FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Yay! More people realize population reduction is 'green'!





ocalhoun
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9APOM880&show_article=1

Quote:

More than 200 million women worldwide want contraceptives, but don't have access to them

Quote:

That results in 76 million unintended pregnancies every year

Quote:

slow rates of population growth, possibly easing the pressure on the environment

Quote:

"There is now an emerging debate and interest about the links between population dynamics, sexual and reproductive health and rights, and climate change," the commentary says.

Quote:

The Lancet editorial cited a British report which says family planning is five times cheaper than usual technologies used to fight climate change. According to the report, each $7 spent on basic family planning would slash global carbon dioxide emissions by more than 1 ton.


Good. Slowly, the world is becoming aware that overpopulation is the source of most environmental problems. Just maybe it will be stopped before it destroys the better parts of nature, and forces humans to live in the most efficient patterns possible.
Afaceinthematrix
I am glad that more people are realizing that population growth is the biggest environmental problem. I have been arguing this for years (and have even done presentations on it) but people just do not seem to get it! We both agree here but obviously disagree on how it should be handled. I like big governments and big government legislation where as you like almost no government... How do you think it should be handled? Education but no legislation?
ocalhoun
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
How do you think it should be handled? Education but no legislation?

It should start with education, progress to providing things like birth control, and progress to restrictive legislation if it has to.
Peterssidan
I have thought that decreasing the world population is the best way to fight all kinds of environmental problems for a long time. Good that other people have start to realise that. But it's still long to go until most politicians think the same. It's not totaly easy because it can be hard to handle the big group of older people with fewer young people. But it must be done!

Maybe all countries should do what china does and only allow one child but in a more friendly way.
deanhills
Wonder if one would separate the role of the Catholic religion that prohibits abortions, and what percentage of Catholic women who would like to have contraceptives, would be of Ocalhoun's statistics. There are so many religious and cultural taboos, and I have to agree with Ocalhoun, education is key, but wonder what they can do about religion and cultural taboos. Maybe education is not enough. Also poverty is another threat. A better distribution of wealth may make a great difference in allowing people to be educated as well. Wars as well create many unwanted babies, as well as orphans and poverty. Another threat that would need to be dealt with with regard to unwanted babies and orphans, and when growing up giving birth and perpetuating overpopulation problems and contributing to the numbers of uneducated.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Wonder if one would separate the role of the Catholic religion that prohibits abortions, and what percentage of Catholic women who would like to have contraceptives, would be of Ocalhoun's statistics.

All you need for that is a pope who is convinceable, threatenable, or bribeable.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Wonder if one would separate the role of the Catholic religion that prohibits abortions, and what percentage of Catholic women who would like to have contraceptives, would be of Ocalhoun's statistics.

All you need for that is a pope who is convinceable, threatenable, or bribeable.
Laughing Laughing Laughing Right!

I'm sure there must be a number of books out there of the pope's abuse of women! Technically speaking of course. Wonder how much misery has been created in their life times because of this, not only for themselves, but for society, as of course society has to pick up the tabs for looking after large families who cannot look after themselves. Do you think there would ever come a time when society will be able to confront the Catholic Church with this in a position of authority, i.e. from Government to Church?
missdixy
I think a lot of people have known about that for a while, but have been hesitant to do anything about it because so many people want children of their own. I've always wanted four children, but if I ever go through with it, I'll only ever give birth to one and will adopt the other three. That's always been my plan!
deanhills
missdixy wrote:
I think a lot of people have known about that for a while, but have been hesitant to do anything about it because so many people want children of their own. I've always wanted four children, but if I ever go through with it, I'll only ever give birth to one and will adopt the other three. That's always been my plan!
Laughing Laughing Sounds like a good plan! But quite a handful. Is the plan to space out the adoption?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Do you think there would ever come a time when society will be able to confront the Catholic Church with this in a position of authority, i.e. from Government to Church?

I sincerely hope there never will be!
It is NOT any governments' place to be changing people's religious beliefs.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Do you think there would ever come a time when society will be able to confront the Catholic Church with this in a position of authority, i.e. from Government to Church?

I sincerely hope there never will be!
It is NOT any governments' place to be changing people's religious beliefs.
Well, if religious beliefs, such as lack of contraception, stand in the way of survival of everyone, what other option would there be?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Well, if religious beliefs, such as lack of contraception, stand in the way of survival of everyone, what other option would there be?

The government can contradict the church, and do so strongly enough that people pay attention to it rather than the church, but the government should not be trying to change the church.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Well, if religious beliefs, such as lack of contraception, stand in the way of survival of everyone, what other option would there be?

The government can contradict the church, and do so strongly enough that people pay attention to it rather than the church, but the government should not be trying to change the church.
I thought both Government and Society have been doing this for decades now. With no results. Maybe women who are religious and are being forced not to use contraceptives need to be targeted so that they can make the change themselves? Or perhaps there could be more subtle contraception developed that can be taken without raising eyebrows or meddling with the status quo?
guggs
The British & US governments have a great approach to "population reduction" - ask the people in Iraq, Afghanistan and in their own infantry units how effective it is.
ocalhoun
guggs wrote:
The British & US governments have a great approach to "population reduction" - ask the people in Iraq, Afghanistan and in their own infantry units how effective it is.

War is an effective population reducer, though one of the most brutal.

If reducing the population is their goal though, they're doing very badly at it. It almost seems like they're purposely avoiding killing civilians!
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
guggs wrote:
The British & US governments have a great approach to "population reduction" - ask the people in Iraq, Afghanistan and in their own infantry units how effective it is.

War is an effective population reducer, though one of the most brutal.

If reducing the population is their goal though, they're doing very badly at it. It almost seems like they're purposely avoiding killing civilians!
Guess a few virusses could take care of things, but it just sounds so very wrong to say that however.
Vladalf
I have come to the conclusion that the only way something can be changed is with a strict decision once and for all, and it won't be something that we will know of or if it will, I don't know if we could do something about it. I mean, come on, the 1 child per familly law can't be enforced because duh, people are 'sheep' and won't think and abide. Atleast something will happen if the unknown leaders have any interest in this, maybe it will make their control even tighter?
~Vlad
deanhills
Vladalf wrote:
I have come to the conclusion that the only way something can be changed is with a strict decision once and for all, and it won't be something that we will know of or if it will, I don't know if we could do something about it. I mean, come on, the 1 child per familly law can't be enforced because duh, people are 'sheep' and won't think and abide. Atleast something will happen if the unknown leaders have any interest in this, maybe it will make their control even tighter?
~Vlad
Problem is not the people who are educated, and who are aware of what overpopulation does to the world, but the uneducated ones, who are purely on survival mode, unaware of what overpopulation is doing to the world, for example in Afghanistan where families have 8, 9 or more children.
harismushtaq
I think resources are too many and the problem is uneven distribution. As the matter of go green, I think the waste that human beings produce is pretty easy for the natural eco system to absorb. Similarly, the fuel that humans work on is available and reproducible and non toxic.

On the contrary, the machines that are being built to replace human beings is a lot more hazard to green world. The fuel they run on is usually toxic and the by products are even more dangerous. They do not fit into natural eco system and so on. So I think we can spread the culture of having humans replace the machines and have more humans.
ocalhoun
harismushtaq wrote:
So I think we can spread the culture of having humans replace the machines and have more humans.


That's hilarious!

"You, slave! Carry me to the grocery store. And then to the post office."
Cruel, but environmentally friendly.


And how will you feed all these extra humans when you've set agriculture production back 200 years?
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
harismushtaq wrote:
So I think we can spread the culture of having humans replace the machines and have more humans.


That's hilarious!

"You, slave! Carry me to the grocery store. And then to the post office."
Cruel, but environmentally friendly.
Until you really think about how very poor people are, and what they would do to feed themselves, maybe it won't sound that farfetched any longer. Also, how much better would it be to have someone standing outside the grocery store, begging for money and food, or someone who offers a ride and charges a fee for it?
missdixy
deanhills wrote:
missdixy wrote:
I think a lot of people have known about that for a while, but have been hesitant to do anything about it because so many people want children of their own. I've always wanted four children, but if I ever go through with it, I'll only ever give birth to one and will adopt the other three. That's always been my plan!
Laughing Laughing Sounds like a good plan! But quite a handful. Is the plan to space out the adoption?


Yeah, that would definitely be the plan, haha! Although I grew up with a big family and quite often had to take care of my little cousins, which lived with me, so I know I could probably do it...but I much rather space it out haha.
ocalhoun
chris_seo wrote:
and that goal of global population reduction is still in full force to this day.

I hope this isn't the 'full force' of it, because it isn't enough to actually get anything done.

Is there some reason that 10 billion people on the planet would be preferable to 4 billion?
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.