Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

I vote we control population by sterilizing people who want to sterilize others. Get rid of the trash first.

Originally posted by starofdreams
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

Thank you. Im glad someone in this thread has some common sense!

reply to post by Maslo


Sentience is not special and unique to the human condition until until after birth. Brain activity does not indicate intelligence, nor ability to comprehend.

Worse still, your inability to differentiate this to the sentience of other animals is just sad and in many ways illogical.

You ignored why population control is bad for the basis of American ideology. When a fool keeps asking the same question when the answer is given, not even saying why the answer is wrong... he is nothing but a fool

You're being a troll now, and all the world can see. I don't much care what you believe in, you've been utterly disproven.

I hope the poor breed right into your neighborhood and you are swamped with them for the rest of your life.

reply to post by The Sword


There's plenty of sense in having, say, 5 kids. You want a family. No other reason is necessarily.

Of course, common sense dictates that changes in technology and culture lead to the inability to predict the future.

And btw, there's enough resources to fuel a population much larger. We just don't do it as efficiently yet. In time we will though, because technology and culture change.

Good thing we're swamped with illegal immigrants of a highly religious country. They'll breed like crazy and prove you wrong in about 50 years. hell, I hope one of them invents something revolutionary for population support, just to prove population control all the more silly.

Originally posted by Gorman91
There's plenty of sense in having, say, 5 kids. You want a family. No other reason is necessarily.

ME - ME - ME - - - its all about ME and MY needs.

Who cares that most of our clear water ways are polluted. Who cares that we are depleting natural resources.

Damn! Even lower form animals are smart enough to do selective breeding and reduce population during harsh times.

Humans are really stupid sometimes.

reply to post by Annee


Animals don't have technology. And actually, wanting freedom of reproduction is clearly not about me. If it was, then I wouldn't want any kids. I'm more socialist than anything. Just don't want the government in my way.

In addition, water, and all those other polluted places, are not affected by population. They are affected by greed and quality of life. In fact, killing the poor probably won't do anything other than allow large corps to begin dumping in newly cleared out lands.

You want to clean the world? Grab a shovel and start. Because less people will not clean the world. And only when it gets worse will people care to improve it.

How anyone can watch Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" www.youtube.com...

. . . and still have the egotistical mindset that they are so significant - - - they must continue to infest this planet like locusts - - devouring every natural resource and also corrupt it with man made poisons - - is beyond my reality.

There is not one unselfish reason for bringing another life into this world.

Originally posted by Gorman91
Because less people will not clean the world. And only when it gets worse will people care to improve it.

What a friggin cop out.

Just another excuse.

reply to post by Annee


How about we execute you so there's one less life on the planet?

reply to post by Gorman91

Sentience is not special and unique to the human condition until until after birth.

Sentience is the basic criterion which must be present to even think about protecting a system with laws or assigning it rights. When it is present, then we can use other criterion like DNA to determine the level of protection of the sentient life (sentient animals are protected only against animal abuse, sentient humans are protected even more. Its not moral but we are still speciecist and dependent on killing animals for food or resources unfortunately).
But when there is no sentience, the question of protection becomes meaningless. There is simply no point in protecting unsentient life with rights, regardless of DNA or species. Thats why brain dead patients are not protected, even when they are still biologicaly alive, and have human DNA.

Brain activity does not indicate intelligence, nor ability to comprehend.

Again, you are confusing sapience or intelligence with simple sentience (the ability to feel or perceive, the presence of mind). Brain waves are a good correlate of basic sentience.

You ignored why population control is bad for the basis of American ideology. When a fool keeps asking the same question when the answer is given, not even saying why the answer is wrong... he is nothing but a fool

I have repeatedly stated that first world does not need population control.

I don't much care what you believe in, you've been utterly disproven.

Saying something does not make it true.

reply to post by Annee


This is usually the response of a person without anything left to support their position.

So I ask again. Is the Toxic water from greed in Somalia any different than the toxic water from poverty in the Indus?

I see no difference. You can kill the rich to stop one, but the poor will just replace it. You can kill the poor to stop the other, but the greed of the rich will just replace it.

Simply put, you cannot fix humanity. You can only provide the tools to make our mistakes and filth fixable.

reply to post by Maslo


Well for you the same is true. Saying something does not make it true. Nothing you said gives credence to why a fetus, or a 2 week old new born should be protected equally with right to life. If your argument is based off the potential for such a thing to become intelligence, then you must extend it from Embryo to brain death. There is no other fair way.

The 1st world you claim does not need population control, but like I just said in the last post, what is the difference from the filth and suffering caused by the poor than caused by the wealthy 1st world? One can only see it fair that if the poor cannot breed, the extremely rich should not either, so that their wealth and power do not continue to cause it. You cannot have both. You either sacrifice both the richest and the poorest, or you do neither.

You still have not stated how I was wrong on my reasons why population control are wrong.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

This is usually the response of a person without anything left to support their position.

No its not. Its the opinion of someone who has lived many years - - had kids - - had grandchildren.

Who lived during a time when many areas of this country were not polluted. Who listened to mom's stories of learning to swim in the Maumee River.

I realize now - - if the world lived by the One child rule - - all would be better off. Children are expensive to raise - - if you plan on doing it right - - all the way through education etc.

Parents who have only one child - - focus all their resources personal/economical on that one child. My older grandson is an only child. I see how he was raised. He is an amazing kid - - and he loves that he is an only child.

I sincerely hope my grandchildren do not choose to have children.

My dad used to take me Jack Rabbit hunting in Fox Hills en.wikipedia.org...

Torrance CA used to be agriculture and dairy farms. I've seen the Urban Crawl first hand. Devouring every open space and natural land in its path.

I am not the one in Denial. I am not the one with the Egotistical Human Ego.

reply to post by Annee


You did not respond to my point. What is the difference between the pollution from the rich and the pollution of the poor. And can you show me any guarantee that fewer people would mean a cleaner world?

As I recall, the world was grossly more polluted in far less populated cities 100 years ago at the height of industrialization.

And honestly, people I know with the same experience would say the opposite of you. Without clear answers, the truth is not so.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Annee

 

How about we execute you so there's one less life on the planet?

Egotistical Human who thinks he is significant. You are not.

What a stupid comment.

reply to post by Gorman91

If your argument is based off the potential for such a thing to become intelligence, then you must extend it from Embryo to brain death.

The argument is based on actuality, not potential.

Embryo is 100% not sentient, since it lacks BW. Fetus after 5th month is very probably sentient, since it has BW, and according to science, brain acitivity is the prerequisite and cause of sentience. It may be that not all brain waves produce sentience, but until we can exactly determine which are they and determine exacty when they appear (if it even can be done, maybe its a continuous process), I am OK with assuming for our needs (making laws) that sentience = presence of BW.

And again, its sentience, not intelligence.

The 1st world you claim does not need population control, but like I just said in the last post, what is the difference from the filth and suffering caused by the poor than caused by the wealthy 1st world? One can only see it fair that if the poor cannot breed, the extremely rich should not either, so that their wealth and power do not continue to cause it. You cannot have both. You either sacrifice both the richest and the poorest, or you do neither.

The wealth of a person directly determines the amount of children he/she can take care of properly, so its very relevant.
The wealthy people in the first world do not cause any suffering when they procreate, since they have enough wealth to provide for their children. Thus they children usually do not suffer from lack of basic needs, even if its 10 of them.
And its not needed even if I agreed, since the rich people in the first world already are slightly below replacement rate without any population control.

And I was not talking about filth, that was Annee. I was talking about suffering/wellbeing of children. Altrough we should try to minimize our environmental impact, it should not be at the expense of quality of life and human progress (which is not quantity of people, but quality).

reply to post by Maslo


And those brain waves are not all that different than any animal out there with intelligence. There's no differentiation between the ability of a crow and a newborn in terms of mental capacity. You've yet to say anything about this, just repeating notes you probably found on google.

Sentience is the ability to feel, be conscious, and most importantly, have a subjective experience. A new born cannot. It is all automated. A new tablet for new code and instructions to be inscribed upon. This, as you've happily ignored, is the reason you are wrong.

Wealthy people who procreate in the first world take more resources that could be diverted to the poor in the 3rd world. They take water, they take food, they take rights. They make the 3rd world stuck in the 3rd world as their governments become dependent on wealth from the 1st world.

Ergo, the sins of the rich are just as bad as the sins of the poor. There is no difference.

Once again, justify not doing the same to the 1st world and the very rich. The ability to pay for your kids does not change the fact that your purchases make the parents of the poor unable to help their kids.

The well being of the poor is kept unable to be reached by the rich.

reply to post by Annee


And your own ego judges others not important when they are. There's really no difference. You both sacrifice your humanity.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

You did not respond to my point. What is the difference between the pollution from the rich and the pollution of the poor. And can you show me any guarantee that fewer people would mean a cleaner world?

It is not a question worth an answer. Pollution is pollution - not measured by rich or poor - - - but by quality - quantity - and extent of how it spreads.

Fewer people use fewer natural resources. Logic wins.

Excuses are Excuses are Excuses are Excuses. That is just fact.

There is no justifying overpopulation. There are only excuses.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee

 

And your own ego judges others not important when they are. There's really no difference. You both sacrifice your humanity.

My Ego isn't judging others. I include myself.

I consider myself part of the infestation devouring earth.

Humanity? Oh please - - enlighten me on what Humanity is.