Setting a limit on # of kids

[MercuryJones]

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

Wasn't your issue resource-depletion?

Then when solutions to preserve resources are presented you don't like them because people are allegedly more technology dependent?

 

[Ephemeral]

Wasn't your issue resource-depletion?

Then when solutions to preserve resources are presented you don't like them because people are allegedly more technology dependent?

I'm saying in the event the technology goes down, goes haywire, or our network is attacked by terrorists, we'd have a hard time adjusting our lives being so used to the technology.

 

[MercuryJones]

I'm saying in the event the technology goes down, goes haywire, or our network is attacked by terrorists, we'd have a hard time adjusting our lives being so used to the technology.

So we should dump our electronic databases and technology based systems?

 

[CowboyBob]

Don't know about limiting the number of kids a person should have, but I do know some people shouldn't have kids. Just go into a Wal*Mart on a Saturday afternoon to see that.

So many mixed feelings here. I agree that a glob of fertilized cells isn't a human being. I don't agree with the statement that birth control can be equated with abortion. That's Catholic propaganda. But I also believe that every child has a right to be born. Why is it that there are those that don't want the government to meddle in people's lives but when it comes to abortion it's alright to meddle? Should there be a soldier assigned to every pregnant woman making sure she gives birth?

Altho I won't be having kids my tax dollars help pay for whatever it takes to raise someone else's kids. But then it's fair because other people's tax dollars paid for my schooling, etc.

You can't set a limit on the number of kids a person can have, but you can educate people so hopefully they will make responsible choices. Being irresponsible is the big problem here.

 

[Ephemeral]

So we should dump our electronic databases and technology based systems?

No.

I'm saying that we, on the individual, local, state, and federal levels, should have a backup plan if the worse of worse happens. We should all get out more and be more active if we don't already. We should learn how to survive and manage without technology in the event it malfunctions or cyberterrorists hit us.

CowboyBob (nice usename BTW ) You can't force someone to be responsible. It's a personal decision. Unless we enact severe punishments or mind control, we can't expect the majority to realize or care how much of an impact they're making.

 

[MercuryJones]

I'm saying that we, on the individual, local, state, and federal levels, should have a backup plan if the worse of worse happens. We should all get out more and be more active if we don't already. We should learn how to survive and manage without technology in the event it malfunctions or cyberterrorists hit us.

And this countsvagainst increased telecommunication in what way?

You can't force someone to be responsible. It's a personal decision. Unless we enact severe punishments or mind control, we can't expect the majority to realize or care how much of an impact they're making.

But you can force them to not have children?

Remarkable.

 

[Ephemeral]

MercuryJones, what do you think we should do to control population growth, space, and the number of resources?

 

[MercuryJones]

MercuryJones, what do you think we should do to control population growth, space, and the number of resources?

1. Sexes and accessible birth control should be available to young people
2. Access to higher education should be improved so people can see better options
3. Resource-smart activities should be incentivized, including people living closer to work, greater telecommunication.
4. Politicians should stop sucking the dick of corporate oil, and should seriously support renewable energy - but this will not happen.

I support reproductive control over one's own body, but also support limiting number of children by choice. But that's not because overpopulation is a problem, but instead is because the longer people wait to have children the better off they and everyone else is.

If you want to decrease resource over utilization, reward behaviors and activities that preserve, rather than trying to limit a proxy like number of children, which is a relatively useless measure of actual usage.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

While it's a popular belief that welfare mamas are sucking up hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of tax dollars, the truth is that money allocated to welfare is barely a blip on the federal budget's radar. we spend a helluva lot more on war.

personally i think it makes one a disgusting human being to think that feeding poor children is NOT a worthwhile cost. i would ONLY agree to this if everyone else who agreed went door to door and told every single welfare child "Sorry chump, feeding you just isn't worth my tax [strike]dollars[/strike] cents."

This is, I believe, one of America's current setbacks. We're trying to find enemies at the bottom of the barrel. We criminalize the poor and the needy more and more every day. I guess they should apologize for not being born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

 

[Deandbn]

I reckon some fo you guys out there should come over to see whats happening in our country.

Our president really sets the example. He has 4 or 5 wives and i can't remember if it was 20 or 50 kids.

 

[Semirhage666]

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.

It's a combination of the two things. By discounting the fact that more people is going to mean a larger amount of resources NEEDED AT ALL TO SURVIVE, you're coming across just as ignorant. For any given type of household in any country, more kids will mean more basic resources used. 6 babies will mean more water, diapers, and food will go into that household to sustain their rate of consumption that if there were 3. REGARDLESS of what that rate of consumption is.

Yes, it is a good idea to get every country in the world to a rate of consumption that is "reasonable for their population." BUT once the global population reaches 10 billion, either we are going to have to be producing more, or everyone's "reasonable" rate of consumption is going to be a lot less than it is now at 6 billion.

The point the OP is getting at is that it is going to be a lot easier to limit # of births to put a cap on the global population than it is going to be to find a way to produce enough food, etc to sustain a global population of a higher magnitude.

 

[Semirhage666]

You've confused excess and waste for prosperity.

And you seem to be laboring under the delusion that every fucking person in the US is throwing out the equivalent of 2 entire meals a day.

 

[Semirhage666]

While it's a popular belief that welfare mamas are sucking up hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of tax dollars, the truth is that money allocated to welfare is barely a blip on the federal budget's radar. we spend a helluva lot more on war.

personally i think it makes one a disgusting human being to think that feeding poor children is NOT a worthwhile cost. i would ONLY agree to this if everyone else who agreed went door to door and told every single welfare child "Sorry chump, feeding you just isn't worth my tax [strike]dollars[/strike] cents."

This is, I believe, one of America's current setbacks. We're trying to find enemies at the bottom of the barrel. We criminalize the poor and the needy more and more every day. I guess they should apologize for not being born with a silver spoon in their mouths.

Of course we shouldn't ignore poor children. But if we can try to prevent there from being so many children born into poverty in the first place, we should.

 

[bankside]

I think we live in a state of resource under-utilization. Some resources are scarce, like tuna. Tuna should not be something people have to do without, indeed it would be nice to eat more of it. Therefor the amount of tuna in the oceans that can be sustainably fished is a limiting factor on the human population.

Resource constraints, combined with the increasing utilization that pleasantly arises from prosperity, require population stability overall, and drops in population in some countries.

 

[Ephemeral]

It's a combination of the two things. By discounting the fact that more people is going to mean a larger amount of resources NEEDED AT ALL TO SURVIVE, you're coming across just as ignorant. For any given type of household in any country, more kids will mean more basic resources used. 6 babies will mean more water, diapers, and food will go into that household to sustain their rate of consumption that if there were 3. REGARDLESS of what that rate of consumption is.

Yes, it is a good idea to get every country in the world to a rate of consumption that is "reasonable for their population." BUT once the global population reaches 10 billion, either we are going to have to be producing more, or everyone's "reasonable" rate of consumption is going to be a lot less than it is now at 6 billion.

The point the OP is getting at is that it is going to be a lot easier to limit # of births to put a cap on the global population than it is going to be to find a way to produce enough food, etc to sustain a global population of a higher magnitude.

Thank you.

MercuryJones is pretending as if controlling the population would have no effect on sustainability.

The more people there is, the harder you're gonna have to work to provide everyone with a reasonable amount. If the U.S. population goes from over 300,000,000 (the current pop.) to 400,000,00, we'd HAVE to increase our usage of resources, or many people would live poor lives and starve. We couldn't use the same amount we were using when it was at 300,000,000.

 

[Ephemeral]

an official Roman-style decimation would also reduce global population, but like forced sterilization, there are less extreme measures that can and should be taken before taking a shit on the constitution and stripping people of their basic human rights.

It is quite extreme and I don't see it being made a law anytime soon, but how else could we control the ever-expanding population? This is the only way I can think of without mass genocide or selecting people at random to be killed.

In this one book I saw on Amazon, overpopulation was such a problem that the government rewarded homosexuality. We could all be super rich for liking the penis!

 

[MercuryJones]

The point the OP is getting at is that it is going to be a lot easier to limit # of births to put a cap on the global population than it is going to be to find a way to produce enough food, etc to sustain a global population of a higher magnitude.

Then by all means, get on with your work of restricting the number of births people can have. I look forward to updates on your progress!

And you seem to be laboring under the delusion that every fucking person in the US is throwing out the equivalent of 2 entire meals a day.

There's no need to dramatize. No ones coming to take your curling iron.

 

[MercuryJones]

MercuryJones is pretending as if controlling the population would have no effect on sustainability.

Not at all. It would have an effect. A very, very small effect, relative to simply reducing waste.

But you seem intent on your fascist authoritarian agenda tat you'll never lift a finger to implement anyway, so have at it.

 

[Ephemeral]

Then by all means, get on with your work of restricting the number of births people can have. I look forward to updates on your progress!

There's no need to dramatize. No ones coming to take your curling iron.

Funny that you turn to catty remarks when you don't have anything intelligent to argue the poster's comments with.

 

[MercuryJones]

Funny that you turn to catty remarks when you don't have anything intelligent to argue the poster's comments with.

You've been argued upside down, and you have no data to support your claims. You don't even know enough to know that.

But since the most you'll ever do about your idea is bitch about it on a porn message board, it's not worth a lot more response.