by those who believe that it's the biggest baddest country around, but in terms of economical transformation and it's impact on population the US is in the same boat as the other service based economies, just needs time. Time will cure all ills, and in this case it's inevitably true.

What we need is temporary relief from large birthrates in India. What has worked (better than anything else, especially after sterilizations failed) is the community based groups that meet together and help compel the inhabitants to have less children. It only needs to work for another couple of decades, possibly more.

 

[jfuh]

First of all, there is a rather large contradiction here, I don't know what to tell you.

Second of all, in some areas such as Europe they could actually use more births. Nations that have moved into the service based economy all have waning birthrates. There are areas that need lower birthrates, but these places are man fewer than you make them out to be.

Lastly, in the long run, we'll all be service based eventually, and birthrates will drop. Certainly not for many decades, but still, all fixes such as sterilization or temporary fixes.

There's no contradiction. I do not advocate "forced" sterilizations, however surgical methodologies in birth control in addition to the other forms are undeniably a good methodology in the prevention of pregnancies. Perhaps that clears up your confusion.

I think you mean, "poverty + more kids = more poverty" may be true, but I'd question how useful that theory is. You theory doesn't predict that people with more kids will be poorer, but that those that are already poor will be poorer if they have more children. That leaves us with sterilizing the poor, or eliminating the poor (not killing them , improving their conditions somehow). The point is, forced and random sterilization would not solve the problem that you put forth, in effect your solution does not fit your theory.

Actually it can be either way. Certainly poverty + more kids = more poverty. However, poverty, and being igronant of the financial liabilities or ignorant of how to prevent unwanted pregnancies can also lead to more poverty. Additionally, throw in the religious dogmas of having more childeren is better also then creates more poverty.

My wording was rather misleading, the economy will limit the birthrate, that is the service based economies will after they form. As soon as populations live in cities, their birthrates are never the same.

I won't argue that in many a cases that your argument is indeed valid. However let's look at the most extreem of cases, ie. India, the gradual shift should eventually limit the birthrate, however in the mean time with nearly 1/4 of the world's population to deal with, nearly all other instances are irrelevent in the face of the question of how to accomidate everyone. Thus more direct interventions should be addressed.

There are many industrialized and service based countries, and most of them have very low birthrates. As I've said, some countries in Europe need higher birthrates. The US can be considered the most "industrialized" by those who believe that it's the biggest baddest country around, but in terms of economical transformation and it's impact on population the US is in the same boat as the other service based economies, just needs time. Time will cure all ills, and in this case it's inevitably true.

I give the example of the US because the population of any european country is hardly of any significance. Even with the aspect of growing populations, environmental stress would limit (I'm refering to the maximum amount of available spaces for living in Europe as well as agricultural and water sheds).
The issue is not what will "cure all" but of the time frame that is available in order to resolve the issues. Think about it, if every country had the population birth rate that the US has today, hell just say if China today had the birth rate of the US of the inevitable impacts it would have both on humanity and on environment.

What we need is temporary relief from large birthrates in India. What has worked (better than anything else, especially after sterilizations failed) is the community based groups that meet together and help compel the inhabitants to have less children. It only needs to work for another couple of decades, possibly more.

Exactly

 

[-Demosthenes-]

There's no contradiction. I do not advocate "forced" sterilizations, however surgical methodologies in birth control in addition to the other forms are undeniably a good methodology in the prevention of pregnancies. Perhaps that clears up your confusion.

A little bit. You don't think that we should, but you think that it would work, right?

Actually it can be either way. Certainly poverty + more kids = more poverty. However, poverty, and being igronant of the financial liabilities or ignorant of how to prevent unwanted pregnancies can also lead to more poverty. Additionally, throw in the religious dogmas of having more childeren is better also then creates more poverty.

I doubt many religions support more children on financial grounds, but of course religion (and government) are easy things to blame things on. Certainly they play a role, but I wouldn't absolve the individual from the blame of their own actions. Doesn't that sound right?

It may be that those who are poor can get poorer by having more children, but there are many people that have lots of children that are not poor. We don't have a correlation between children and poverty, but rather ignorance and poverty.

I won't argue that in many a cases that your argument is indeed valid. However let's look at the most extreem of cases, ie. India, the gradual shift should eventually limit the birthrate, however in the mean time with nearly 1/4 of the world's population to deal with, nearly all other instances are irrelevent in the face of the question of how to accomidate everyone. Thus more direct interventions should be addressed.

Agreed.

The issue is not what will "cure all" but of the time frame that is available in order to resolve the issues. Think about it, if every country had the population birth rate that the US has today, hell just say if China today had the birth rate of the US of the inevitable impacts it would have both on humanity and on environment.

The community groups seem to be working well, a more reliable government and more funds for the program could help.

 

[jfuh]

A little bit. You don't think that we should, but you think that it would work, right?

Yes, I know that forced sterilizations have too many ethical and humanity complications, but then sterilization generally, I know, just as any other form of birth control does indeed work.

I doubt many religions support more children on financial grounds, but of course religion (and government) are easy things to blame things on. Certainly they play a role, but I wouldn't absolve the individual from the blame of their own actions. Doesn't that sound right?

I'm not simply blaming religion because it's easy, but rather, well here's an example. The catholic church even till this day condones the use of birth control measures as do many evangelical mega churches.
Government, no, I don't think that any government today actually promotes population growth. Maybe I'm wrong?

It may be that those who are poor can get poorer by having more children, but there are many people that have lots of children that are not poor. We don't have a correlation between children and poverty, but rather ignorance and poverty.

Nailed, yes, ignorance is one of the major causes. But I really see it as a catch 22. In that ignorance is due to a large population that out paces the ability to educate them. Yet then it is also because of this lack of education, ignorance, that then leads to an even greater growth of population. Tie that in with arogance from religious beliefs and boom, large population growth.

The community groups seem to be working well, a more reliable government and more funds for the program could help.

That's really the problem though isn't it? Funds? Population is so large or growing at a pace that there are many more immediate matters. Ie healthcare, welfare, crime, and so on.
As for the reliable government portion, places such as the US where you only get into power with support, and in which case you're support is the bible belt, you must show that you are on the same level as they are, or understand who they are in order to get elected. I guess this is why there's such an ignoramous in office today

 

[-Demosthenes-]

I'm not simply blaming religion because it's easy, but rather, well here's an example. The catholic church even till this day condones the use of birth control measures as do many evangelical mega churches.
Government, no, I don't think that any government today actually promotes population growth. Maybe I'm wrong?

Oh, I wasn't talking about you really, I was talking about everyone. A lot want to blame things on religion like there's something we can do about it. It's what people believe in, it's hard to change that. And some blame the government for things they have little control over.

Nailed, yes, ignorance is one of the major causes. But I really see it as a catch 22. In that ignorance is due to a large population that out paces the ability to educate them. Yet then it is also because of this lack of education, ignorance, that then leads to an even greater growth of population. Tie that in with arogance from religious beliefs and boom, large population growth.

Not much of what you said is easily refutable, except it all depends on whether larger populations are negative or positive for the population, and we need to remember that the populations will all level out in the future. In placed like India and South East Asian Countries need some temporary programs in rural areas to take care of the large birthrate. But Europe has an extremely low birth rate, and the US has a apx. 2.1 (2.08) fertility rate (births per woman, not birthrate), barely replacement with a little extra to take care of infant death and accident.

The more developed countries are evening out. Russia, Italy Spain, Lithuania, Hungary, Romania, Armenia, Greece, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, and Portugal all have a fertility rate well under 1.5 (very low, replacement rate 2.1), much less than the replacement rate. The EU reports a fertility rate of 1.48, they are losing population in Europe! The US is barely holding on to their population levels at 2.08. (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territories_by_fertility_rate).

The only problems with population are in underdeveloped countries, there is no wide spread population boom or problem. When the countries with large birthrates become more developed their populations will level out as well. All we need is temporary relief.

 

[stsburns]

Human beings are adaptable creatures but extremely selfish. We would destroy beautiful things for our own conveniance. It is my opinion that protecting beautiful things is more important then money or petty inconveniences. I know I'm gonna be alone in this but I dearly regret that we have sacrificed all this land and built these things all over it. Perhaps it was unavoidable but its a shame.

What do you think about this? How much should we exploit the enviroment for our benefit?

Hypotheticly how is this possbile per say?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Hypotheticly how is this possbile per say?

That's easy. A person finds a "beautiful thing" he want's protect, right? All he has to do is buy the "beautiful thing", and it's his to protect for as long as he wants to.

I kinda suspect that this simple solution isn't what's being proposed, though..

 

[stsburns]

That's easy. A person finds a "beautiful thing" he want's protect, right? All he has to do is buy the "beautiful thing", and it's his to protect for as long as he wants to.

I kinda suspect that this simple solution isn't what's being proposed, though..

Yes, but man needs shelter. Something must be sacrificed. Man needs food. Something must be sacrificed. Man needs clothing. Something must be sacrificed. Man needs to be clean. Something must be sacrificed. Man needs clean water. Something must be sacrificed...etc.

I was just wondering how would your theory be possible when it conflicts with mans basic needs?