Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

I strongly support population control.

At least he is the only politician brave enough to say so.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that we need this.

reply to post by Chewingonmushrooms


I would add cheap inorganic phosphorus. This is irreplacable component of artificial fertilizers, which enabled the great agricultural growth in the last century. And guess what? Using current rate of consumption, we will run out of global supplies in one century.

Phosphorus Famine: The Threat to Our Food Supply

As complex as the chemistry of life may be, the conditions for the vigorous growth of plants often boil down to three numbers, say, 19-12-5. Those are the percentages of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, prominently displayed on every package of fertilizer. In the 20th century the three nutrients enabled agriculture to increase its productivity and the world’s population to grow more than sixfold. But what is their source? We obtain nitrogen from the air, but we must mine phosphorus and potassium. The world has enough potassium to last several centuries. But phosphorus is a different story. Readily available global supplies may start running out by the end of this century. By then our population may have reached a peak that some say is beyond what the planet can sustainably feed.

reply to post by Unity_99

Its all just spin, and propaganda.

So because some countries are not overpopulated, overpopulation does not exist? You are not making much sense, IMHO..

The ills of this world are predominantly the effect of the .01% of the population who seems to control everything.

The reason there is famine in the 21st century is because those who can will not send them food unless there's profit in it.

The reason humans have such a detrimental impact on the environment is because those who exploit it use it as their personal toilet and then convince us we simply MUST have the things they produce at the price they set.

The reason people have no where to live is because they can't pay enough to a non-owner of the property to "buy" it.

The reason we don't develop renewable resources and engender access to new and better technology is because the industrialists of the world do not want to retool their factories.

"Markets" of non-tangibles replaced the markets with the things we actually need.

This is amazingly simple stuff. And it is surprising to me that people would actually blame reproduction, instead of the systematized exploitation of people and the environment for profit; which is the true cause of strife in this world.

Can someone show me some facts that indicate that there is not enough food in the world to feed everyone? Can someone demonstrate that it is the activity of the day-to-day lives of people that destroy the habitat?

Sure there are better ways to do things, but those 'ways' are not accessible to us.... they are in fact, often suppressed or 'branded' as 'impossible.'

Take solar energy for example. A better source of truly free energy never existed. "It's too expensive" they say.

It's not too expensive! It has been PRICED out of reach. A price is a choice. A cost is reality. The cost of silicone and components to manufacture solar panels is ridiculously low. Hell, even a multi-core microprocessor - the pride of the IT industry, costs in materials ... PENNIES. And yet we allow the weakest excuses to justify the monumental profit made on each one. OIL IS NOT costly.... it is PRICED high for PROFIT. It's about control... and now population control.....

Sorry... got a little side tracked there.

Im not going to argue anymore because its making me sick to my stomach. If you actually support the idea of population control you are a scum traitor to your own species. I cannot believe how many people actually agree with this.

The notion that the planet is "overpopulated" is nonsense.

However - I do agree that many people should think a little more carefully about participating in activities that result in childbirth - as well as think more carefully about bringing a child (or ten) into this world.

That said, the types that need to demonstrate a little more responsibility in parenting are not the type to listen to Al Gore or fear climate change... so it's kind of a moot point. And, really, there are more pertinent concerns when it comes to parenting than whether or not a glacier is going to melt because you had a kid or two. Like the well-being of the child and one's capacity to care for that child.

Originally posted by laiguana
reply to post by TheOneElectric

 

It's good to see some common sense thrown out every now and then on the internetz. I have to agree whole-heartedly with this as well...
The amount of stress we are putting on our environment and on the planet in general is unprecedented and gets worse as time passes. Why? Because the human population is still experiencing exponential growth.
The fight for natural resources will only worsen if the human population is not curbed SOON
Gore isn't always the best face for environmentalism, but he's dead on regarding this issue. BTW if I had been 18 at the time of the 2000 election...I would have voted for him.
Unfortunantely, baby boomers have a tendency to ruin everything, including the future of younger generations.

edit on 22-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)

This video explains the dangers of exponential growth. Good to put things into perspective.

Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

Oh? Is he preaching to the civilized west that already has a declining population?
Or is he saying it to the Muslim countries where they breed like cockroaches?
ATS thread - Outbreeding the enemy
Silly question, I'm sure.

We went from 1.5 billion people on this earth in 1850, to 7.1 in 2011. If there is any % of growth (whether it's 0.5 or 5) then it is considered exponential and will double depending on the % of growth. For instance, currently our growth (world) is 1.14 % per year. According to that figure (if it were to remain steady) our population will DOUBLE in 61 years. Of course all population growth is checked by food sources and disease, which is why we were able to grow so fast in 150 years. The invention of the green revolution (modern industrial agriculture) and our advances in health and our medical field has allowed us to grow pretty much unchecked. Industrial agriculture however is starting to fail (top soil erosion, more fertilizer needed, pollution of pesticides and fertilizers of surrounding areas), and the energy needed for it is on a down slope (peak oil). There are 10 calories of petroleum for every calorie consumed.

Obviously we will not get to the point of doubling our population, because before then our systems will collapse (energy, ecology, industry, industrial agriculture and economy).

Originally posted by e11888
Im not going to argue anymore because its making me sick to my stomach. If you actually support the idea of population control you are a scum traitor to your own species. I cannot believe how many people actually agree with this.

Of course you aren't, doesn't surprise me really.

On a side note, I think you are using "population control" as an umbrella term used to invoke ideas of totalitarian forces coming to your door step and cutting the tubes of women that have already have had one child. Of course the elites want fewer people on this planet, fewer people means easier control. But the subject of population or rather put overpopulation isn't a conspiracy, it's an actual, if you take the time to research. It's simple math. I’m all for people VOLUNTEERING to have fewer children, I am NOT for government or any other agency FORCING it's populous to do so. But in order for people to be aware of the problem, we must be HONEST about the problem and educate.

Also, not directed to you, but some people I think are confusing overpopulation with land mass. No one is saying there is no room for humans in regards to land mass. What overpopulation means is the amount of people on the planet and it's strain on ecosystems and resources that is needed to sustain all life on the planet. You could probably fit all of the worlds population in Alaska, but that is not what the subject is about.

if you could put a muzzle on al gore you could save billions in carbon emissions or as i like to say hot air.

population control eugenics,nazis,chinas one child policies.

this doesnt surprise me considering who its coming from and the party he represents.

dont know how many times i have to say this but government and other people need to get out and stay out of my bedroom.

and if i wanna have 12 kids its my business and noone elses.

and look at it like this if i have 12 kids i just created wealth since ima right winger they wont be on the government dime and they will all be working and providing for themselves instead of sitting on their butts and drawing a government check.

now if everyone did that think of the tax revenue this country could generate.

dont like al gore never will.

There is no population problem in most of the Developed world.

Stop preaching to me to breed our particular type of human into extinction so that people who aren't practicing birth control can move in.

How this isn't obvious to population control fools, I'll never know.

YOU stop breeding - then when you're gone there will be more room for my family.

Have you people even watched the video in the OPs post? Al Gore never said a word about population control in it (the title of this thread is utterly false). He talked about educating and empowering women in the third and developing world, making cheap birth control available to them etc..

How can anyone disagree with what he said?

reply to post by Aeons


Not Al Gore, and noone in this thread said there is overpopualtion in the developed world. That is of course false.

We will never hear a mainstream politician pushing China-like population control for the third world, it will always be BS about empowering women and such (not that its not needed, but I doubt it would be efective when majority of the worlds population still follow ancient religious superstitions that command then to breed and consider anticoncepce and abortion a sin).

Because NWO needs more poor uneducated slaves, and they do not care about their quality of life.

Originally posted by Maxmars

A different approach would be to create a well-educated population capable of critical-thinking with access to information on which they can build there own judgment. I don't need someone else telling me whether my wife and I are 'acceptable' to someone else's long-range plans because we do or don't want to have more (or any) children. Do you really want government to regulate procreation?

They've become so wrapped up in greed and power they would never even consider an answer as simple as that. Instead they dumb us down with chemicals and the education system, put us in front of a tv that promotes sex and acting like dumb****s, and then when we start acting like dumb****s they do the "moral" thing and force feed us dangerous chemicals.

Why they can't try just talking to the people about what we need to as a whole is beyond me. Right now the population is okay but it's the rate that we're growing that should be worried about. Until we can inhabit other planets we need to just do the responsible thing,

and to any globalists, illuminati, POS, or whatever you call yourselves reading this, the responsible thing to do is not poisoning the population, dumbing down the population, or hoarding resources from the population. Do you really believe you're doing the right thing or are you just evil? Do you even know the difference anymore?

reply to post by Maslo


Ah, see I was addressing the inevitable chorus of "hell yeah! all humans suck" fest that these sorts of threads inspire.

I happen to agree that access to birth control, and education is absolutely necessary an essential human liberty.

However, I do notice that this still does leave one major problem. Governments and religions that reject this principle - Male Dominanted Societies all, breed like flies. They INTEND to breed like flies. They are as a society/culture intentionally choosing to oppress women's right to control their fertiilty as an intentional tactic.

I have no interest in living in those socieites/cultures. But left as the few major groups of population, they garner the advantage to enforce their way of life on a less fertility-aggressive culture.

I understand the problem inherent in choosing to quit the fertility field as a society. These societies are already experiencing the problem of complete replacement by another culture. Ones that see no problem whatsoever in making women's uteruses into communal property for the good of their society.

I'd like to see this point addressed in an open way, that explains how a society that doesn't breed does not just set themselves up to be taken over by one that does.

Empowering Women = Climate control....

Birth Control = Empowering women....

ergo

Birth Control = Climate control.

OK - yeah, keeping women from forcibly being impregnated would be a good thing. Allowing people to choose a proper time to reproduce... alright..... I wouldn't object to that either....

Wait... this is about "climate control" right? Or is it "women's rights?" Or is it "Birth Control?"

Is it ... less people born ... better ecological conditions?.... so people are not 'sustainable' eh? Or is it that Al Gore and his ideological cohorts want to control the 'distribution' of the proliferation of people... for ease of 'constructive governance' no doubt.... Perhaps make it so that in order to feed the people you needn't send food all over the place?.... No matter how I try to understand this a 'good spirited' it just doesn't pan out that way in my opinion.

reply to post by Aeons

I'd like to see this point addressed in an open way, that explains how a society that doesn't breed does not just set themselves up to be taken over by one that does.

Limiting immigration solves this problem.

reply to post by Maslo


Empowering women in these societies is absolutely the best long term plan.

However, their men are fighting it with every weapon at their disposal. There doesn't appear to be a lever to push to make them more reasonable. They would rather live as a Husband-Slave-Owner in their personal hovel than to have a society that flourishes.