Setting a limit on # of kids

[MercuryJones]

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.

But we know the US is being wasteful. There is food in garbage bins that could have been used efficiently, and horrific level of obesity due to overconsumption.

But in the end this is all immaterial because you're not doing anything about the matter in real life anyway. So enjoy your little fantasy.

 

[MercuryJones]

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

And how do you prove they are depleting resources?

Didn't you just write: "As long as they aren't depleting them and level their supply to fit their demand, they're okay."

 

[Ephemeral]

MercuryJones, I will repeat myself: You do not know me outside of these forums. How in the world do you know what I do and don't do? I already stated above what I do to help the planet. I can't be Captain Planet and take down nasty eco-villians.

Sicne you're making creepy assumptions about my life, what are you doing to help reduce your impact?

Read all my other posts in response to your first post.

You prove when they're depleting their resources when people are starving and demand is higher than supply.

 

[MercuryJones]

Sicne you're making creepy assumptions about my life, what are you doing to help reduce your impact?

I know what you've said here which is enough.

 

[MercuryJones]

There are absolutely no Moral justification to killing a child in the Mother's womb for any reasons. That Baby in the womb has the same right to life as everyone else

Birth control prevents a zygote from attaching, so there is no pregnancy,

And zygotes have no rights.

Abortion kills every potential person who may have been the one to solve problems that we all face as a nation or he/she may have been the one to find a real cure for HIV/AIDS, and the list can go on and on.

Or the next Hitler? Who knows.

In the end, women have a right to birth control.

 

[hotatlboi]

There are absolutely no Moral justification to killing a child in the Mother's womb for any reasons. That Baby in the womb has the same right to life as everyone else Abortion kills every potential person who may have been the one to solve problems that we all face as a nation or he/she may have been the one to find a real cure for HIV/AIDS, and the list can go on and on.

Sorry but a non-sentient collection of cells is not a 'baby' at that stage.

That's not far removed from saying the woman shouldn't use birth control because "that robbed the zygote of the chance to flourish in the womb" lol.

If you are talking about late term (which is already illegal) where the fetus clearly has the features of an infant, then yes I would agree with you.

 

[Ephemeral]

I know what you've said here which is enough.

I've never once made any assumptions about your life, but you act as if we grew up together.

 

[Ephemeral]

^Many people here in the U.S. need to learn that welfare and government assistance was designed for temporary, short-term uses.

What if that thing comes too late, when the world has already fallen into shambles? What if that thing wipes out too many people or get out of control?

 

[fetaby]

^Many people here in the U.S. need to learn that welfare and government assistance was designed for temporary, short-term uses.

What if that thing comes too late, when the world has already fallen into shambles? What if that thing wipes out too many people or get out of control?

Yeah, I'm selfish. Knowing this ^ it seems like a good idea to go ahead and accomplish what you want to accomplish in this life.

 

[bankside]

I'm trying to increase my environmental impact. It's called prosperity.

Using more resources = a better life. Waste is a completely different equation. I would gladly see Miley Circus and Justard Bieber run out of business for their useless contribution to culture. Think of all the resources, money and material inputs that would be saved by their careers ending sooner rather than later!

And with all those resources freed up, I would build concert halls out of granite and copper. I would build libraries out of marble. I would do anything but reinvest it in families having unlimited numbers of children born into a life of desolate ecological martyrdom.

Fuck efficiency. Bring on the luxury.

 

[Ephemeral]

^Celebrities often donate thousands of dollars to charities and organizations, help raise money and public awareness during disasters (Haiti and Katrina for example), and adopt children from third-world countries.

Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber are like any other teenager in America, only with the paparazzi obsessing over them. They aren't gonna turn into Captain Planet because they're famous.

 

[bankside]

^Celebrities often donate thousands of dollars to charities and organizations, help raise money and public awareness during disasters (Haiti and Katrina for example), and adopt children from third-world countries.

Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber are like any other teenager in America, only with the paparazzi obsessing over them. They aren't gonna turn into Captain Planet because they're famous.

I think you answered a different comment.

 

[Ephemeral]

^I was commenting on you saying the two celebs were useless.

 

[bankside]

^I was commenting on you saying the two celebs were useless.

Ahh got it. I meant that in a wasteful society, there would be a good place to priortise some cutbacks. If there is no money coming to pay for their careers, I'm okay with that. But I would spend it on other things that would not count as "living efficiently" or "making room for more people."

We're full. The earth is full. Thanks for coming, but the earth is full. Minimum waiting time for a free table, 200 years. We'll give you this buzzy pagery thing. You can wait over there by Mars or Jupiter or something.

Hmmm?

 

[Ephemeral]

but seriously, could you imagine the absolute pandemonium that would erupt if the federal government said that it was going to start forcing women to get sterilized or abort their babies?

it would be Civil War 2 as every armed Christian state seceded from the union and minorities started rioting in the cities.

Yeah, it would be total chaos. Protests, riots, pro-life groups rallying against the gov't, Republicans and conservative Christians having heart attacks.

If there was a Civil War II, who'd be the fighters? Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice? Religious vs Non-religious? The North vs The South vs The Midwest vs The West?

The law would simply fail in the U.S. How's you regulate such a thing anyway. Have government officials at every hospital, monitering the amount of births? What would happen with twins, triplets, etc.? What would happen if a woman received fertility treatment and had multiples? The law is simply too drastic for the public to agree on.

But we gotta do something. The clock is ticking and we're growing and growing.

 

[Ephemeral]

When I mentioned that 'nature has a way of correcting human expansion', I did not state that the correction would be in man's favor, just that it would eventually occur.

To answer your other question, you would need to provide a reference point to determine what is 'too many'. My own, personal opinion, is that the planet would be more stable with a population of 2 billion people.

I'm saying if it's something like zombies or zombie-like plague or aliens, it'd get out of hand. You can't reason with a zombie and who knows if we could communicate with the aliens as they're destroying or taking ownership of our planet.

Even with more believable scenarios, if a massive hurricane or earthquake hits, it could wipe out too many people and affect the ones still surviving.

 

[fetaby]

How many is too many?

 

[Ephemeral]

From a practical standpoint , we should be reducing, reusing, and recycling. Smarter packaging, lower personal utilization of resources, etc... I'd love to see the government encourage telecommuting, imagine how much gas that would save (not to mention less traffic for everyone else and less wear on your car so it lasts longer).

But how would they regulate this without rations?

The president can't go on TV and say, "Everyone, reduce your ecological impact and slow down on your use of resources now!" and expect everyone to do as told.

And wouldn't telecommuting make people less social, more dependent on technology, and even lazier?

 

[fetaby]

there is no overpopulation. last i heard the entire world's population could all fit in florida standing side by side.

When did you stop listening?

 

[voyager6]

Before the government starts making laws about this, they should take the incentives away for having kids. No tax deductions for married couples and children. If that doesn't make a dent, then impose a tax for every child.

I like your thinking....the IRS should be giving tax breaks to SINGLE people!!

I see no reason why our tax dollars should be spent to support over-population.