Slash population to save the world: green lobbyist

I doubt many governments of developed countries would buy into this idea. They need population growth to cover the underfunded national pension funds and healthcare for retired folks.

[edit on 22-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

Australia has a negative natural population growth, immigration is our only source if positive growth - further Australia is not a source of demographic population imbalance, the source of immigration is.

I can't stand it when people start thinking about issues for the first time and start jumping up and down telling everyone about the first thing that comes into their head like _ NO ONE HAS EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS BEFORE.....

Tool she is.

I think there's something really wrong with someone who says, our country is way too populated so let's just agree to have one child per couple, but by the way let's not impose any restrictions on immigration

Why should Australian citizens limit themselves to only one child per couple while allowing immigrants to continue to raise the population ?

Most western countries seem to do alright at limiting their population growth, if the world population is so out of control why don't they try to impose one child policies on some of the countries where it is still the norm to plop out 6+ kids per family ?

Does anyone else notice that there seems to be a growing trend by our governments to try to force us to accept more and more immigrants into our countries ? I wonder why that is


Edit for spelling

[edit on 4/23/2009 by chise61]

Originally posted by chise61Does anyone else notice that there seems to be a growing trend by our governments to try to force us to accept more and more immigrants into our countries ? I wonder why that is

[edit on 4/23/2009 by chise61]

Maybe because we, the human race, all share the same planet and are entitled to live wherever which choose to?

Aren't humans a nomadic species by nature? Aren't we all immigrants to some extent? Shouldn't we be above petty namecalling and territorial pissing by now?

I wish we could colonize Mars but dividing humanity in it's current state would do more harm than good. Martians vs Earthlings, anyone?

[edit on 23-4-2009 by d2che]

Originally posted by Animal
as a species we without a doubt MASSIVELY exceed the carrying capacity of the planet.

i agree, our population must be reduced in size for our species survival as well as the survival of many other species on the planet.

how this is to be achieved is what makes this diabolical or rational and good.

Not getting at you directly but heres the rub to me, I personally live on the outskirts of a small town, my neighbor is a farmer and from my backyard i can see most of the extent of his and a few other farmers properties out to the horizon... now guess what.

All that pasture (not sure of the size but the 3-4 farms it encompasses go out to at least 10x10 sqaure kilometers) for what amounts to around just 200 cows for producing milk and meat for the dairy industry... I mean you could easily build enough comfortable housing with a decent backyard for the kids and pets for at least 1000 families on that alone, with enough space for parks and community gardens to help support them to a degree to boot.

We dont need milk (gives you calcium my ass, you get just as much from vegetables along with a heck of alot more you DONT get from milk, not to mention to much calcium intake can begin to leech the calcium you already have), and meat is an incredibly inefficient form of food that isnt needed for a healthy diet (again you can get all you need from vegetables and fruit, and what you cant your body can make naturally by itself from what the fruit and vege gives you)... but hey people need to eat their flesh since they say its good for you.

Theres oodles of space, for everyone and then some along with grain and fruit production... its just unfortunately held up within assets like meat production, wealthy mansions and estates, millitary playgrounds and poorly run ethanol plantations to run pointless vehicles, and sugar, palm,oil and corn oil fields... dont need sugar, palm and corn oil is half the damn reason we have an obesity problem along with rampant tropical deforestation.

With smaller centralized towns with locally produced commodities (sure its like a commune but hey it works perfectly), reduced city sizes and a more evenly distributed human population, the pollution and over crowding is reduced radically.

People harp on about 'oh theres not enough food to sustain us all already'... well of course there isnt when you have countries... im sorry I have to say it... like America where the amount of food consumed or wasted along with the resources put in to produce that food is so out of proportion to the population size its obscene... I mean with the amount of food and ecological harm it does to the world you could feed America AND a number of smaller 3rd world countries at the same time. America would not only be healthier but conditions and production in the other countries would increase as well, and with better living conditions and better life style, lower infant mortality rates less need for manual labor, 3rd world countries birth rates would decrease by a huge margin (its a fact better off countries and people breed less).

All i see from this is the high ups are using any old excuse to bring in depopulation, and unfortunately theyve found the green movement to be rather popular at the moment, which destroys any good the movement does. They kill two birds with one stone, give people the idea population reduction is for the best, and ruin any human shift to an environmentally friendly mindset by making it sound all crazy like.

Heck if we stopped building war machines and fighting each other we'd have so much money to spare we'd be able to start working on off world settlements and food production on the moon.

But I dont see that ever happening in todays light, since theirs more money to be made from keeping the status quo.

Sorry for the rant , but I fume when I hear people talk about over population and the answer is so easy... but for some reason ignored.

I think this article is ridiculous, 100% of the worlds population could fit into 75% of Australia, you can't say we are over crowded, problem is we are all congested in cities.
As for resources: this "environmentalist" should be saying we need to start using and putting research into harvesting alternative energies, solar, thermo etc.
Not saying lets reduce the Australian population by 15million, only 1 child per family.
How many people wouldn't be here if this was enforced??

Sandra Myrtho Kanck (nee Cederblad) was born in 1950 in Broken Hill, NSW. The oldest of seven children, her father was an electrical fitter on the Zinc Mine.

Source

How would she feel without her 6 brothers / sisters?

Lets just say in 200years the population of Australia has been reduced to 7 million we are still using same methods or energy / resources, is someone gonna say resources are running low we need to reduce the population to 3 million???

We need people with commonsense in government, people with a brain, not these sheep following the puppets.

the population in places like Australia, EUrope etc is not the problem- it long since stabilised and in fact WOULD be declining without the govt/big business foisting immigration from the third world on us...........

I think to fuss is made over what a green lobbyist said.
Nobody takes them serious and we shouldn't either.

Nowadays when there are so many talks about earth and climate more and more "green" organizations are being born . And until they come out and make these kind of statements , they are unknown.

This is just a way of making themselves heard , and probably having access to more funds by letting people know that they are there.

You should consider this just a marketing strategy and nothing more.

Besides , just like audas have already said , Australia have big programs running in populating the country, immigrants playing a big part of it.

Protesting over this statement is the last thing you should do


[edit on 23-4-2009 by charlie_the_loafer]

reply to post by charlie_the_loafer


Wake up son.

The reason it's unknown is 'cos there's noone telling you about it, doesn't mean it ain't happening does it.
They're not just trying to blow their own horn, they're warning you.
Slashing the human population to save the world? That's a winning combination. The only miracle that exists is this one unique planet, Earth.
Instead of raping it until it's bare and then dying because we can't live here anymore, lets cull the population down from SIX POINT SIX F@#KEN BILLION!!!! of us, to something that this small (twelve thousand kilometre diameter) planet can manage to sustain. Then, after we've become extinct, the planet can still sustain life and we havn't caused the death of this true miracle.

I am not sold on this depopulation theory to save the planet and that there are too many people on the planet. You kow if you took all the people of Earth and put them shoulder the shoulder they cover the continent of Australia. That is all the bigger the population is. Look at all that open land. I believe it is not over population that is starving people in this world but the government of certain countries that are making it look like that. I am sure that if all the countries who get foreign aid were to give it to it's people and instead of letting it get into the hands of local Warlord for them to either consume, horde, or sell to the people it was intended for. So I think the image of over population is a farce.

reply to post by bigvig316


Mate, you can't be serious.

Population can't be measured by putting the humans shoulder to shoulder.

It's NOT about how much room we take up. It's about what we do and how much stuff we use up to do it and how much waste we put out after using what we could.

Humans are not important.
Who are we to just rape this place until it cannot sustain life.

I can't believe you think that. If you packed us all shoulder to shoulder we wouldn't take up much room, true, Australia is only 7.7 MILLION SQUARE KILOMETRES, but that doesn't mean there's not too many of us. I wish we only took up an area the size of Alcatraz Island in SF. Then we'd hopefully become extinct.

reply to post by wycky


Good point. Obviously an eldest child who wishes she was an ONLY child.
With an overblown sense of entitlement to boot.

Look, if she even mentioned cutting immigration, then I would say at least she has a two pronged attack to the problem as she sees it.
But just blah blahing to Australians who only average 2 odd kids anyway, is preaching to the converted already.

HUGE LAND MASS + 21 MILLION POPULATION = Australians are already controlling their fertility thanks.

Originally posted by NathanNewZealand
reply to post by bigvig316

 

It's NOT about how much room we take up. It's about what we do and how much stuff we use up to do it and how much waste we put out after using what we could.

I'd admit that in the past we have done some pretty horrible things to the planet, and we have an awful lot of waste. But I would say to you this. What resource have totally used up. They say we have hit peak oil, but there seems to be more wells being put up and old wells thought dried up are now producing again. There are still trees, farm land, fishing in the seas and resources are still there. What needs to be done is technology needs to keep up with consumption of goods to where the gallon of oil can be stretched even further and we need to have cleaner waste disposal and recycling programs on a global scale. It isn't the there are too many people for the planet to provide for, it is that technology hasn't caught up to the population. Eventually we'll all have clean energy and more than 50% of our trash being recycled in a government program to reduce landfill sizes. It is just going to have to take 50-100 years to catch up.

Originally posted by Animal
as a species we without a doubt MASSIVELY exceed the carrying capacity of the planet.

hmmmm... DO we? after all, humans make up a tiny amount of the world's biomass.

it's more the crap we buy than the food we eat.

reply to post by bigvig316


No way man. That's crazy thought.

Your dreamworld you describe would be good.

The reality is this. We aren't interested in trying to conserve, we're interested in our personal individual selves and we're not concerned with anything else. Sure there's a voice of us saying we should conserve but that's all we are, a voice.
Humans will NOT limit their population EVER until it's too late.

You say we're not over populated. We have 6.6 billion.

Do you think it's a good idea to keep populating at this rate until there's two hundred and sixty eight billion of us?

Haha that's the biggest joke i heard in a long time.. australia, such a huge country/continent with only 22 million people wants to reduce its population. The netherlands fits about 250 times in Australia and we have a population of 16 million!! I guess thats why the anti-immigration party PVV is the biggest in the polls right now..
I 've been thinking about this population problem, why don't we let the Chinese population or about half of them ride bicycles connected with dinamo's so we can produce energy from all those cycling little people..

reply to post by NathanNewZealand


That's fine if the 260 billion of us. I just hope that when it hits that level we are colonizing the solar system. But still, you can see the the population moving toward conservation. 25 yeas ago, there was very little recycling. But now at schools and universities, they have numerous paper, cans, bottles, etc.. stations all over campuses. Plus we have weekly recycling pickup at our house for glass, plastics and newspapers. Even in workplaces they have recycling bins for different items in break rooms, copy room, even fast food restaurants have to recycle their bulk boxing. It has a long way to go but it is starting.

Originally posted by NathanNewZealand
reply to post by charlie_the_loafer

 

Wake up son.

yeah.... Thank you for opening my eyes, i'll be forever grateful

Originally posted by NathanNewZealandThe reason it's unknown is 'cos there's noone telling you about it, doesn't mean it ain't happening does it.
They're not just trying to blow their own horn, they're warning you.
Slashing the human population to save the world? That's a winning combination. The only miracle that exists is this one unique planet, Earth.
Instead of raping it until it's bare and then dying because we can't live here anymore, lets cull the population down from SIX POINT SIX F@#KEN BILLION!!!! of us, to something that this small (twelve thousand kilometre diameter) planet can manage to sustain. Then, after we've become extinct, the planet can still sustain life and we havn't caused the death of this true miracle.

Why don't you start a rebellion or something if you're so sure about it, or better yet, take measure to protect yourself and your family.

I 'm one of those who weren't told about it, i guess you are one of the lucky ones , or privileged ones who were informed about this malefic plan to reduce world population, did you received an anonymus call? an email or a sms,or maybe a travelling pigeon telling you about it?

In this case you will be responsible for those "gone" because of this evil population reduction plan , as you didn't take actions to protect them, to inform them , considering you were one of the privileged who knew about it...

[edit on 23-4-2009 by charlie_the_loafer]

[edit on 23-4-2009 by charlie_the_loafer]

Why doesn't he help by starting with himself to cull the population. I don't know about you guys but I am rather sick of these internet experts with a holier than thou attitude who think they're sooo much better than everyone else. You want to cull the population? Start with yourself.

[edit on 23/4/2009 by C0bzz]

Heres a small idea,why not say no more kids are allowed until the worlds orphans are all adopted.
It seems selfish to have kids when kids need parents as much as a person wants and needs kids.
I also agree with the guy who mentioned the immigration factor.