Population control is overrated- and sometimes cruel

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

This article explains why Population control is not as good a thing as people think it is. some excertps:

The Myth of Over population

Today the Cold War is over and the population bomb has proven to be a dud. The specter of famine was never more than that—a ghostly phantom receding on the horizon. The number of people in the world currently stands at 5.9 billion, far below the 8 to 12 billion that Stein Bie, head researcher for the Food and Agriculture Organization, recently estimated the earth can easily support using existing agricultural technology.4 Food shortages occur in war zones—as in the Sudan—or in socialist economies—as in North Korea—but massive famines resulting from crop failure are a thing of the past.

Moreover, as noted above, world population growth is slowing dramatically. Demographers are now agreed that the population of the world will never double again.5 Based on our review of U.N. Population Division figures, we at the Population Research Institute expect that global population will peak at seven billion or so in 2030, then begin a long decline.6

The reason for the coming depopulation is shrinking family size. The Census Bureau reports that the world's totally fertility rate (TFR)—the number of children born per woman during her reproductive lifetime—has declined to 2.9, its lowest level ever. As recently as 1985 the worldwide TFR was 4.2. In many countries, couples commonly stop at one or two children. There are now 79 countries—representing 40% of the world's population—with fertility rates below the 2.2 needed to sustain their present numbers. The developed nations have been hit the hardest. Fifteen of them, including Russia, Germany and Italy, already fill more coffins than cradles each year. But this "birth dearth," as Ben Wattenberg has called it, has now spread well beyond the developed world. There are now 27 "developing" countries where women are averaging fewer than 2.2. children, including such unlikely nations as Sri Lanka and Thailand. While the population of portions of Africa, Asia and Latin America will continue to grow for several more decades, the rest of the world will soon be in a demographic free fall.

If the human face of this population implosion is melancholy—villages bereft of children, schools closed for lack of students—the economic consequences are nothing short of grim: Labor shortages cramp production, the housing market grows moribund, and this in turn creates a drag on real estate and other sectors of the economy. One wonders how much of Japan's current economic malaise can be directly traced to insufficient numbers of young people to power the economy?

Humanity's long-term problem, it now seems, is not going to be too many children, but too few: Too few children to fill the schools and universities, too few young people entering the work force, too few couples buying homes and second cars. In short, too few consumers and producers to drive the economy forward. The imploding markets of Europe and the economic sluggishness of Japan will spread soon enough to the U.S. and the rest of the world. All this prompts a pragmatic question: Why spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on contraception, sterilizations, and abortion that will only bring that day closer?

Population Control Violates the Rights of Women and Couples

Population control advocates have been quick to claim credit for falling birthrates—and to ask for more billions to finish the job. But anyone who has seen the checkered path of "family planning" programs in the developing world finds it hard to take their claim—or request for additional funds—seriously.

Something over two-thirds of the world's fertility decline can be accounted for by simple modernity, as women marry later, have greater educational opportunities and work outside the home. The only population-control programs that have enjoyed conspicuous success have relied on the more or less compulsory sterilization of large numbers of women. The most notorious example is China, where for two decades the government has mandated the insertion of intrauterine devices after one child, sterilization after two children, and abortion for those pregnant without permission.

But the use of coercion in family-planning programs is not unique to China. The Population Research Institute has documented abuses in 37 different countries, most recently in Peru, where for the past two years a sterilization campaign has run roughshod over the people of that country.

Coercion takes various forms. First, there are repeated visits to the homes of holdouts. As one woman remarked, the workers came "day and night, day and night, day and night" to urge her to be sterilized. Bribes and threats are also employed. Hungry women are offered the opportunity to participate in food programs, including programs supported by the United States, if they agree to sterilization. Women already participating in food programs have been threatened with expulsion.

Rural women report that no mention is made of sterilization's health risks. Nor are they given the opportunity to choose alternative methods of family planning; in fact, Natural Family Planning is actively discouraged. There have even been sterilizations performed on women without their consent, often during the course of other medical procedures. Victoria Espinoza of Piura has testified before a U.S. congressional committee that doctors at a government hospital told her she was sterilized—without warning or permission—during a Caesarean delivery. Her baby later died. She can have no others.

Dr. Motta attempts to defend the pressure tactics. "If the Ministry of Health did not do the campaign house-to-house people would not come," he asserts. As far as the repeat visits are concerned, "It was a doctor's responsibility to convince the patient into doing what was best and having [a tubal ligation]. Women in Peru have many children

Avatar image for shoot-first
shoot-first

9788

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 1

#2 shoot-first
Member since 2004 • 9788 Posts

Wow, I just read all that. Interesting.

Avatar image for clubsammich91
clubsammich91

2229

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 clubsammich91
Member since 2009 • 2229 Posts
Duh.
Avatar image for 8-Bitterness
8-Bitterness

3707

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 8-Bitterness
Member since 2009 • 3707 Posts
well, i think its great, i dont really see it convenient or useful to have much more people in the world, why would you want it doubled? to end up with all our resources which are already going out anyway? plus, a lot of families that have a lot of kids (especially in poor countries) just cant even handle one or more kids, what happens? they become criminals or they fall into poverty and live in the streets, and those would be wasted persons... what did they ever achieve in life? nothing, why would we need that? and yeah probably its cruel, but at least its the truth.. ey, the world is pretty cruel. and i really found it horrifyingly annoying when i read that population control violates womens rights... what the hell??? so its their right to have a million kids and that the best one will get to be an average loser and the rest will be criminals or hobos? oh yeah, its her right, but if she does that i dont want her whining and asking for help everywhere (if it were up to me, i wouldnt help) and honestly wanting to have too much kids is a stupid disease (octomom?) Goooooooood, theres so much wrong things in that article and this post probably sucked =/
Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

well, i think its great, i dont really see it convenient or useful to have much more people in the world, why would you want it doubled? to end up with all our resources which are already going out anyway? plus, a lot of families that have a lot of kids (especially in poor countries) just cant even handle one or more kids, what happens? they become criminals or they fall into poverty and live in the streets, and those would be wasted persons... what did they ever achieve in life? nothing, why would we need that? and yeah probably its cruel, but at least its the truth.. ey, the world is pretty cruel. and i really found it horrifyingly annoying when i read that population control violates womens rights... what the hell??? so its their right to have a million kids and that the best one will get to be an average loser and the rest will be criminals or hobos? oh yeah, its her right, but if she does that i dont want her whining and asking for help everywhere (if it were up to me, i wouldnt help) and honestly wanting to have too much kids is a stupid disease (octomom?) Goooooooood, theres so much wrong things in that article and this post probably sucked =/8-Bitterness
So you want the government telling people how much kids they can and cannot have? You want women and men to be forced to have sterilizations and abortions? Besides less people, means less of a labor force and less of a market.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

Population Control Undermines Primary Health Care

When the population controllers move into a poor country like Peru, primary health care invariably suffers. Government health officials and local medical associations are first coopted by highly prized opportunities for advanced training overseas, or even by generous gifts of limousines or sought-after office equipment. Once a country's medical establishment has agreed to make "family planning" a priority, national health budgets tend to be spent disproportionately in this area.

At the same time, fertility reduction programs funded by such groups as the U.S. Agency for International Development, the United Nations Population Fund, or the International Planned Parenthood Federation, are set up. Generously funded by local standards, such programs become magnets for scarce local medical resources. Local doctors, attracted by the higher wages, abandon primary health care in favor of "family planning." Local health care clinics are transformed into "family planning" stations, where the only readily available medical care involves contraception, sterilization, and abortion.

"Our health sector is collapsed," reports Dr. Steven Karanja, the Secretary of the Kenyan Medical Association. "Thousands of the Kenyan people will die of malaria, the treatment for which costs a few cents, in health facilities whose shelves are stocked to the ceiling with millions of dollars worth of pills, IUDs, Norplant, Depo-provera, etc., most of which are supplied with American money. ... A mother brought a child to me with pneumonia, but I had not penicillin to give the child. What I have in the stores are cases of contraceptives."

"Some of these contraceptives like Depo-provera cause terrible side effects to the poor people in Kenya, who do not even have competent medical check-ups before injection. Many are maimed for life ... I look at [these women] and I am filled with sadness. They have been coerced into using these drugs. Nobody tells them about the side effects, and there are no drugs to treat their complications. "

"Special operating theaters fully serviced and not lacking in instruments are opened in hospitals for sterilization of women," Dr. Karanja also notes. "In the same hospitals, emergency surgery cannot be done for lack of basic operating instruments and supplies.7

Such is the state of medical care in many developing countries, where generously funded family planning programs have become a magnet for local personnel, resources, and official attention, leaving primary health care programs to collapse from official inattention or outright neglect.


How did this Come About?

The government of the United States has been the principal architect, cheerleader, and fundraiser for population control programs. Since the 1970s, "stabilizing world population growth" has been enthroned as one of the five goals that all U.S. foreign aid programs must advance. In pursuit of this objective, some $385 million in population funds were appropriated by Congress in 1997 alone, with an additional $25 million budgeted for the United Nations Population Fund.

The present administration has pursued this war on population with special fervor. One of President Clinton's first official acts was to rescind the Reagan Administration's Mexico City policy, which forbade any U.S. funds from going to organizations that perform, promote or advocate the legalization of abortion. The chief beneficiary of this family-unfriendly act was the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which does all three, often in defiance of national laws.

In the months leading up to the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, U.S. officials took an even more radical position. Not only did they argue for global targets for population growth, they also pressed for the worldwide legalization of abortion to help meet these targets. Dee Dee Myers, then White House Press Secretary, openly acknowledged this link on 1 April 1993, stating that the worldwide legalization of abortion was "part of the overall approach to population control."

Timothy Wirth, then Under Secretary of State for Population and the Environment, fumed the following month that the 114 nations that continued to place restrictions on abortion were violating "basic human rights." These sentiments were echoed by USAID administrator J. Brian Atwood, who at a meeting of Population Cooperating Agencies in 1994, was quoted as saying that "while obstacles cannot be removed overnight, this administration will continue to stand for the principle of reproductive choice, including abortion."

President Clinton's effort on behalf of global population targets failed, as did his related initiative to make abortion an integral part of "reproductive health" and, therefore, of worldwide population control programs. Sentiment in favor of such assaults on the dignity of the human person remain pervasive in the upper echelons of this administration, however.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e836a855beb2
deactivated-5e836a855beb2

95573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 deactivated-5e836a855beb2
Member since 2005 • 95573 Posts
It's their choice whether they want to use contraceptives... even if it dooms mankind as you seem to imply.
Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

be generous in welcoming children into the world. The "better angels of our nature" so admonish. How much good we could do by sharing this message with couples across the globe? How much good we could do with the funds now poured into urging—and even insisting—that families not welcome children, were the funds used instead to provide basic health services and sanitation. Children are not commodities to be accepted or rejected at will. They are our link to the future and teachers of their parents in the virtues of patience, prudence and humility. "Children are living, breathing signs of God's love in our world. ... They are laughing, walking loving signs of hope in our midst."9

With the Catholic bishops of the United States, each of us has an obligation to ask and answer this question:

Our nation stands in judgment now, as it did more than a century ago: are we to be a nation that honors its commitments to the right to life, or not? And if not, then just what does our nation stand for?10
Avatar image for 8-Bitterness
8-Bitterness

3707

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 8-Bitterness
Member since 2009 • 3707 Posts

[QUOTE="8-Bitterness"]well, i think its great, i dont really see it convenient or useful to have much more people in the world, why would you want it doubled? to end up with all our resources which are already going out anyway? plus, a lot of families that have a lot of kids (especially in poor countries) just cant even handle one or more kids, what happens? they become criminals or they fall into poverty and live in the streets, and those would be wasted persons... what did they ever achieve in life? nothing, why would we need that? and yeah probably its cruel, but at least its the truth.. ey, the world is pretty cruel. and i really found it horrifyingly annoying when i read that population control violates womens rights... what the hell??? so its their right to have a million kids and that the best one will get to be an average loser and the rest will be criminals or hobos? oh yeah, its her right, but if she does that i dont want her whining and asking for help everywhere (if it were up to me, i wouldnt help) and honestly wanting to have too much kids is a stupid disease (octomom?) Goooooooood, theres so much wrong things in that article and this post probably sucked =/JoeRatz16

So you want the government telling people how much kids they can and cannot have? You want women and men to be forced to have sterilizations and abortions? Besides less people, means less of a labor force and less of a market.

yeah, i do... its necessary in countries like china, where they have kids like if it was their friggin hobby, and less people doesnt mean less labor force, it means a lot of lesss unemployed people that wont find any jobs, plus overpupolation kills this planet, we wont live anywhere else and our planet is ***** up already, we dont need to ruin it anymore
Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

It's their choice whether they want to use contraceptives... even if it dooms mankind as you seem to imply.Jandurin
I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="8-Bitterness"]well, i think its great, i dont really see it convenient or useful to have much more people in the world, why would you want it doubled? to end up with all our resources which are already going out anyway? plus, a lot of families that have a lot of kids (especially in poor countries) just cant even handle one or more kids, what happens? they become criminals or they fall into poverty and live in the streets, and those would be wasted persons... what did they ever achieve in life? nothing, why would we need that? and yeah probably its cruel, but at least its the truth.. ey, the world is pretty cruel. and i really found it horrifyingly annoying when i read that population control violates womens rights... what the hell??? so its their right to have a million kids and that the best one will get to be an average loser and the rest will be criminals or hobos? oh yeah, its her right, but if she does that i dont want her whining and asking for help everywhere (if it were up to me, i wouldnt help) and honestly wanting to have too much kids is a stupid disease (octomom?) Goooooooood, theres so much wrong things in that article and this post probably sucked =/8-Bitterness

So you want the government telling people how much kids they can and cannot have? You want women and men to be forced to have sterilizations and abortions? Besides less people, means less of a labor force and less of a market.

yeah, i do... its necessary in countries like china, where they have kids like if it was their friggin hobby, and less people doesnt mean less labor force, it means a lot of lesss unemployed people that wont find any jobs, plus overpupolation kills this planet, we wont live anywhere else and our planet is ***** up already, we dont need to ruin it anymore

It's not too much people that kills the planet, it's too much consumption. On American does the same damage to the planet as 27 Africans do, the problem is not too many of them, its that we Americans use to much resources. By the way, in the future we will have cleaner energy and better technology that will reduce the burden on the planet. Besides, more children creates more jobs in fields such as health-care, day care, and education.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e836a855beb2
deactivated-5e836a855beb2

95573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 deactivated-5e836a855beb2
Member since 2005 • 95573 Posts

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]It's their choice whether they want to use contraceptives... even if it dooms mankind as you seem to imply.JoeRatz16

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I'm not sure what you're saying either. Half your post is about contraception and the eventual death rate > birth rate, and the other half is about population control.
Avatar image for 8-Bitterness
8-Bitterness

3707

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 8-Bitterness
Member since 2009 • 3707 Posts

[QUOTE="8-Bitterness"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"] So you want the government telling people how much kids they can and cannot have? You want women and men to be forced to have sterilizations and abortions? Besides less people, means less of a labor force and less of a market.

JoeRatz16

yeah, i do... its necessary in countries like china, where they have kids like if it was their friggin hobby, and less people doesnt mean less labor force, it means a lot of lesss unemployed people that wont find any jobs, plus overpupolation kills this planet, we wont live anywhere else and our planet is ***** up already, we dont need to ruin it anymore

It's not too much people that kills the planet, it's too much consumption. On American does the same damage to the planet as 27 Africans do, the problem is not too many of them, its that we Americans use to much resources. By the way, in the future we will have cleaner energy and better technology that will reduce the burden on the planet. Besides, more children creates more jobs in fields such as health-care, day care, and education.

not everyone send their children to day care, they wont build more schools if they dont have the money, 10 more african kids will probably sadly still be poor and in a laboral point of view useless, and we should wait AFTER we have that energy to think on how we will use it and how its ok to use it... and americans wont stop using resources, its impossible the only way would be if they went on a huge war and lost and had to reduce everything forcefully, its the truth... so ABSOLUTELY NO, we dont need more kids than we can handle, we cant even handle the 5 million we got! (and in the "future" as i saaaid the planet will die out and that future is about 50 yeard from now at most if we keep on abusing so much)
Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]It's their choice whether they want to use contraceptives... even if it dooms mankind as you seem to imply.Jandurin

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I'm not sure what you're saying either. Half your post is about contraception and the eventual death rate > birth rate, and the other half is about population control.

I'm saying the fears of Overpopulation are really just a fearmongering myth, and that Population control programs are often frought with Human rights abuses.

Avatar image for one_plum
one_plum

6825

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 one_plum
Member since 2009 • 6825 Posts

[QUOTE="8-Bitterness"]well, i think its great, i dont really see it convenient or useful to have much more people in the world, why would you want it doubled? to end up with all our resources which are already going out anyway? plus, a lot of families that have a lot of kids (especially in poor countries) just cant even handle one or more kids, what happens? they become criminals or they fall into poverty and live in the streets, and those would be wasted persons... what did they ever achieve in life? nothing, why would we need that? and yeah probably its cruel, but at least its the truth.. ey, the world is pretty cruel. and i really found it horrifyingly annoying when i read that population control violates womens rights... what the hell??? so its their right to have a million kids and that the best one will get to be an average loser and the rest will be criminals or hobos? oh yeah, its her right, but if she does that i dont want her whining and asking for help everywhere (if it were up to me, i wouldnt help) and honestly wanting to have too much kids is a stupid disease (octomom?) Goooooooood, theres so much wrong things in that article and this post probably sucked =/JoeRatz16

So you want the government telling people how much kids they can and cannot have? You want women and men to be forced to have sterilizations and abortions? Besides less people, means less of a labor force and less of a market.

All seem to suggest that Earth's resources will eventually be unable to support humanity. And what happens when resources become scarce? Inequality, which leads to people killing each other... At that point, having rights or not will be the least of our worries. On the other hand, I do agree that slowing population growth will leave a huge hole in the labour force and an ageing population.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="8-Bitterness"] yeah, i do... its necessary in countries like china, where they have kids like if it was their friggin hobby, and less people doesnt mean less labor force, it means a lot of lesss unemployed people that wont find any jobs, plus overpupolation kills this planet, we wont live anywhere else and our planet is ***** up already, we dont need to ruin it anymore 8-Bitterness

It's not too much people that kills the planet, it's too much consumption. On American does the same damage to the planet as 27 Africans do, the problem is not too many of them, its that we Americans use to much resources. By the way, in the future we will have cleaner energy and better technology that will reduce the burden on the planet. Besides, more children creates more jobs in fields such as health-care, day care, and education.

not everyone send their children to day care, they wont build more schools if they dont have the money, 10 more african kids will probably sadly still be poor and in a laboral point of view useless, and we should wait AFTER we have that energy to think on how we will use it and how its ok to use it... and americans wont stop using resources, its impossible the only way would be if they went on a huge war and lost and had to reduce everything forcefully, its the truth... so ABSOLUTELY NO, we dont need more kids than we can handle, we cant even handle the 5 million we got! (and in the "future" as i saaaid the planet will die out and that future is about 50 yeard from now at most if we keep on abusing so much)

Americans will use less resources if the gov't starts taxing those resources. Oh and about the U.S. losing a big war, that may very well happen soon. And about not building schools if they don't have the money, if the U.S. spent less money on Population control, we would have the money to spend on schools.

Avatar image for Democratik
Democratik

662

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17 Democratik
Member since 2009 • 662 Posts
i never bought into overpopulation, it was nonsense from the get go.
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts

I'm saying the fears of Overpopulation are really just a fearmongering myth, and that Population control programs are often frought with Human rights abuses.

JoeRatz16
Attempting to block condoms from being distributed to people in Africa is a human rights abuse.
Avatar image for deactivated-5e836a855beb2
deactivated-5e836a855beb2

95573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 deactivated-5e836a855beb2
Member since 2005 • 95573 Posts

I'm saying the fears of Overpopulation are really just a fearmongering myth, and that Population control programs are often frought with Human rights abuses.

JoeRatz16
Well, yeah, because population control is basically what Gattaca, 1984, and other sci-fi things are directly opposed to. Basically giving too much power to an authority. I'm not too worried about overpopulation... because as they say in Jurassic Park, "Nature will find a way". To kill off the excess, or promote further population if it goes the way you fear.
Avatar image for 8-Bitterness
8-Bitterness

3707

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 8-Bitterness
Member since 2009 • 3707 Posts
Americans will use less resources if the gov't starts taxing those resources. Oh and about the U.S. losing a big war, that may very well happen soon. And about not building schools if they don't have the money, if the U.S. spent less money on Population control, we would have the money to spend on schools.JoeRatz16
americans wont use less of the resources they NEED... oil, food, how will they use less?? (plus theyre already taxed) and i highly doubt they spend a lot of money on population control, cant be more than the amount of schools they'd have to build and maintain with millions of more kids, kids who would by the way have a frikking biological footprint the size of over 10 people from the rest of the world, and we NEED population control, its a fact...
Avatar image for deactivated-5e836a855beb2
deactivated-5e836a855beb2

95573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 deactivated-5e836a855beb2
Member since 2005 • 95573 Posts
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

I'm saying the fears of Overpopulation are really just a fearmongering myth, and that Population control programs are often frought with Human rights abuses.

Attempting to block condoms from being distributed to people in Africa is a human rights abuse.

Is that what he's on about?
Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

I'm saying the fears of Overpopulation are really just a fearmongering myth, and that Population control programs are often frought with Human rights abuses.

Engrish_Major

Attempting to block condoms from being distributed to people in Africa is a human rights abuse.

I never said the U.S. should do that, I said the U.S. should stop pressuring other countries to force their people to use them.

Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#23 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"] Americans will use less resources if the gov't starts taxing those resources. Oh and about the U.S. losing a big war, that may very well happen soon. And about not building schools if they don't have the money, if the U.S. spent less money on Population control, we would have the money to spend on schools.8-Bitterness
americans wont use less of the resources they NEED... oil, food, how will they use less?? (plus theyre already taxed) and i highly doubt they spend a lot of money on population control, cant be more than the amount of schools they'd have to build and maintain with millions of more kids, kids who would by the way have a frikking biological footprint the size of over 10 people from the rest of the world, and we NEED population control, its a fact...

If the U.S. needs population control why not use it on our own country rather than imperialistically forcing it on other countries. Besides, the schools will pay for themselves by creating more jobs (teachers, principals, janitors,etc.) and thus more tax revenue.

Avatar image for 8-Bitterness
8-Bitterness

3707

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 8-Bitterness
Member since 2009 • 3707 Posts

[QUOTE="8-Bitterness"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"] Americans will use less resources if the gov't starts taxing those resources. Oh and about the U.S. losing a big war, that may very well happen soon. And about not building schools if they don't have the money, if the U.S. spent less money on Population control, we would have the money to spend on schools.JoeRatz16

americans wont use less of the resources they NEED... oil, food, how will they use less?? (plus theyre already taxed) and i highly doubt they spend a lot of money on population control, cant be more than the amount of schools they'd have to build and maintain with millions of more kids, kids who would by the way have a frikking biological footprint the size of over 10 people from the rest of the world, and we NEED population control, its a fact...

If the U.S. needs population control why not use it on our own country rather than imperialistically forcing it on other countries. Besides, the schools will pay for themselves by creating more jobs (teachers, principals, janitors,etc.) and thus more tax revenue.

cuz look at CHINA... they have a ridiculous amount of people living in there, you see how much they pollute??? and i asssssssssure you a LOT AAA LOOOOOOT of those people are just poor, or criminals or just useless
Avatar image for JoeRatz16
JoeRatz16

697

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 JoeRatz16
Member since 2008 • 697 Posts

[QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

[QUOTE="8-Bitterness"] americans wont use less of the resources they NEED... oil, food, how will they use less?? (plus theyre already taxed) and i highly doubt they spend a lot of money on population control, cant be more than the amount of schools they'd have to build and maintain with millions of more kids, kids who would by the way have a frikking biological footprint the size of over 10 people from the rest of the world, and we NEED population control, its a fact... 8-Bitterness

If the U.S. needs population control why not use it on our own country rather than imperialistically forcing it on other countries. Besides, the schools will pay for themselves by creating more jobs (teachers, principals, janitors,etc.) and thus more tax revenue.

cuz look at CHINA... they have a ridiculous amount of people living in there, you see how much they pollute??? and i asssssssssure you a LOT AAA LOOOOOOT of those people are just poor, or criminals or just useless

Criminals also create jobs, more criminals means more employment for Police, for Prison Guards, and for construction workers (building police stations and prisons). And so what if A lot of them are poor, poor people can have an enjoyable happy life too. And in China, the population is very skewed, there are much more elderly people than there are young people and men outnumber women.

Besides, in the U.S. are low birth rate has helped to bankrupt social security, as there are not enough workers to contribute to it.

Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts

I never said the U.S. should do that, I said the U.S. should stop pressuring other countries to force their people to use them.

JoeRatz16
No, it's not the U.S. that does that. It's the Pope that does that.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#27 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
.... Overpopulation is a problem.. If it were not for genetically modified crops, we would not be able to support the population on Earth today.. Sooner or later the population will surpass our ability to develope better ways in creating food.. Hell it could be argued that its even a problem today with millions starving, but that has alot to do with poor environments those people grew up in.. Places like Africa are notriously hard to have a agriculture for multiple reasons, this includes livestock where things like sleeping sickness kill the cattle.
Avatar image for deactivated-5e836a855beb2
deactivated-5e836a855beb2

95573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 deactivated-5e836a855beb2
Member since 2005 • 95573 Posts
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

I never said the U.S. should do that, I said the U.S. should stop pressuring other countries to force their people to use them.

No, it's not the U.S. that does that. It's the Pope that does that.

I thought the Pope was against contraceptives...
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#29 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
[QUOTE="8-Bitterness"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

americans wont use less of the resources they NEED... oil, food, how will they use less?? (plus theyre already taxed) and i highly doubt they spend a lot of money on population control, cant be more than the amount of schools they'd have to build and maintain with millions of more kids, kids who would by the way have a frikking biological footprint the size of over 10 people from the rest of the world, and we NEED population control, its a fact... 8-Bitterness
If the U.S. needs population control why not use it on our own country rather than imperialistically forcing it on other countries. Besides, the schools will pay for themselves by creating more jobs (teachers, principals, janitors,etc.) and thus more tax revenue.

cuz look at CHINA... they have a ridiculous amount of people living in there, you see how much they pollute??? and i asssssssssure you a LOT AAA LOOOOOOT of those people are just poor, or criminals or just useless

I see.. So you lump in the poor with the useless and criminals.. Seriously? Over half of the world's population can be put under the extremely poor catagory, and that has nothing to do with being a criminal or useless.. Infact many of these people work far harder than any American for slave wages..
Avatar image for Engrish_Major
Engrish_Major

17373

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 Engrish_Major
Member since 2007 • 17373 Posts
I thought the Pope was against contraceptives...Jandurin
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. It's a human rights abuse to block condoms from going to people in Africa.
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#31 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

I never said the U.S. should do that, I said the U.S. should stop pressuring other countries to force their people to use them.

Jandurin
No, it's not the U.S. that does that. It's the Pope that does that.

I thought the Pope was against contraceptives...

... He is, he supports the flawed idea of abstience..
Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts
[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="JoeRatz16"]

I'm saying the fears of Overpopulation are really just a fearmongering myth, and that Population control programs are often frought with Human rights abuses.

Attempting to block condoms from being distributed to people in Africa is a human rights abuse.

Is that what he's on about?

Of course it is
Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#33 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="Engrish_Major"]Attempting to block condoms from being distributed to people in Africa is a human rights abuse.xaos
Is that what he's on about?

Of course it is

Well it isn't just condoms, he is against all safe sex practices in general.. And supports abstience.
Avatar image for 194197844077667059316682358889
194197844077667059316682358889

49173

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 194197844077667059316682358889
Member since 2003 • 49173 Posts
[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Jandurin"] Is that what he's on about?sSubZerOo
Of course it is

Well it isn't just condoms, he is against all safe sex practices in general.. And supports abstience.

Yeah, every sperm is sacred. I would have thought his username would be a pretty obvious clue as to his agenda ;)
Avatar image for deactivated-5e836a855beb2
deactivated-5e836a855beb2

95573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 deactivated-5e836a855beb2
Member since 2005 • 95573 Posts
Yeah, every sperm is sacred.xaos
Monty Python ftw. That song/movie is seriously where I learned that a religion could be against anti-babymakin' devices. I was suitably shocked. I wouldn't have thought such a thing possible. I suppose the reasoning is that every new human is a new soul that can potentially be added to God's roster?
Avatar image for Nifty_Shark
Nifty_Shark

13137

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 Nifty_Shark
Member since 2007 • 13137 Posts

I wouldn't mind having a billion less people. Those that make life hell for others needn't be here anyways.

Avatar image for EMOEVOLUTION
EMOEVOLUTION

8998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 EMOEVOLUTION
Member since 2008 • 8998 Posts

No, it's not. It's actually cruel to allow an extra billion people to live in poverty. Oh, they're living, they've been giving the oppurtunity of life.. well not every oppurtunity of life is the same.

Avatar image for KungfuKitten
KungfuKitten

27389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 42

User Lists: 0

#38 KungfuKitten
Member since 2006 • 27389 Posts

It's nothing to worry about. There is just increasingly less need to live.
I don't really see why i live either :P
I just try to have fun, but soon i will have to put nearly all my time into some stupid job.
And while many people suck it all up, You have to wonder why.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#39 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="Jandurin"] Is that what he's on about?sSubZerOo
Of course it is

Well it isn't just condoms, he is against all safe sex practices in general.. And supports abstience.

There's nothing wrong with abstinence. Just something wrong with trying to convince teenagers that it is a good idea...

Avatar image for deactivated-5ac102a4472fe
deactivated-5ac102a4472fe

7431

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#40 deactivated-5ac102a4472fe
Member since 2007 • 7431 Posts

I do not doubt the issue of pverpopulation, I do however doubt it is a global thing, I can see why it was a problem in China, and I see why there is a problem in india now. The land they live on can not support them, and the glorious 80'-90' where the west were able to overproduce foods in abundance ended a long time ago.

People who does not see a problem at all, are those living so sheltered it hurts, there are very few fish in the oceans, and the only way we can sustain the poor countries are by genetically modified veggies.

Ofcourse it comes down to a matter of consumption. The west does indeed use up a scary amount of natural resources, its not like that's the only place this is happening, China for. example har in about 20 years succeeded in putting about 20 species of sharks on the endangered species list, just for a delicatesse, the food stock of meat uses up far more space then it used too (you know, those things that goes "Moo" when you poke them?)

This has been up before in OT and back then alot of people insisted referring to old outdated data, dating back from the early 90' before everything became so darn global, and constant famine was so big a problem (still was there, we just didn't care much)

Population control the way it usually is thought of, is really cruel, I agree, but faving offspring condemned to die hungry and alone is not really a step up either.

That isone of the reasons,why we have tryied advanceing technology and knowlage as much as we were able to, the more modern a place becomes the less children they usually have. (good example again is china, when youcount in the horrible unballanced ratio of female/male in the population, those living in the big modern citys does have far less children)

It is cruel to tell a women she can not have shildren, and in alot of cases it is not nessecery, but in some cases it really becomes.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e836a855beb2
deactivated-5e836a855beb2

95573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 deactivated-5e836a855beb2
Member since 2005 • 95573 Posts

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="xaos"] Of course it iscoolbeans90

Well it isn't just condoms, he is against all safe sex practices in general.. And supports abstience.

There's nothing wrong with abstinence. Just something wrong with trying to convince teenagers that it is a good idea...

Abstinence is a good idea as a teen. Teenagers shouldn't be having sex, too much emotion involved that they don't quite get, not to mention the whole "OH LOOK I GOT PREGNANT" consequence.
Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#42 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Well it isn't just condoms, he is against all safe sex practices in general.. And supports abstience.Jandurin

There's nothing wrong with abstinence. Just something wrong with trying to convince teenagers that it is a good idea...

Abstinence is a good idea as a teen. Teenagers shouldn't be having sex, too much emotion involved that they don't quite get, not to mention the whole "OH LOOK I GOT PREGNANT" consequence.

Agreed. However I am not so sure you can have high expectations that it'll work... Nor base policies solely off of expecting programs based of abstinence to work.

Avatar image for deactivated-5e836a855beb2
deactivated-5e836a855beb2

95573

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 deactivated-5e836a855beb2
Member since 2005 • 95573 Posts

Agreed. However I am not so sure you can have high expectations that it'll work... Nor base policies solely off of expecting programs based of abstinence to work.

coolbeans90
That's fair. People are never as smart as they should be.
Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#44 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

[QUOTE="8-Bitterness"]well, i think its great, i dont really see it convenient or useful to have much more people in the world, why would you want it doubled? to end up with all our resources which are already going out anyway? plus, a lot of families that have a lot of kids (especially in poor countries) just cant even handle one or more kids, what happens? they become criminals or they fall into poverty and live in the streets, and those would be wasted persons... what did they ever achieve in life? nothing, why would we need that? and yeah probably its cruel, but at least its the truth.. ey, the world is pretty cruel. and i really found it horrifyingly annoying when i read that population control violates womens rights... what the hell??? so its their right to have a million kids and that the best one will get to be an average loser and the rest will be criminals or hobos? oh yeah, its her right, but if she does that i dont want her whining and asking for help everywhere (if it were up to me, i wouldnt help) and honestly wanting to have too much kids is a stupid disease (octomom?) Goooooooood, theres so much wrong things in that article and this post probably sucked =/JoeRatz16

So you want the government telling people how much kids they can and cannot have? You want women and men to be forced to have sterilizations and abortions? Besides less people, means less of a labor force and less of a market.

If we don't address population control that's going to happen anyways. Just because the population hasn't skyrocketed as quickly as we thought doesn't mean it isn't growing. The planet is supporting more people than ever before, the growth rate has been climbing steadily since the 40's, and if we don't control it eventually we will get to a point where we won't have to question the morality of abortions, you either abort an unnecessary child right then or you give birth and let it starve to death, not much of a choice. This is the next global warming, if we stick our fingers in our ears it's going to come up on us and before we know it we'll be in a situation where we can't control the outcome.

And population control doesn't mean abortion and sterilization. The U.S. is at a point of almost zero population growth because people are simply having fewer kids. You provide sex education, access to birth control, and access to abortions for those who aren't opposed to them and population control will take care of itself.

The problems are in regions where growth is too high for resources to support, which is where I find your first post to be patently offensive. It's basically saying, "yeah, overpopulation is a major problem in certain parts of the world, but we don't have to worry about them because they're not us." Drought is a big problme in Africa, food is starting to become more scarce. If you have alarge population in a centralized area you invite poverty because there aren't enough jobs for everyone. This isn't just a bump in the road for these people, this is life or death. granted, most places in the world aren't even at a point where mandatory abortion is necessary, but they still need to be taking steps to slow population growth. The average number of children per woman in certain countries in Africa is I think above 7, that's insane. That's more than three times the minimum required to maintain zero population growth. If it keeps up like that plague and famine will become a reality for them. The answer is not to just ignore the problem until it becomes so big that we can't anymore, the answer is to address it while it's still manageable and prevent these disasters from occuring.

Avatar image for trust_nobody
trust_nobody

3356

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#45 trust_nobody
Member since 2003 • 3356 Posts

I read somewhere that currently birth rate is 2 and a half times the death rate.

Avatar image for theone86
theone86

22669

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#46 theone86
Member since 2003 • 22669 Posts

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

There's nothing wrong with abstinence. Just something wrong with trying to convince teenagers that it is a good idea...

coolbeans90

Abstinence is a good idea as a teen. Teenagers shouldn't be having sex, too much emotion involved that they don't quite get, not to mention the whole "OH LOOK I GOT PREGNANT" consequence.

Agreed. However I am not so sure you can have high expectations that it'll work... Nor base policies solely off of expecting programs based of abstinence to work.

Abstinence-only programs, in fact, rarely work. The data is overwhelmingly in favor of sex education programs, which usually include abstinence as a birth control option, in terms of how many pregnancies occur within their student populations. Most teens end up having sex whether anyone wants them to or not, having access to and education about safe sex prevents far more pregnancies than just ignoring it does.