Setting a limit on # of kids

[Ephemeral]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-oil-supplies-are-set-to-run-out-faster-than-expected-warn-scientists-453068.html

Now add 6 more straws.

Exactly. Like my pizza example, the more straws or hands reaching for the pizza, the less you're gonna get and the faster it's gonna deplete.

That's common sense.

 

[Semirhage666]

Yes, I am for the simple reason that it is preventing the developement of a zygote (not a blob of tissue), causing birth defects of those who do survive, and in that case, a failed Birth control leads to aborting the fetus by a doctor. It is immoral in both secular and Religious, and it is Murder; enough said.

You're not even making scientific sense.

 

[MidnightPrism]

Limit the number of kids? What an asinine idea.

The US is not even close to being overpopulated. Fuck wildlife. If we need more land for houses then just build more houses

 

[zoltanspawn]

I love this short by Nina Paley. I'm sure I've posted it before:



I'm skeptical of international contrasts critical of U.S. consumption. Everywhere I've traveled, people seem to waste and destroy in measures consistent with American lifestyles simply given the opportunity. Isn't that human nature? Did those gyres of plastic in the ocean only pour from our rivers?

I would support lottery based sterilizations at this point. It's extreme, I know, but I think our crimes against the natural world are even more grievous.

 

[fetaby]

Then try explaining away why I survived the Birth Control pill; my mother was still using them 3 months into pregnacy, and I was that Baby that was born 6 months later.

Antibiotics have been known to negate the effects of birth control pills. My sister did the same thing.

 

[Ephemeral]

where are you?

people move to and congregate in cities, especially when they're young. that doesn't mean there aren't areas in this country where you could drive all day without seeing another person.

I live in a fairly populated, touristy city in Georgia.

Yes, at the moment, there are places that haven't been touched by humans. With more and more people, they're going to eventually build there as well. They'd have to expand their space.

They can't jampack everyone in skyscraper-sized apartment buildings. People would want to live somewhere else, have their own home and land to call their own. Safety would be a huge issue and it'd be a gigantic fire hazard.

 

[Semirhage666]

There was a time that Colonial America was predominately agricultural, ie; Family farms! Family farms since the 1940's have been swallowed up by the fuckin' Corporate farmers, and poisoning us with the genetically Modified foods. We don't need Government Population controls, Its the corporate Big Shots who are already doing it, though it is much slower than the abortion and birth control.

Genetically modified foods are not poisonous. All we do is stick a gene in them, which makes them produce a protein that they would not normally produce. We have a good enough understanding of proteins that we are able to tell which will and will not have negative effects on humans. For instance, there's a GM crop called Bt Corn which produces an antimicrobial agent that regular corn does not. In studying populations of people that do and do not have access to this corn, it was found that those who do were not as affected by the bacteria and fungi that infect corn and cause birth defects, because they were unable to infect the corn due to the antimicrobial.

You need to get your facts straight before attempting to talk about things.



Also, yes. Let's go back to the days when families could get away with using their children as free labor on farms. That's a great way to grow up. I know I personally want nothing more than a world where I have to grow up and have an occupation because my father had it.

 

[Semirhage666]

where are you?

people move to and congregate in cities, especially when they're young. that doesn't mean there aren't areas in this country where you could drive all day without seeing another person.

Just because the RATE of increase is going down doesn't mean the population isn't increasing. It is, and will continue to.

 

[Semirhage666]

Then try explaining away why I survived the Birth Control pill; my mother was still using them 3 months into pregnacy, and I was that Baby that was born 6 months later.

Ok, pills can have complications, but condoms are also a form of birth control, and a failed condom does not affect the health of any children conceived by sperm that broke free.

Secondly, preventing the formation of a zygote cannot legally or ethically be considered any form of murder.

Thirdly, a zygote IS a blob of tissue. It has no organs, and the cells that it is composed of are ALL identical and have not yet begun differentiating into different types of cells. It is a blob, and a uniform one at that. It is smaller than the head of a pin. Such a thing should not ethically be considered a person.

 

[Ephemeral]

Limit the number of kids? What an asinine idea.

The US is not even close to being overpopulated. Fuck wildlife. If we need more land for houses then just build more houses

The same wildlife you want to write off help control animal populations and help us in the end. Snakes and some families of birds eat rats. If we take their land, they have no place to go and die out. The rat population would explode, possibly spreading diseases.

Frogs eat mosquitoes. If we destroy their habitats and ponds, we'd have a bunch of mosquitoes flying around possibly spreading diseases.

Bees pollunate flowers. If they die out (which scientists are noticing are reducing in numbers), flowers won't be pollunated, herbivores can't eat, carnivores can't eat, we can't eat.

Desertfication often happens to land where trees and such were cut down. Trees don't grow back and vegetation dies. The land slowly becomes a desert.

And where would these animals without a home go? That's right, right in your backyard. Don't be surprised to see homeless deer, bears, snakes, alligators, spiders, racoons roaming your patio set.

Your mentality is the reason why scientists are so protective over the rainforests. They could harbor cures for diseases and animal species that protect the environment. Penicillin was found through nature.

This issue is usually taken by family courts on a case-by-case basis. The justice system works, at least in the United States, in the interests of children. I think it should be that way still. In my opinion, it would be wrong to arbitrary establish a cutoff point when there are in fact parents who are well capable of handling a very large family.

The reason why these parents are able to care for these children is because they buy the resources use to care for the kids. If there's a limited amount of resources, there's no way you could give them to your child, rich or poor.

 

[bankside]

You can actually determine if a country is overpopulated, and indeed the planet.

These people have given it a crack:
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.sustainable.numbers.html

So have these:
http://www.mnforsustain.org/erickson_d_determining_sustainable_population_levels.htm

By some of those numbers, we need to shrink the world's population by 2 billion people. The US needs to cut its population in half.
Europe by a couple of hundred million. And asia by lots.

 

[Semirhage666]

Your mentality is the reason why scientists are so protective over the rainforests. They could harbor cures for diseases and animal species that protect the environment. Penicillin was found through nature.

No, penicillin was found because a guy was studying bacteria on petri plates and he went on vacation and came back to find colonies of mold growing on it, around which there were no bacteria.

 

[MercuryJones]

You don't want to control the population number, so there's gonna be more people. More people means a higher demand.

A village of 100 is gonna need more land to farm, more trees to cut down, more fresh water, and a better sewage system than a village of 50.

You keep confusing number of people with utilization of resources. But as has already been shown to you, fewer people can use more resources than a larger group.

It's less about the number of people than how they live.

 

[MercuryJones]

Exactly. Like my pizza example, the more straws or hands reaching for the pizza, the less you're gonna get and the faster it's gonna deplete.

You keep using "people" as if the utilization rate is the same for all people. But it's not.

 

[bankside]

It is absolutely about the number of people when you want them to be able to use lots of resources.

I want people to live well, and by the standards implied by some of the posters here, I want them to be able to live lavishly.

 

[Ephemeral]

You keep confusing number of people with utilization of resources. But as has already been shown to you, fewer people can use more resources than a larger group.

It's less about the number of people than how they live.

Fewer people can use more rescources than a larger group, but a larger group would have to work harder to use less resources or to not use up all their resources. With a gigantic group like the U.S., we'd have to work above and beyond to keep stable.

They'd have to sacrifice prosperity for mediocrity.

Smaller groups mean more to go around. This doesn't mean they should go crazy with their resources. The smaller group would have the luxury of having bigger, more satisfying products and needs. The bigger group would have to be very resourceful and cut back on luxuries.

 

[MercuryJones]

Fewer people can use more rescources than a larger group, but a larger group would have to work harder to use less resources or use up al of their resources. With a gigantic group like the U.S., they'd have to work above and beyond to keep stable.

They'd have to sacrifice prosperity for mediocrity.

You've confused excess and waste for prosperity.

 

[MercuryJones]

Yes, I am for the simple reason that it is preventing the developement of a zygote (not a blob of tissue), causing birth defects of those who do survive, and in that case, a failed Birth control leads to aborting the fetus by a doctor. It is immoral in both secular and Religious, and it is Murder; enough said.

It's immoral to condemn women to give birth as many times as their body can take it until they die.

 

[Ephemeral]

I was making the case for the US not a hypothetical situation in which food production and consumer products are limited.

But the reason why some parents can provide for their children is because of the available resources.

You've confused excess and waste for prosperity.

Huh? Just because a group uses more of their resources than another group doesn't meaning their using it in excess or being wasteful. As long as they aren't depleting them and level their supply to fit their demand, they're okay.

 

[Ephemeral]

That's why we have social workers and courts decide the evidence and not arbitrary cutoffs that would harm good families.

No matter where the child goes, depleted resources are depleted resources.