Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

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?

Well - I'm a grandparent and I agree with your friends - - AND I don't think its right to deny one child if you can fully take care of the child.

I do have grandchildren - - but none were planned. My oldest daughter was told she was physically incapable of having children. My miracle grandson now 17 - who tried to spontaneous abort at 5 months - - made it to 6 months at 3 pounds. We raised him like a village. He was never left in the care of someone outside the family - - nor did he receive government aid after his birth.

I would 100% support a population control law/amendment (whatever).

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?

No, the more people = the more ideas that are being tossed around, the more production, the more expansion, and the more pressing to move into space.

I quite like people, and the more the merrier is key all around in my opinion...

if I had it my way, we would be coexisting happily at 200 billion strong...each building being a city onto itself...of course, my version of the planet would also have the surface look almost like a virgin forest with only a few townships and vacation spots here and there...however, dig a bit and you will uncover the vast underground cities...and people using the surface for farming and simple strolling around.

Vast amounts of people will kill capitalism though...the technology that would be required to fuel such a model would also require a heavy socialism style (think star trek's federation system) global government.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms

Also, not directed to you, but some people I think are confusing overpopulation with land area. No one is saying there is no room for humans in regards to land area. 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.

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

but that IS overpopulation, everything else is a whole other matter all together, thats like saying we should just kill everyone on earth so there would be no more war,

the strain on the ecosystem is about our method of living not our numbers, only a fool would neglect to correct the method our society exists on this earth, and opt to instead just have lesser of us

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by Milleresque

 

No There isn't too many humans there is enough space for every human on the planet to have 1000 Sq ft of space if we were to all live in the State of Texas.

1000 sq feet per person equates to about 32X32 feet and this is only if we had everyone living in Texas

Now expand it to the whole world.

Keep touting and spouting that non-sense you are only helping bolster the Elites depopulation Agenda

There is plenty of Room for More humans.

It's not about how much physical space can be given to you

, it's about the sustainability of our natural resources that keep us alive.

Either way, who did your math? Texas has 900,000 acres, that's about 40 billion square feet... 6.7 billion people can split up 40 billion and get less than SIX square feet, not ONE FREAKING THOUSAND. I'm amazed at how you proudly posted this non-fact that could be disproven by anyone with a first grade education and a calculator... and I just did it in my head...

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

and who did your math? all in your head eh? you must be less competent then a first grader with a calculator cause you effed up your math, you are so very wrong, and the math you are insulting me for is actualy accurate, foot in mouth much?

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood
Either way, who did your math? Texas has 900,000 acres, that's about 40 billion square feet... 6.7 billion people can split up 40 billion and get less than SIX square feet, not ONE FREAKING THOUSAND. I'm amazed at how you proudly posted this non-fact that could be disproven by anyone with a first grade education and a calculator... and I just did it in my head...

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

Texas is 268,581 square MILES

1 square mile = 27,878,400 square feet.

At 900,000 acres Texas would be 1,406.25square miles...approx 31/2 times the size of Dallas.

So, Texas has 7,487,608,550,000 square feet, divided by a population of 7,000,000,000 people, equals 1069.65 sq feet / person.

1000 was close enough.

Edit to add: Rounding error on acre to square mile conversion. Amazing what the 3 and 4 decimal places can do when everything is in the thousands

.

edit on 23-6-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)

reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye


heres one way to think about this sittuation,

the math proves everyone on earth could fit in texas and have 1000 sq feet to live by, thats plenty for a small home,

use the state next to texas for all the farming, use a state on opposite side for all the wast/recycling,
and a third state for all electricity production,

your done,

you succesfully have the entire world living off of only 3 states in the us, math supports this,

theres no way in hell such a method would have any strong effects on our globe,

so now what the hell is causing the globe such strain?

ITS NOT OUR NUMBERS ITS OUR METHOD,

even in the very distant past centuries ago it was common that a hunting tribe could drive a species to extinction, once again, it wasnt their numbers it was their method of living,

1 person who doesnt give a eff, about the globe, could easily cause the same amount of environmental impact as 100 people who do care,

its the method of living not the numbers,

in all these pages in this thread, in all the other threads about population over or under debate, the debate is all the same,

everyone is sideing with either the numbers or the method, it should be pretty dam obvious its the method not the numbers, people only buy into the numbers being the issue due to the propaganda theyve been feed all their lives, think for yourself for once people

You know...I am not for killing off anybody or anything of the sort but I do agree with the idea of "population control" We should limit how many offspring people have (Hell, certain people shouldn't even be allowed to procreate IMO) but it isn't a bad thing...At least that is how I feel, I don't think they should make a rule of 3 children and then kill off the rests, it should become a law that could happen in say 30 years? Sooner or later we will have to make these decisions if we do not colonize and find life else where besides Earth, Earth as we know it could be over within the next 10 years anyway.

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).

That's interesting, and in the 50's they said we would be traving to mars by 1985. I am all for technology that helps solve the problems we are facing, but until I see that technology in use it is nothing but science fiction. How long will it take to replace our current 200 old technology with new technology? 20 years? 30 Years? Don't give me cp about it happening over night before we both know that is not going to happen.

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.

I totally agree, but I do not see that changing anytime soon do you? Until we reach the point when this new techonology that you speak of becomes reality, we will continue down the path along with our 200 year old technology.

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

Here was the quote I was responding too -

for instance, the world may be able to comfortably hold 30 billion people if space is used properly...however its not.
Instead, we have incredible amounts of waste (food, energy, etc), and highly focused urban areas that causes a salted earth effect in the surrounding areas.

What you are talking about is better economizing and distributing of food by eliminating waste are you not? I simply said that is not possible with our current lifestyle. You also mention area density, aka megacities. See that's a problem isn't it because if you move people and spread them around you will need to build infrastructure to support it right? Again where will you get the materials from (please don't mention nanocarbons).

-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.

Why do I need to restructure my questions? I wasn't the one saying 30 billion people could live on this planet now, and 100 billion people with unlimited energy source (which I also disagree with). Regardless of better distribution and elimination of wastes, without a change in modern lifestyle and our reliance on resources there is no way to support that population currently.

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

Oh again I agree, yet the alternative you give is something that isn't even on the market. I like teleportation ideas to but I doubt people will stop building cars because there is a possibility that teleportation might come into the market once we have the technology.

A lot of what you are commenting with your quoting was not mentioned on your original post. I am sorry but I do not read minds. Now that you explained your reasons for believing what you believe, I can only hope you are right. I would like to believe that these nanocarbons (which I admit I need to research) can replace almost all the materials that we currently extract from the earth, and I know what unlimited, clean energy would do for our society, but the point is even if this technology existed it is not being used. And I do not see it being used for quite sometime barring some major event. Lets stick to what technologies we know can be implemented, and what we have at hand now.

Hemp has shown to replace many of the petro products now, but it is illegal. Whether it will become legal in the future or not is not something that I think we can wait for. Again unless we have a total revamp of our political, monetary (or currency, exchange form ), cultural, economical (separate from monetary), and power structure (TPTB), I doubt you will see any of those changes. Question to you would be can you see all those changes happening within the next 20 years?

I like your optimism, but lets stick to what doable now within the power structures that exist now and the technology that exist now (not in development). Without a realistic assessment on what's on the ground presently, then we will just be wasting precious time, because honeslty I don't think we can last another 20 years continuing our current lifestyle.

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye
ITS NOT OUR NUMBERS ITS OUR METHOD,

Bingo!

There is no population issue.

There is only a resource management issue.

We even produce more than enough to satisfy every human beings basic needs (food and water). We even produce enough building materials to provide shelter.

Too bad so much goes to waste that others will starve, die of thirst, or live without shelter.

This waste is not just a Western World problem either. 40% of all food produced in the developing world goes to waste. Water is contaminated without treatment, even while the leaders waste more than enough money to build state of the art facilities.

Originally posted by e11888


You really have to love this guy right? Not only is the man speaking on stage with a bottle of water that isnt so "environmentally friendly", but the guy has four kids. So what its okay for Al Gore to have four kids but I need to make sure I dont have more than one? I need to follow China's "one child policy" while you run around with four kids? You know it goes without saying, but for morons like this you really do have to spell it out, practice what you preach a bit yeah? Dont tell me you care about the environment while you're drinking out of a plastic water bottle.

nation.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It's ok for al gore to have four kids because hes smarter and richer than you are, you probably shouldn't even have one so the world isn't polluted with another person who thinks sarcasm, straw man and ad hominem attack are effective posting strategies.

population crisis ! And why are we in crisis, because during them boom years people were encoraged to have more children to help the economys of the west grow , more labour=more turn over=more money . now its gone tits up with no sign of recovery. The lying accountants that said everything was great a few years back by creating numbers and cooking the books then giving everything a rosie glow have now realised that there is not an infinite source of fuel, water or food. now watch the investors get there paws on these vital stocks and hold the world to ransom. if you want proof just look at the price of alternate/green products. i do believe that population control is an important issue and needs to be adressed by the worlds governments soon. But theres no way that obama will tackle this issue when the elections are due . The same goes for the rest of the world as all can see were in a bad way. Civil unrest, national debt and poverty are every day occurances for many many countries, while there respective goverments try to adress these problems they are hardly going to tell the voters that they cant have more children

It is irrelevant whether the issue is bad resource management or amount of people. Overpopulation INCLUDES quantifying our ability to utilize resources. With advanced technology, we could maybe have dozens of billions of people living in comfort. But we obviously cannot do it now, thus overpopulation is a real problem.

First we need the technology and the management, then the population can increase. Not the other way around.

Al Gore is absolutely right. Population control is a good thing. The first people who should stop breeding are the lower class. They could easily help others by not having more welfare children. The Mexican's should also stop breeding because then we would have less illegal immigrants. Then maybe the blacks can stop breeding because... well just because.

Hell maybe we should seriously consider eugenics. Maybe force people to have blood work done before they have children. Maybe forced abortions for those that don't pass strict requirements?

If you can't tell by now I'm being sarcastic. Telling people to not have children is all fine and good. This generation doesn't have nearly as many as the ones before it anyway. My father had 4 brothers and sisters. My mother had 4 sisters. Me? I only have one sister, and I only have one son myself. I think people are already having less children.

But Al "gimme the loot" Gore is just looking for another soap box to stand on. This hypocrite should maybe focus his attention on SOLVING world problems instead of pointing them out. Global warming? Less population? How about put some focus on getting us off the need for oil, instead of bitching that there will be too many sucking up his oil in the future.

Guys... "I'm Super Cereal.... come onnnnn.... man bear pig"

reply to post by Annee


I don't see how I'm blaming any other guy, or copping out I was just saying how it should be.

You are correct, it doesn't necessarily matter the income bracket. (unless you're wealthy & well off) If you can't afford a kid, don't have one. Period. Doing what I mentioned previously would take away the incentives of being a baby maker - and therefore helping the population concerns.

The taxpayers don't help out people that blow their money on a 2nd or 3rd car, and can't afford to keep them running & insured.. Why should we help if you had another $250,000 baby?

Originally posted by Maslo
It is irrelevant whether the issue is bad resource management or amount of people. Overpopulation INCLUDES quantifying our ability to utilize resources. With advanced technology, we could maybe have dozens of billions of people living in comfort. But we obviously cannot do it now, thus overpopulation is a real problem.

First we need the technology and the management, then the population can increase. Not the other way around.

it is TOTALY RELEVANT, that is the exact discussion itself,

i would say precisely the opposite,

"only at the precipice do we evolve" we need the problem before our species is concerned enough to look for the solution, we do need the numbers before we will care to look for the method,

increase the population, once it becomes critical is the only time we will actualy succed in finding the technology and managment we need, the more people we have the more efficient we will become, not vise versa

Originally posted by Maslo
It is irrelevant whether the issue is bad resource management or amount of people. Overpopulation INCLUDES quantifying our ability to utilize resources. With advanced technology, we could maybe have dozens of billions of people living in comfort. But we obviously cannot do it now, thus overpopulation is a real problem.

First we need the technology and the management, then the population can increase. Not the other way around.

We have the technology.

We lack the management.

There are examples of 'advanced' technologies spread all across North America that, indivdually, drastically reduce waste / consumption of every resource required for life. It is only the managements lack of will that is holding it back.

YEAH let's all have a ton of kids just to spite Gore! facepalm

Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean everything they say is crap. The biggest problem in the world is the growing population. Something DOES need to be done about it, and I'd say telling people to stop having so many babies is the best way to do it. I mean unless you wanna get to the point where sterilization would be necessary.

I guess I'm an NWO shill for saying that..

Originally posted by havenvideo
YEAH let's all have a ton of kids just to spite Gore! facepalm

Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean everything they say is crap. The biggest problem in the world is the growing population. Something DOES need to be done about it, and I'd say telling people to stop having so many babies is the best way to do it. I mean unless you wanna get to the point where sterilization would be necessary.

I guess I'm an NWO shill for saying that..

Close to it. Infact, very close to it.

Originally posted by havenvideo
YEAH let's all have a ton of kids just to spite Gore! facepalm

Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean everything they say is crap. The biggest problem in the world is the growing population. Something DOES need to be done about it, and I'd say telling people to stop having so many babies is the best way to do it. I mean unless you wanna get to the point where sterilization would be necessary.

I guess I'm an NWO shill for saying that..

your either a shill or someone who doesnt even bother to read the other replies before posting,

theres a hundred different posts in this thread explaining why you are wrong about that,

and you have not debated any of the points those posts have made,

you either did not even read them and thus have no interest in the other perspective (closed minded)
or you have no logic or reason to present which could validate your beliefs (unreasonable blind belief)

if you really wanna logicaly present the reasons why our numbers on this earth are the issue, then debate the points that people have already made, otherwise your post is just chaff

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms

Also, not directed to you, but some people I think are confusing overpopulation with land area. No one is saying there is no room for humans in regards to land area. 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.

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

but that IS overpopulation, everything else is a whole other matter all together, thats like saying we should just kill everyone on earth so there would be no more war,

the strain on the ecosystem is about our method of living not our numbers, only a fool would neglect to correct the method our society exists on this earth, and opt to instead just have lesser of us

Unfortunately our methods and lifestyle cannot be separated from the number of people living on the earth simply due to what it means to be a modern human being. You don't need to have every millimeter in your home occupied by roaches to know you have a roach problem lol, sorry for the bad analogy. If we lived more in tuned with nature (whatever that means) I am sure no one would be talking about overpopulation, and we certainly wouldn't be talking about it on a computer based on materials extracted from the earth with a self ticking timebomb to break in 5 years (wow that was a mouthful).

But on the same token the very reason we have so many people on this earth is because of our advances in the medical field and our industrial agriculture which is feed through artificial energy means (petro). Before, sun light use to produce the needed energy to grow vegetation/crops, and it still does. However the gross amounts of food that we are able to grow is only possible because of petro (an energy source).

The pesticides and fertilizers are based on petro, machines needed spray the pesticides and fertilizers use petro, the machines used to harvest the crops use petro, the trucks used to transport crops to processing use petro, the plastics used to wrap the food is made out of petro, the trucks that take the wrapped food to distribution centers use petro, the trucks used to take the food from distribution centers to the super markets use petro. Sorry for the run on sentence.

I think you get my point. Obviously the need to localize is important as well as finding alternative fuel sources and if we are lucky, unlimited fuel sources. But that's not current reality. The fact still remains that the reason why we have grown from 1.6 billion in 1900 to 7 billion in 2011 is due to the availability of modern health care (and its advances) as well as the effect of the green revolution (modern agriculture) in the 40's. You are right to a certain extent, but the answer to that without technological methods (advances) would be a curbing of the lifestyle that we have become accustomed too.

Originally posted by havenvideo
Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean everything they say is crap. The biggest problem in the world is the growing population. Something DOES need to be done about it, and I'd say telling people to stop having so many babies is the best way to do it. I mean unless you wanna get to the point where sterilization would be necessary.

What he is saying is crap because he lacks the FACTS to back it up.

The current population is sustainable with CURRENT technology. Yet, a multimillionaire (who has the funds to build some of the technology) wants to lay all responsibility at the feet of the commoner.

We have the ability to drop a military force ANYWHERE in less than 24 hrs, but we can't get food port to port before it rots?

We have the ability to build at the nano scale, yet we can't improve processing to remove the 40% waste?

We have water teatment technology.

We have waste reduction and management technology.

We have all the tools, but the monkeys at the top, with the money, are too busy flinging poop.