'We'll need 2 planets by 2030'

[Arthur]

What scariest of all is how endorsements (above) for a One Child Policy can just traipse off the lips. You obviously don't have the foggiest notion what sort of tyranny has to be in place to make that possible. It's views like that - all rational-sounding, with ends-justify-the-means moral inversion -- that made Hitler possible. This glibness will permit far worse than a rogue Austrian corporal.

There are so many overpopulation myths to be dispelled. Google can help.

Some juicy facts to chew on:

* Africa's most challenging developmental issue is underpopulation (yes, too few people in insufficient concentrations to get real economies going).
* In 200BC the experts thought the world was 'full' and couldn't support more people. Every malthusian prediction since then has been hopelessly wrong. Ditto with running out of resources - every expert prediction has always been hopelessly wrong, especially on petroleum oil, which may be a natural renewable resource.
* The planet can easily support 200 or 300 billion people (and possibly many times more) at much higher than today's best lifestyle, for the next 10 billion years or so when we'll need a new sun.
* Today, all the world's people can live in the state of Texas at approx 110 sq metres per person (which is better than many people have today). What's more, the entire global population can be fed from just two neighbouring states, with today's technology and known resource levels. The basic figures (Texas area, global population) are online. Check 'em for yourself.
* Objections such as insufficient oil, air, trees, whatever are really the product of insufficient thinking and have no basis in real objective external reality.
* Anthropogenic global warming is one of the most loony and absurd nonsenses every to infect human consciousness. We are barely a speck on the planet's surface. The entire human greenhouse gas output from all industries since the dawn of history are approx 10% of the annual natural greenhouse gas production excluding water vapor, which accounts for >85% of all greenhouse gases. Bacteria and animal farts produce approx five times the greenhouse gases of all human industries, machines and processes.

 

[nocilah]

More scare talk. This planet can easily hold 60 Billion people, never mind 6 Billion. When the tree-huggers get their groove on they start throwing out stats like this to scare the weak minded... into what I don't know.

Yes, by all means, let's look after our planet. Let's live clean and plant more trees. Let's look for clean energy and etc.

But all you have to do is drive down to Durban and see vast open tracts of land sitting there idle. It's like that all over the world. We've got the space people. Just needs a bit of logistical planning and we'll be fine.

it is not a space issue with regard to people - its a space thing with regard to how you feed those people.

 

[StrongTurd]

What scariest of all is how endorsements (above) for a One Child Policy can just traipse off the lips. You obviously don't have the foggiest notion what sort of tyranny has to be in place to make that possible. It's views like that - all rational-sounding, with ends-justify-the-means moral inversion -- that made Hitler possible. This glibness will permit far worse than a rogue Austrian corporal.

There are so many overpopulation myths to be dispelled. Google can help.

Some juicy facts to chew on:

* Africa's most challenging developmental issue is underpopulation (yes, too few people in insufficient concentrations to get real economies going).
* In 200BC the experts thought the world was 'full' and couldn't support more people. Every malthusian prediction since then has been hopelessly wrong. Ditto with running out of resources - every expert prediction has always been hopelessly wrong, especially on petroleum oil, which may be a natural renewable resource.
* The planet can easily support 200 or 300 billion people (and possibly many times more) at much higher than today's best lifestyle, for the next 10 billion years or so when we'll need a new sun.
* Today, all the world's people can live in the state of Texas at approx 110 sq metres per person (which is better than many people have today). What's more, the entire global population can be fed from just two neighbouring states, with today's technology and known resource levels. The basic figures (Texas area, global population) are online. Check 'em for yourself.
* Objections such as insufficient oil, air, trees, whatever are really the product of insufficient thinking and have no basis in real objective external reality.
* Anthropogenic global warming is one of the most loony and absurd nonsenses every to infect human consciousness. We are barely a speck on the planet's surface. The entire human greenhouse gas output from all industries since the dawn of history are approx 10% of the annual natural greenhouse gas production excluding water vapor, which accounts for >85% of all greenhouse gases. Bacteria and animal farts produce approx five times the greenhouse gases of all human industries, machines and processes.

I sat here in utter disbelief for a few minutes after reading that. You, sir, have just managed to produce the single most delusional post that I've ever encountered during my 12 year presence on the Internet. I have seen people spout some utter garbage over the years so you've put yourself in some very select company here.

I'm sorry but I'm not even going to attempt to rebuff your "facts" as the chasm between us is simply too wide for any meaningful debate. To use that old cliche: Let's just agree to disagree.

If you don't mind I'll be linking your post to a few natural resource forums that I frequent for some comic relief.

 

[BigAl-sa]

I sat here in utter disbelief for a few minutes after reading that. You, sir, have just managed to produce the single most delusional post that I've ever encountered during my 12 year presence on the Internet. I have seen people spout some utter garbage over the years so you've put yourself in some very select company here.

I'm sorry but I'm not even going to attempt to rebuff your "facts" as the chasm between us is simply too wide for any meaningful debate. To use that old cliche: Let's just agree to disagree.

If you don't mind I'll be linking your post to a few natural resource forums that I frequent for some comic relief.

Well said Sir!

 

[Arthur]

Hitler? what on earth does one-child policies have to do with Hitler?

It has worked really well in China, and is continuing to improve.

...

The reason venus is about 600 degrees hot, is not because it's a bit closer to the sun, the reason is all the CO2.

Algae, and new production techniques could help to bring these levels down, but this could

1) Hitler was a saviour whose enlightened social policies enslaved a nation and plunged the world into war. Political systems that enforce One Child policies require the same fascist tools. They will end in the same way: tyranny and war.

The Hitler reference is ad rem.

You mention China. QED. Nasty dictatorship. On the road to war.

2) Venus CO2. Those poor Venusians with their dirty factories. They should have shut them off before their planet turned into a cloud-covered heatball.

Don't turn CO2 into a swear word. CO2 is a natural gas! It is a good thing! Without it we can't have plants! That's the problem with the Global Warming Nutters - they take moral positions against natural neutral entities like CO2.

As to the rest of your comments - they are merely assertions like mine. I didn't expect a response and I'm not going to counter-assert. A debate is something else altogether.

 

[lilGr]

/me votes bomb China , earths population will decrease , no more toy cars and no more unidentified diseases .

 

[Arthur]

China did not have a holocaust

It did. Much worse. 30-50 million died in successive waves of Maoist terror.

No they don't have any facist tools. A one-child policy, which does not include forced-sterilizations is not fascist. It should be introduced by the UN.

Very easy to say. Please explain just how this is implemented in practice, and what happens to people who reject that kind of state invasion in their lives.

sounds like, HIV does not cause AIDS argument

Sounds like? But it isn't, as any literate person can quickly discover.

 

[BCO]

* Africa's most challenging developmental issue is underpopulation (yes, too few people in insufficient concentrations to get real economies going).

Kinda like Australia then?

 

[Arthur]

Police, an abortion if the criteria has not met

There we have it. Naked violence by the state.
And you don't see the problem?!

Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush...

 

[BCO]

Ja, it's that 95% of people who go to work every day to feed people and keep the planet moving forward. We don't all have time to sit out in the veld and feel the zephyrs drifting across our cheeks.

I wish these stupid nutjobs would get a real job.

Lay off the rhetoric there, big guy.

I'm an environmentalist. I also have a "real job". I pay my taxes and I donate monthly to charity. I live in the city. Sitting in the veld and feeling zephyrs drift across my cheeks was never really my cup of tea.

Please keep the lazy hippie strawman out of this thread.

 

[Arthur]

well at least we wouldn't have that malberry bush elected as prez

seriously, whats a lil nudity?

Ever been to an airport?

Obviously people would have already known the law, and thought before time. If they didn't then they aren't fit to be parents anyway. same type of people who leave their children at airports or restaurants and the like. So the ignorant people get a bit of what they deserve. A quick visit to the police station, then to the doc, gets a few nice meds, few hours later, it's all over, gets a lollipop, k it sounds jelly, but nothing like what billions of children, for instance, those in etheopia have to deal with every single day of their one and only precious life spent miserably, and drag others down too.

I don't think you understand what violence is, especially not state violence. So glib in your joking.

Still, I'm glad to hear you're one of the superior people on the planet, phenom. How pleased you must be with yourself, and relieved that you're not one of the hoi polloi you so quickly dismiss.

When it comes to elites with views like yours, I'm with Kropotkin.

 

[Arthur]

Phenom, I really want to think you're joking. But it seems you're serious.

You are a madman.

 

[Lino]

Good grief some of the responses in this thread are quite scary.

Supporting 200 billion people, ummm we can't support +-6 billion properly at the moment. Let alone 200 billion.

Yes we are running out of resources, if you take a look out of the small box one can see things are not right.

Things would be sorted if everyone actually cared, instead of. What can one person do or its not my problem. Human race should take responsibility for its actions.

 

[kay-bee]

This could provoke someone to come up with a new diesease deadlier then AIDS. But who knows how many people are going to be here by 2030 with people dying at this rate?

 

[Arthur]

When will people learn. A one-child policy is really the miggie, while the rest, poverty, illness and low-quality life is the elephant.

There's something wrong with your vision - what you call a miggie is much more toxic and destructive of human society than you possibly imagine. It's a virus more deadly than all the wars of history combined.

One Child Policy is an intolerable curtailment of a basic natural human right to privacy, physical integrity and self-determination. To accomplish it you need an all-powerful state. That is a recipe for tyranny beyond even the worst horrors of the various 20th Century attempts at socialism. You also seem to forget that the millions snuffed out in the womb every year are human beings. No, phenom. Your Brave New World is a global gulag of unspeakable horror, drenched in blood.

 

[Arthur]

...and if you resist, then simply taken as a any other criminal is taken, safe but firm. No permanent personal harm will be caused.

Again, you just don't seem to understand that the phrases "like any other criminal", "safe but firm", "no harm" actually have a meaning. You seem to think a totalitarian state is only that which monitors 24/7. You seem ignorant of the rich political literature that describes the ultimate totalitarianism as that which does no minitoring and conformance-enforcement because people have been conditioned into obeying the state's every edict, especially those choices most corrosive of their own independent choices.

By what possible philosophy can a mere number of children turn you into a criminal? Do you know what a criminal is, phenom? You seem to think 'safe but firm' is OK as long as you don't physically harm the person. But what about other harms not so readily defined as physical? I would argue that a psychological or metaphysical violation is worse than a mere physical one, but of course in your book there's no such thing. Your system is utterly intolerant of any dissenting view or action. It uses force against people who disagree with you, even when their actions have no objective wrongfulness. It attaches the same sort of sanction to morally netural or even good things like parenthood as it does to evils like murder or theft. Your universe is flat, intolerant, monist, and absolutist. It is the reign of pure evil.

 

[Arthur]

So in your system I'd be a criminal if I had 3 children?

Count me out of your utopia. It's a massive global gulag, with rivers of blood flowing invisibly through the hospital waste disposal system. Unspeakable horror.

 

[BCO]

In this country, you need a license to drive a car. You need a license to pilot an airplane and, with ever-increasing regulations, it is even getting difficult to take out a rowboat without passing a Coast Guard exam. You need a permit for a handgun. You even need a special permit to hike in Yosmite or to visit Glacier National Park because of overcrowding.

The one thing you don't need a permit for is to have a child. There is no need to write an examination. There is no requirement to demonstrate competency to have a child. You need to demonstrate financial responsibility to buy a house, but not to have a child. You can be a blathering idiot with a history of child molestation and drug addiction and you can still have a child. In a world where fewer and fewer people are criticizing the erosion of our freedoms, the freedom to impregnate or to become pregnant is considered inviolate.

The simplest damn thing that most human beings can do is to have a kid.

I think it is not unreasonable to propose that, before anyone is allowed to be a father or a mother, they pass a few simple tests. First, the parents or single parent should prove that they have the financial means to support a child for at least eighteen years without forcing the taxpayers to provide child support. Secondly, the parents or single parent should demonstrate that they have no history of abuse, both self abuse, through drugs or alcohol, or abuse to others. Thirdly, the parents or single parent should demonstrate that they can provide a healthy, nurturing, loving environment in which to raise the child.

Pass these tests and a permit could be issued to have a child. This permit could be issued by a medical doctor - sort of like a prescription. If these three simple tests cannot be passed, and a pregnancy happens without the permit the foetus should be aborted.

I say this, knowing that it will horrify people and that I will be called a Nazi. However, I should remind you that Hitler ordered German women to have as many babies as possible and gave a bonus to large families. Hitler and the Nazi were not proponents of birth control.


The three simple rules that I propose do not discriminate against any race. All three rules are meant to benefit the child and to benefit society as a whole. No child should be raised in poverty, and society should not be obligated to pay the child support. It can be argued that this is discrimination against the poor. And it is. But what better way to end poverty than to prevent the ever growing number of poor children? And what better motivation for people who want children than to demand that they become responsible adults first?

The second rule also does not discriminate against any race or social group. It is a rule that benefits the child. If you are inclined to beat your spouse or commit violence to children, then why should you be allowed to create a victim?

The third rule is just plain common sense.

You know, I've always wondered why the polls demonstrate that most right-to-lifers are pro-capital punishment. Who ends up on death row? Unwanted, abused, uneducated, unloved, malnourished children. Every murderer was once an innocent child. Every gang-banger was once a cute little baby. Even Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and Charlie Manson were once darling toddlers.

The production of a human being is a serious responsibility, yet we allow anyone who wishes to reproduce to do so because, globally, we consider reproductive rights to be the priority human right. Many cultures willingly and actively suppress and deny freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of sexual orientation, and even freedom of thought. But no significant culture has ever suppressed freedom of reproduction.

It's just an idea. It won't work. Society won't go for anything as revolutionary as common sense.

Link.