Two children should be limit, says green guru

Originally posted by Logarock
Man we are absolutely nowhere near a point where we need to worry about having children in regards to food production. The point is understood in the frame of this debate but the reality of many of the scenarios used here to justify low birth numbers just don't hold much real application potential to be used to structure a public policy on the thing.

The people that are really concerned about population growth are the insurance companies, schools and any other entity that sees numbers and bottom line. So they sell us all this babble.

I agree, in terms of the west, we should have no concern over limiting children (our populations are declining in many cases leading to unwanted establishment promotion of immigration)- unfortunately the in parts of Africa and Asia, where hunger and starvation are already facts of life, and where populations of countries are doubling in a few decades it is a major issue

reply to post by nyk537


Here my dear you have eugenics at work full swing! Welcome to the new world of insane!

I myself had three children. Two beautiful boys and a girl. The morning after I had my daughter I had a tubal ligation. Not simply because I didn't want more children; but because I knew it would be to much of a burden on my husband if we had more. In the event of my loosing him it would put a burden on my family to help out with raising them. ( 4 family members on both sides aren't having kids;wanted to and agreed to help. as long as aunties and uncles could spoil :lol
Unlike most people in today's world we planned ahead when we found out I was actually able to get pregnant. My accounting skills made it possible to figure out what needed to be done and how many we could have and not be a burden on others. So far we have been able to raise all 3 in California of all places properly and with all they need on one income.

Originally posted by blueorder

In the west it is not selfish, in the west 2 children per couple would see a stable population, unfortunately the "engine" driver for population growth is in Africa and Asia, however, I doubt the eco fascists will direct their anger there, instead they will carry out the usual demonisation attacks on anyone living in the west with their oh so dastardy carbon footprint

Bottom line is the populations in Africa and Asia need to decrease ASAP

People in areas of high infant death - tend to have more in hopes one or two will survive into adulthood.

Perhaps - Women's Clinics - Education - Better Health Care - Better Living Conditions - Better Agriculture.

Instead of blame.

I agree, in terms of the west, we should have no concern over limiting children (our populations are declining in many cases leading to unwanted establishment promotion of immigration)- unfortunately the in parts of Africa and Asia, where hunger and starvation are already facts of life, and where populations of countries are doubling in a few decades it is a major issue

When immigration is seen in light of what you say here about the government having to promote immigration because americans have been buying into the 2 child thing for the last 30 years then immigration looks like something else.

I can remember in the late 60's and 70's that 4 children was the max figure but many then where holding back at 2 children. 5 and up was considered large and looking back a bit more closely there were few families that had over 4. 4 represented about 45% (near 1 mile of my childhood home) 1-3 about 50%, 5 or more 5% or less. Thats out of say 20 families.

reply to post by Gorman91


Answer to him and others, picking up after having been abroad for 12 days:

The error is that there is a sick demand for things not needed.

You see, there are little things in the head called brain cells - science knows about them, too - and that is where some people apparently lack evolution. That is called degeneration.

These are my final words, whatever you may write (which may be used against you).

This useless and revealing discussion of selfishness beyond logic is now terminated for me.

reply to post by memyself
This universe is chock FULL of resources to meet everyones whims. The use of resources is not the problem. The problem is the governments. They are supposed to regulate and control that production and the dangerous production of harmful biproducts/waste products. They don't. Why? Maybe man is not capable of ruling himself. The 'elite' think THEY are.
How about supporting one kid born out of wedlock, or necessitating govt assistance, but that help comes ONLY with sterilization? You make babies, you pay from now on. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Dirty, poor, uneducated, ignorant, uncivilized third world people breed like rabbits and continue to do this when they migrate to the first world. So we all are responsible and don't overbreed, but they take over? Right...

These areas also have leaders that take food and resources from their people. Leading to people whose brains are starved throughout childhood. So that they do not develop properly. Then men are given rights to essentially take girls and bred on them as they please, and the women and girls are given no rights at all. Not even the right to say no often. Where they are given any rights, those rights are superceded by tribal laws that protect men and diminish girls and women while telling them that they do it for their own good.

Girls of 12 and 13 having babies when they've been starved for their entire childhoods - these "women" having babies have the essential word capacity of a kindergartener in the Western world. Then having these babies in babies, where their first children die while being born and/or rip the hell of out the girls having them. So that they develop lifelong reproductive problems, that often led to them being "abandonned" by the "men" who got a baby on them. Then these girls have NO rights at all unless they can find a man who will take them.

And it is because of their leadership. 100%. Men who are driving around in fancy cars and take fancy trips while hijacking food and resources sent to feed their starving people to fund it.

In areas where people try to get together to do better, like women's cooperatives so that they can start businesses and feed their children....bands of young men come around and destroy everything and "take what is rightfully theirs" from them.

If you lined most of the leadership of Africa up and shot them, it wouldn't make me cry. Inhumane doesn't even begin to describe their crimes against humanity.

Even more tragically - you could actually greatly improve most of Africa if you wiped out 80% of the men there. Maybe the next generation would then be free of the legacy of stupid brutality that they are perpetuated on themselves.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by Logarock
Man we are absolutely nowhere near a point where we need to worry about having children in regards to food production. The point is understood in the frame of this debate but the reality of many of the scenarios used here to justify low birth numbers just don't hold much real application potential to be used to structure a public policy on the thing.

The people that are really concerned about population growth are the insurance companies, schools and any other entity that sees numbers and bottom line. So they sell us all this babble.

I agree, in terms of the west, we should have no concern over limiting children (our populations are declining in many cases leading to unwanted establishment promotion of immigration)- unfortunately the in parts of Africa and Asia, where hunger and starvation are already facts of life, and where populations of countries are doubling in a few decades it is a major issue

[edit on 2009/2/20 by Aeons]