Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

reply to post by Gorman91


Still won't work. Pregnancy happens, even when no one plans on it.

And considering this is a thread on population control, there is no over-population at all in the areas where the people discussing this are from.

So, if these solutions could only be implemented in our cultures, but our cultures don't have an over-population problem......

Then the "solutions" to the non-existent problem are meant to address something else.

There is no population problem in the First World. Most of the people debating this crap are... in the First World. The only place your views can be implemented are in the First World....the place where women are already controlling their fertility, and it it reflected in the population statistics quite clearly.

So, over-population has a solution - women control their own fertility - and that solution is proven to be absolutely a winner in under three generations. Its is almost TOO good at it even.

Since that isn't good enough, we know that that suggests that the debate about over-population NOT at all about over population. The solution is all around you, and it works BRILLANTLY.

So over population isn't your real problem. Your problem is that you don't like that WOMEN are controlling their fertility.

More spin just like his environmental seminar ...stuff gore telling us what we can and cant do.People are sick to death of politicians and CEOs blah de blah.Micro Managers and liars trying to bottle neck us into buying there tech.With scare mongering WELL LADS N LADETTES WERE SICK OF IT...

reply to post by Aeons

Pregnancy happens, even when no one plans on it.

That's their problem to deal with.

And considering this is a thread on population control, there is no over-population at all in the areas where the people discussing this are from.

That doesn't make them right.

So, if these solutions could only be implemented in our cultures, but our cultures don't have an over-population problem...... Then the "solutions" to the non-existent problem are meant to address something else.

Power?

There is no population problem in the First World. Most of the people debating this crap are... in the First World. The only place your views can be implemented are in the First World....the place where women are already controlling their fertility, and it it reflected in the population statistics quite clearly.

The population of the first world is quite settled because people are more educated and people don't really have time to care about kids. Most people have lives, jobs, and other things in the way of having kids. Abortions don't even take up a small portion of the unwanted births, other than the poor. The result, of course, is that the poor get fewer, and others have to take their jobs. I don't like abortion because it violates the right to life. That's why I say either use protection or cut it off. There's so many redundant means to not have kids these days there really isn't any justification for it being legal.

Those in the other world have kids because it's all they have to look forward to in life. They are primitive, because they only think of the continuation of their own selves. This is because they don't even have a clue of the wonders of higher education and possibilities. Thus, they breed. Because they have nothing else to look forward to. Abortion is available in many of these places, as with birth control. And likewise, many use it. Yet they still breed, and constantly explode. Clearly this is not the solution, and the waste of life is simply sickening. Now the population of the world is leveling off not because of planning, but because we simply cannot feed and supply that many people. They are simply dying faster.

So, over-population has a solution - women control their own fertility - and that solution is proven to be absolutely a winner in under three generations. Its is almost TOO good at it even.

Women have always been able to control their fertility. There's even records of abortion-inducing drugs from native American peoples in pre-Columbia days. Our culture in the west simply promotes fewer children.

So over population isn't your real problem. Your problem is that you don't like that WOMEN are controlling their fertility.

As long as nobody dies I really couldn't give a damn what someone does to not have a kid. I've known people to have their own uterus surgically removed. Their choice. Not mine. I really don't care.

reply to post by Aeons

So, if these solutions could only be implemented in our cultures, but our cultures don't have an over-population problem......

China was almost third world when population control program was implemented. And it worked (prevented 400 million births). I agree that first world does not need population control, but history has shown it can be implemented where its needed.

Originally posted by thedeadwalkk
I don't see the problem with this.
1) You don't need to have 5 kids
2) People who have a lot of kids, are often poorer (don't have any evidence for this, just basing this on what i've seen)
3) More kids, more responsibility, more chances that one of the kids will be jealous of not receiving enough attention, and later in life suffer from this, or continue a life of aggressiveness to get attention.
4) Do you really need 5 kids? 1 is enough.

Excuse me while I have some fun...

1) You don't need to have 5 kids

And who made you God to tell people how many children they do and do not need? Im curious, who gave you the power to dictate to other people what they may or may not do with their own family? Please explain this to me because I would really like to know.

2) People who have a lot of kids, are often poorer (don't have any evidence for this, just basing this on what i've seen)

Right because obviously rich people are unable to have more than one child. As soon as a person becomes wealthy they are immediately unable to conceive a child. I love how you just make things up and believe it to be fact and then actually push that idea on other people and expect them to take your oppinion as fact. Unreal.

3) More kids, more responsibility, more chances that one of the kids will be jealous of not receiving enough

Yes and handing a child everything doesnt negatively affect them either does it? Have you ever seen Paris Hilton? Nuff said'.

4) Do you really need 5 kids? 1 is enough.

One is enough? I wonder how many generations it would take for humanity to extict itself by not replacing itself? Are you able to do simple math?

1 Adult Male + 1 Adult Female = 2 People

2 People have 1 child = 3 People

Parents die of old age = 1 Person

IT DOESNT #IGN WORKDE3WQGR9G4YH3G4

reply to post by e11888

Right because obviously rich people are unable to have more than one child. As soon as a person becomes wealthy they are immediately unable to conceive a child. I love how you just make things up and believe it to be fact and then actually push that idea on other people and expect them to take your oppinion as fact. Unreal.

It is a fact that fertility rate is higher in lower social classes than in higher classes.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Gorman91

Ah, and there we have it. You hate the poor.

I dont hate the poor. I do dislike the poor that reproduce much, and for a good reason. They are either parasites or child abusers.

You have the right to. It really doesn't matter what you think.

So why should what you think matter? It does not. You are still trying to argue with some strange logic or moral superiority. In reality, your opinion is just as worthless as mine, and I have yet to hear ONE good reason why population control is somehow bad.

because humans are flawed, and subjectivity is therefore not logical, because logic is perfection, and objective. Because inaction, at least in this case (don't mix straws) is objective. You don't assume.

That does not even make sense to me.

makes sense to those who want freedom and the state gone.

I am not an anarchist and neither are you, so why are you bringing this up? Freedom has to be restricted sometimes, and this applies to unresponsible reproduction too.

And just one good person brought out of a home you would classify as unworthy of reproduction is worth the 1000 worthless bums that come out elsewhere. If just one child comes out good from a bad parenting, the law is... how would you put it... Immoral. Such disgust in that word.

I strongly disagree, and consider this train of thought to be the immoral and illogical one. It does not make sense both from moral standpoint (since the suffering caused is far greater than the wellbeing caused) and from human evolutionary standpoint (1000 worthless bums and resources they take without contributing will damage humanity far more than 1 productive person will help. Thus the net effect is damage).

reply to post by Gorman91

The same reason why we do not make laws based off assumptions, nor make laws based off prediction.

We do and it is the correct way. Yourr objectivity/subjectivity and assumptions as you talk about them are meaningless sophisms.

reply to post by Gorman91

You should learn, governments are only needed where the majority of people need protection from the minority or vice versa. Considering there really isn't any need for protection in terms of reproduction...

The children need protection from being brought into this world to live under bad conditions. Their need is very strong, and every day thousands of them die and millions suffer due to our highly immoral inaction to prevent their birth.

reply to post by Gorman91

The result, of course, is that the poor get fewer, and others have to take their jobs.

That is desirable.

I don't like abortion because it violates the right to life.

Abortion (except late-term) does not violate the right to life, IMHO, since only sentient beings have rights. On the other hand, lack of population control violates the basic inalienable right to not being abused (failing to provide for your children that are dependent on you is child abuse) of millions of children in this world.

reply to post by Maslo

I dont hate the poor. I do dislike the poor that reproduce much, and for a good reason. They are either parasites or child abusers.

haha, and the biases begin to show.

So a good parent whose poor is impossible you are saying? After all, they are either child abusers or parasites. Your words. Because I can tell you that a parasite isn't necessarily a bad thing, and a child abuser is a subjective term. Some would say the belt is child abuse.

So you're pretty much out of legal tenure for that one.

So why should what you think matter? It does not. You are still trying to argue with some strange logic or moral superiority. In reality, your opinion is just as worthless as mine, and I have yet to hear ONE good reason why population control is somehow bad.So why should what you think matter? It does not. You are still trying to argue with some strange logic or moral superiority. In reality, your opinion is just as worthless as mine, and I have yet to hear ONE good reason why population control is somehow bad.

Well if you won't listen to reason, then because I say so. Because we live in a democracy and most people say so. Majority rule, you get to suck it up and live with it.

Oh, and btw, good luck trying to get your way as the poor increase in number and control move votes. lol, keep dreaming.

The children need protection from being brought into this world to live under bad conditions. Their need is very strong, and every day thousands of them die and millions suffer due to our highly immoral inaction to prevent their birth.

I will happily piss you off. Good. Better some die and all are free than none die and all under control.

Abortion (except late-term) does not violate the right to life, IMHO, since only sentient beings have rights. On the other hand, lack of population control violates the basic inalienable right to not being abused (failing to provide for your children that are dependent on you is child abuse) of millions of children in this world.

A human isn't sentient until years after their born. Therefore you might as well claim that it's ok to kill those unwanted kids after their born and before they are sentient.

God, people like you are why they castrate pigs at pig farms and throw the poor into experiments and gas chambers.

My fuhrer, enjoy your dream world. Because God bless America, for the fact it will never become a unilateral culture, and therefore never agree to do anything like that. God bless multiculturalism, it is the only guard against such idiotic failures of policy such as yours.

You will die one day, like us all, far from today, knowing a world that rejected all these ideas. And I will be the one to die with a smile because of it.

Al gore at it again...what ever happened to carbon gore? yuo know you got busted in that fake scam..charging money to monopolize, funnel $$$ too yuor bank accounts. greed*
how about..you kill 1 of your kids, as a sign of good faith, be a true beliver and edicator too yuor words, and supporting this idea al gore....
it has been shown* statisticly, if you took ever adult american, and put them in australia, wede have like a quarter an acre of land with a house. thats what 400 million of us? dosnt sound right, but supposed to be an actual statistic. that goes to show, how much land corporate america and our government has taken up here for shady bargaining practices*
however. to some extent, gore is right..welfare women often, would have a kid every 9 months to ayear, simply becuae they could remain on welfare then. then those kids, grow up half mesed up, drug dealers, gang related stuff... so in some sense, have less kids is right* as long as yuor states welfare program gives you money for making kids then* which it wasnt desigend to do...then their will be this overpopulation problem.

reply to post by Gorman91

A human isn't sentient until years after their born.

Thats not true. You are mistaking sentience for sapience.

God, people like you are why they castrate pigs at pig farms and throw the poor into experiments and gas chambers.

What?

My fuhrer, enjoy your dream world. Because God bless America, for the fact it will never become a unilateral culture, and therefore never agree to do anything like that. God bless multiculturalism, it is the only guard against such idiotic failures of policy such as yours. You will die one day, like us all, far from today, knowing a world that rejected all these ideas. And I will be the one to die with a smile because of it.

From the point of law, america IS a unilateral culture, they apply for everybody equally. Multiculturalism may as well introduce such population control laws, if such a culture appears in sufficient numbers. That may be particularly likely in the future where strong enviromentalism movements, diminishing resources and negative effects of reproduction anarchy may result in a renaissance of population control policies around the world. Anyway, if such laws are not introduced, I may be sad that millions of people would needlessly suffer because of it, but personally I couldnt care less.

So a good parent whose poor is impossible you are saying?

A parasitic parent may be a good parent.

Because I can tell you that a parasite isn't necessarily a bad thing, and a child abuser is a subjective term.

In societes that can afford parasitic parents, it is not necessarily a bad thing, I agree. My point applies mostly to poor countries, not the US. Again, your subjectivity/objectivity is meaningless in this case. Child abuse is clearly defined in law.

reply to post by Gorman91

Well if you won't listen to reason, then because I say so. Because we live in a democracy and most people say so. Majority rule, you get to suck it up and live with it.

I have yet to hear any sensible ideological argument against population control from you.

reply to post by e11888


That is an awful solution, who has the right to tell others that they should have less kids, our world does not need less people, it needs balance. Everyone needs equal shares, it's not that some should be rich while others should suffer from poverty. Well anyway, I think that it is ridiculous to say we need less people in the world, after all the video I watched which is from National Geographic showed that we are not as big as we think we are!

In my eyes Al Gore is completely wrong!

www.youtube.com...

my first post, please don't be too harsh

reply to post by Maslo


Oh please, don't invent new words and terminologies to add more straws to your failed case. There is no distinction in the intelligence of a 5 month old baby and a New Caledonian Crow. If you argue that only sentient beings have the right to life, then you have no scientific backing to differentiate the sentience of a fetus to the sentience of a 2 week new born in regard to the sentience of an adult. You either say that humans younger than 4 or so have no protection for their lives, when sentience is born, or you drop your case because it cannot be defended with science and repeatable proof.

Personally you could care less? There you go. You don't care about your fellow man. You have sold your humanity for the sake of your own life. What a pathetic excuse for an argument. And I am not putting words in your mouth when I say this. You have said you do not believe in good parents who are poor, then you change it to ok if the system doesn't get broken. Which of course is therefore contradictory, as in the global scale, the whole system breaks down. If good is defined to your produce to the "system", then really, you condemn the whole of poverty. Naturally, you dehumanize them in this sense. You also claim you don't care about the millions who suffer. You are therefore nothing but a common troll, arguing for the sake of arguing, with no scientific proof to back you up.

A parasitic parent may be a good parent.

Ha! Suddenly you go against yourself. Don't try to hide your biases now that they are fully exposed. You said poor parents are either parasites or abusive. Parasite implies something, and it's quite clear what. You just hate the poor.

In societes that can afford parasitic parents, it is not necessarily a bad thing, I agree. My point applies mostly to poor countries, not the US. Again, your subjectivity/objectivity is meaningless in this case. Child abuse is clearly defined in law.

Once again, adding straws to fit your helpless case. You were defending your ability to do such things under US laws, now suddenly you switch to the global scale.



Here's the facts. You've failed to defend your case. You've used laws passed that are proven wrong in scientific and logical terms because they are subjective to defend continuing in the direction of such wrongness. You also go along as if the legal system cannot be flawed. Well, I can tell you something about all those constituional amendments proving the law is not where you can derive the law from. Only scientific logical common sense from repeatable results. You've claimed you do not care about those who suffer. You claim that the poor are bad. Therefore, you are subjective.

You're point is a failure. It's got no scientific backing, and really, all it is is your own justification of your hatred for the poor that you don't care about. Please, just leave before you say something else that proves your biases.

reply to post by Maslo


I said it, you ignored it. Population control is control. Control against a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You do not get to control these things where they do not conflict with each other.

Reply to post by Carseller4

Population control is using eugenics and chemicals in food to induce miscarriages, cancer, etc.

Having less kids is common sense. There's no need for a family to be larger than 2-3 kids when there's not going to be much left for those generations.

Of course, the Gore haters will ignore common sense and promote their ignorant name-calling/character assassination tactics.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Gorman91

There is no distinction in the intelligence of a 5 month old baby and a New Caledonian Crow.

And your point is?

If you argue that only sentient beings have the right to life, then you have no scientific backing to differentiate the sentience of a fetus to the sentience of a 2 week new born in regard to the sentience of an adult.

Why should I differentiate?

You either say that humans younger than 4 or so have no protection for their lives, when sentience is born, or you drop your case because it cannot be defended with science and repeatable proof.

Sentience is born sometime around 5th month of pregnancy when cerebral cortex begins to develop.

Personally you could care less? There you go. You don't care about your fellow man.

I said personally, meaning to the extent that it affects me. I said I would still be sad.

You have said you do not believe in good parents who are poor, then you change it to ok if the system doesn't get broken.

I never said that.

Ha! Suddenly you go against yourself. Don't try to hide your biases now that they are fully exposed. You said poor parents are either parasites or abusive.

Maybe you should review the basics of logic, because I dont go against myself here.

Parasite implies something, and it's quite clear what. You just hate the poor.

Nope, I dislike the poor that reproduce.

Once again, adding straws to fit your helpless case. You were defending your ability to do such things under US laws, now suddenly you switch to the global scale.

We are talking about GLOBAL warming, Al Gore is talking about empowering women around the globe to reduce population growth. You are making it an US issue, not me.

You're point is a failure. It's got no scientific backing, and really, all it is is your own justification of your hatred for the poor that you don't care about. Please, just leave before you say something else that proves your biases.

I have yet to hear one logical scietifically based argument against population control from you. Also, you continue to mix morality and science, when in fact your personal moral stance on this issue is not substantiated by science any more than mine is.

I said it, you ignored it. Population control is control. Control against a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You do not get to control these things where they do not conflict with each other.

All right, I do consider this immoral, so lets agree to disagree, shall we?

What a hypocrite!! change yourself before you can change the world