Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

The number one problem in the world today is overpopulation. It's the main cause of all the problems, be it social, economical, environmental.

Too many people creat a third worldism, and that's what's happening.
Especially when less able people spit out babies and are unable to care for them.
It's a drain on society, creates a bad social environment, crime, lower standards all around.

There must be some type of regulated birthing restrictions, or the world will be one massive third world ghetto.

Originally posted by jessejamesxx

Originally posted by Annee
ME! ME! Its all about ME! and MY Needs!!!!!!!

Well its pretty obvious reduction of population isn't going to happen on a personal level.

You know what that means. That means the government must make it happen. That they must make laws and enforce it.

So much for less government. Oh - but that requires personal responsibility. Let's blame it on the other guy. It's certainly not my responsibility.

All they really need to do is cut off government funding after a certain amount of kids. Make it less appealing to have a ton of them, and hey, I don't think it's a bad idea.

If you're in a lower bracket income, and on your 3rd or 4th pregnancy, the government sends you a $400 gift certificate for Planned Parenthood, and that's it

Yes - but what you are doing is blaming the other guy. Its so easy and a cop-out to target a media focus group.

Having a lot of kids - for whatever reason is like a culture - doesn't matter what culture. You have to educate and change thinking. Changing a cultural behavior is the hardest thing in the world to do.

A lot comes from Religious culture - - which has nothing to do with ones income bracket.

We are not mature enough as a species to have a rational conversation about this inevitability, as you can see in all the character assassinations of the man trying to bring it up.

It must be reserved for the day when institutional racism, elitism and class warfare are ancient memories.

Just like the Peak Oil question, we are not yet in a position that we can even handle an adult conversation about such things.

We have to wait for ideas that are so blatantly obvious to most of us, ie; a finite world with finite resources, to become blatantly obvious to everyone.

That could potentially take a while, considering the ignorant have very powerful allies that would like them to stay ignorant.

But, as a general rule, humans don't duck until the bullets are already flying. I know half of us wish we'd go ahead and find some cover at least, but alas, that would take a modicum of foresight.

We are not equipped for that.

OK, let me just interject here. In reading through these past 7 pages, I haven't seen this point made yet:

Isn't "less kids" a grammar mistake? Shouldn't it be "fewer kids"? I always thought "less" was used with uncountable nouns ("less water", "less progress", etc.) while "fewer" was used with countable nouns ("fewer people", "fewer chairs", etc.). Am I missing something here? Does it bother anyone else as much as it does me to see this kind of mistake in a major news source's headline, or am I being a quibbler? If it was an ATS poster I wouldn't even have noticed much less cared, but this is a major MSM news source.

Anyway that's all....carry on please...

reply to post by e11888


Has anyone ever noticed how whenever there's a politically touchy subject being reported, it seems like there's a sexually provocative image off to the side... like Beyonce for this one?
Maybe just me, but I've noticed that more and more and wonder if it's the media's way of distracting us from the real news.

reply to post by jimnuggits


Maybe because the man flapping his gums won't put his money (or his lifestyle) where his mouth is.

He could single handedly afford to build a WWTP the same as the ones my city have for any city in America. He won't. But he will ask the tax payer to.

He could afford to build a garbage sorting/recycling/composting centre, but he wont.

Same with electrcity.

Same with food.

The thing that really pisses me off with these talking heads is that they are willing to force everyone except themselves to follow a certain path. Maybe he should shut up and lead by example.

Why isn't Al Gore screaming at Obama for letting +1 million foreigners become US citizens every year?

Hypocrite Lefty Democrat.

Originally posted by Pervius
Why isn't Al Gore screaming at Obama for letting +1 million foreigners become US citizens every year?

Hypocrite Lefty Democrat.

At least be realistic - so sick of the Obama bashing just for the sake of it.
----------------------

Bush Amnesty Plan Threatens U.S. Economy

Wednesday, January 21, 2004

By Matt Hayes

Three weeks ago there was no one among Republican voters who would have said that fixing the problem of illegal immigration to the U.S. meant granting amnesty to an estimated eight million illegal aliens, the majority of whom have entered the U.S. without a visa by walking across our border with Mexico.

But that is precisely what President Bush said last week he intends to do, as he posed for pictures before a Mexican flag in Monterrey, Mexico. To his left was Mexican President Vicente Fox (search ), who -- in an even more alarming image -- was framed by the Stars and Stripes as he smiled for the cameras.
www.foxnews.com...

OK - even though it didn't happen - - - pointing all your fingers at Obama is ridiculous.

So there's no population control problem eh skeptics?

This would be proof that there is a population problem.

Originally posted by e11888

Al Gore branches out into population control theory

nation.foxnews.com

The global warming debate has always been a touchy one for both sides, and when the world’s top global warming activist is talking about the size of population and how that contributes to the choices societies make, it might be worth taking note..

(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 22-6-2011 by e11888 because: (no reason given)

He should have said...

"no más bebés"

I'm in my early twenties and more and more of my friends have decided not to have children or to adopt those in need of a home.They are also living and encouraging a "green" lifestyle. The funny part is their parents and especially grandparents don't understand why they don't want children and spend hundreds of extra dollars on organic food. (at least that's what it adds up to in our area)

I on the other hand want children and they can't understand it. I understand we are overpopulated and resources are tight but why should I not have a child or two when some have 6, 8, or 19. Maybe I am being selfish, so be it. If I can afford to take care of my own without assistance then why not?

A healthy capitalist society must have consumers....the more the merrier.

That's the only possible valid argument I can imagine FOR a larger population.

To you folks that want more people on my planet I ask....How many more do you think we need, and why?

Originally posted by CajunQueen
I'm in my early twenties and more and more of my friends have decided not to have children or to adopt those in need of a home.They are also living and encouraging a "green" lifestyle. The funny part is their parents and especially grandparents don't understand why they don't want children and spend hundreds of extra dollars on organic food. (at least that's what it adds up to in our area)

I on the other hand want children and they can't understand it. I understand we are overpopulated and resources are tight but why should I not have a child or two when some have 6, 8, or 19. Maybe I am being selfish, so be it. If I can afford to take care of my own without assistance then why not?

It's perfectly fine to have 1 child or even two. It's those people that don't care about anything that have 4,5 even 6 kids while they drive their SUVs and over water their freaking lawns.

Or even those illegals that think "hey maybe I should have a billion children that are natural born citizens". Nothing against suburbians or illegals in general, it's just the majority of them piss me off for those exact reasons.

Originally posted by 3dman7
A healthy capitalist society must have consumers....the more the merrier.

That's the only possible valid argument I can imagine FOR a larger population.

To you folks that want more people on my planet I ask....How many more do you think we need, and why?

The crazy part is what happens once people consume? You buy that 99 cent toy from a 99 cent store made from China that gets tossed by your child a week later. Or you buy that iron to iron your clothes at a cool discount of 15 bucks but it breaks and gets tossed 3 months later. Where does it go? It goes to landfills. Almost everything made for consumption that isn't edible gets tossed sooner or later into a landfill. Most of this stuff takes decades if not centuries to biodegrade, if it degrades at all. So not only do we destroy the envirnonment by extracting and refining (chemicals) raw materials, but we destroy it afterwards when we toss it. Crazy economic theory isn't it

Meh, as much as I hate big govt and believe in human rights and all that, we really do need population control. I mean seriously, we've got people who are already poor and can't support their kids popping out 5+ kids who get to live in poverty and hungry half their lives. Its just stupid. Theres starving people all across the planet already, animal species dying off cause of humans, natural resources like oil eventually running out, even water a concern in the future. Its plain to see that this planet isn't capable of supporting another xx billion people. Whats more important, having your 6th kid or the whole world's future? Having a kid or two is fine but we shouldn't be supporting people having 5+ kids. Id say population control is the least we can do for our planet. That being said, I have a suspicion Al Gore is still a douchebag politician like the rest and he probably just hijacks these causes to make headlines and stroke his ego.

We usually do it by war.

reply to post by rstregooski


Agreed! Is that video that inflammatory that the user felt as if they must remove it? A couple of pointed searches yields placeholders for the vid, but the same "broken" link to the youtube vid. What gives?

Did anyone happen to pull down the vid before it was removed by the user? Seems a little fishy to me.

With regard to population control, whether Al Gore, Bugs Bunny, or someone else is talking about it is irrelevant. What would be relevant is if the governments of the world (some of which already are) take the same stance and force population control measures on its citizens. What we need is good information so that we can make the decisions for ourselves. Without good information, we would be making decisions in a veritable vacuum.

In the end, it should be don't force us, inform us!

ESV

Originally posted by 3dman7
A healthy capitalist society must have consumers....the more the merrier.

That's the only possible valid argument I can imagine FOR a larger population.

To you folks that want more people on my planet I ask....How many more do you think we need, and why?

Truthfully - - Capitalism is the Animalistic behavior of Survival of the Fittest. Brainwashing and propaganda has convinced the majority that it is the right way to do things.

I think its time human evolve beyond that mentality. Although many animal species do limit their population according to resources. Maybe they are smarter then humans.

Gore's own circumstances doesn't circumvent the fact that he's right.

So long as the same rules apply to all, rich and poor...

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms

100 billion people, really? You think oil is the only thing causing pollution? Look all around you, chances are you are either in your home or at your office. Everything around you is made from materials that are made from lumber, metals, chemicals, plastics, glass etc..The process it takes to mine, ship, refine, shape and so on and so forth requires chemicals, energy and resources. These resources are finite. The process of extracting these raw materials and fashioning them into usable material destroys habitats, ecosystems, forests and processes chemicals which produces wastes which then gets dumped into the environment.

Give me a singular example and I will counter it on how it can be replaced with clean tech

a clean/cheap/unlimited power source would redefine everything. power is the key to all transformation.

Nanocarbon materials can replace all metals beyond ornamental, along with lumber, plastics, and even glass for instance. creating a mass production factory with clean energy fueling it will easily solve this issue.

if a person had a unlimited power source, a advanced 3d printer printing with nanocarbon material could simply download whatever it is they want and assemble..for larger items, a giant 3d printer shop would be in the works

I stated quite clearly a new power source of clean/cheap/unlimited potential...such as the many hypothetical self contained power sources that appear on here often..(cold fusion, electromag, etc).

Can 100m people be supported at this moment? nope...not even half that, because we are disasters with our 200 year old tech still ruling as king.

We are at 7 billion people, and if you look at my other links in this thread, a report came out in 2005 stating that we have used 2/3's of the earth resources. I see nothing mentioned in your post about our current way of life, or lifestyle nor any mention of our economic model. Do you honestly believe that simply just "economizing" and using better "distribution methods" will allow 100 billion to live on this planet?

You clearly didn't read my post, else you wouldn't be asking such a question.

How will we feed them? What would we do with wastes? New cities, highways, transportation systems would need to be build which would require more resources. Where would we get the resources needed to build 5-10 times the amount of cities that we have now?

-hands you a shovel-
Time to take note from gimli and friends..

reread the post I made and restructure your questions to be relevant..but until you stop misunderstanding what was written, its pointless to answer.

How could we be able to sustain material and resource extraction to accommodate an additional 93 billion people, when we are running out of resources with 7? Granted if we had an unlimited energy supply (which we do not have now as far as we know) would we technically be able to have more people living on this planet? Sure. Is 100 billion people possible even with a unlimited energy source? Not with our current lifestyle.
[

edit on 23-6-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

Our current lifestyle is focused around a petrolium product.
You ask a very broad question...choose one and lets go from there...transportation? food? jobs? water? each single topic you brought up does have a plan, but to try to answer them all would make a pagelong post that would be fairly unreadable.

Our current lifestyle would automatically change globally with the new power source.,,overnight