When will it be called madness?

The many faces of evil???

Mormon Family, aptly named Green. lol



In all seriousness. What is your exact concerns. Are these women evil because they chose abortion or because they choose to not have children due to concerns of over population. What is your opinion on the over population problem?

 

There is no dignity or sense in humans breeding like rats.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 23 2007, 09:19 PM) [snapback]543481[/snapback]</div>

So am I right to assume then that you feel that there is no population and resource problem and that everyone should have babies?

Why do you think it is wrong for her to critisize others for having many children when we know for a fact that our current population is outstripping the planets resources? Is it not equally wrong for you to critisize her for wanting to reduce suffering globally by not bringing another child into the world who will likely use a disproportionate amount of resources that will just a likely be "stolen" from a developing country and increase their suffering?

 

Um, not having a baby IS the most environmentally friendly thing you can do.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 23 2007, 09:24 PM) [snapback]543483[/snapback]</div>

There is no easy answer for that. I assume you are not well versed in the study of overpopulation? That is not meant as a slam, just a question.

If everyone in developed countries were to reduce their level of consumption then the billions of impoverished individuals in the rest of the world would live better lives. The problem there is that we would need to drastically reduce our lifestyles to accomplish this. This would not solve any problems because unless we achieved a global birth rate of 2.1 we would still continue to grow (this does not account for demographic bulges in current youth). Some areas require some level of reproduction in population or else you end up with no young people to do work and aid in food growing and the economy. A good example of this is rural areas of Romania. Other places could use less young people because of a lack of jobs, landspace, or other factors. A good example of this is Rwanda and other subsarhan countries (the ones not plagued by aids).

The current trend is to critisize places like China, Africa and India for their high birth rates yet high birth rates in the developed world are often times more destructive due to high consumption rates and the application of the generic formula I = PAT to calculate environmental impact. That means that 1 child growing up and living as an adult in the U.S. will use 10x=100x more resources than 1 child in Africa.

Soooo in otherwords, the planet might be able to sustain 50 billion people if we all lived on bread and water and used very little frivilous technology; on the other hand, if everyone in the world decided to live like the average American we would require somewhere around 5 planet Earths to sustain us. Does that make sense? I know it's a bit confusing if you have not studied the concepts.

 

She just might be doing all of us a favor by putting an end her genetic line. :lol:

But I must disagree with her assertation . . . never having a child is NOT the most environmentally friendly thing she could do.

By not bringing a child into the world, she is only stopping the addition of another carbon footprint.
Suicide, on the other hand, would actually erase a carbon footprint.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Nov 23 2007, 09:42 PM) [snapback]543490[/snapback]</div>

If carbon were the only issue.... *sigh*

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 24 2007, 12:19 AM) [snapback]543481[/snapback]</div>

What about the non-Mormon, non-polygamists that also have one child after another? What about those having child after child who cannot afford it and rely on others to support their large families? MegaFamilies are as ungreen as MacMansions.

Jim Bob and Michelle just popped out number 16.

16 is enough.

Why large families don't deserve tax breaks.

How many SUVs would go unsold if you eliminated the excuse that they were needed because of the number of kids. (You don't need an SUV for TWO kids.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 23 2007, 10:10 PM) [snapback]543498[/snapback]</div>

Arrogant? I don't think anyone is going to demand that couples have a limited number of children but I could see a descriminatory social effect placed on those who choose large families. Indeed it is already happening. When I see someone with 5 kids I think about how their children are using the resources of others yet unborn. It's like the tragedy of the commons, where people scamble to use resources before other people can. I don't work that way, I like to see fair distrubution to all so my internal ethics dictate my feelings of disgust when I see such things. All of that said, I would never demand that a couple limit their children, I would rather try to educate them on the prvailing issues and hope they limit their children of their own accord.

There are a number of other cultural reasons why Europe has population problems. To try and pin them doen to just a replacement rate is to allow cartesien ideology to dominte your viewpoints. Northwestern Europe is doing extremely well in almost all other areas so they seems to be doing something right in most repsects.

I will not argue that abortion is the correct way to stem the population growth rate. I do believe that family planning and contraceptive use is part of the solution. In the grand scheme though, adding more people to an impoverished community does no one any good.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 23 2007, 11:32 PM) [snapback]543486[/snapback]</div>

I agree.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 24 2007, 01:10 AM) [snapback]543498[/snapback]</div>

I am. I chose not to have children. I also chose not to marry so it would not be an issue. Choice is a wonderful thing. Lucky for me I am well-educated, employed and self-sufficient.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 24 2007, 01:10 AM) [snapback]543498[/snapback]</div>

No abortion necessary. We know what causes pregnancy and we know how to prevent it. I'm sure all good neo-con biblethumping antiabortionists know what abstinence is. There are also various methods of birth control from rhythm to the pill.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 24 2007, 01:10 AM) [snapback]543498[/snapback]</div>

Read Unwind by Neal Shusterman.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 24 2007, 01:10 AM) [snapback]543498[/snapback]</div>

So, you're saying we should breed our own domestic low-paid, uneducated, menial workers? Should we chose a race or demographic? Test for it in public school? Or just allow social circumstances to designate the great unwashed. I can see it now. The Great American Caste system.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 24 2007, 01:10 AM) [snapback]543498[/snapback]</div>

A fetus is only a potential person. But I'm not going to debate the medical or religious definition of a person.

Let's go back to that 2.1. Population control in industrialized nations is only half of the equation. I think the nations you name, India and the continent of Africa do need to get a handle on their birthrates. China has pretty much taken care of itself on this. No one should have more children then they can afford to support. One thing I will NOT do is send money to Africa or India or other third world countries to feed starving children. Harsh I know. But as long as we continue to be the world's welfare teet the world will continue to breed.

There should be no license to have as many kids as you want regardless of ability to provide for them.

Of course, if I had *my* way, every woman on welfare in the U.S. would also have to prove she was on birthcontrol. And if she got pregnant while on welfare there would be NO extra money for the new mouth. Have a second kid and you're cut off.

Personally, I think we're paying the wrong people to breed. Instead of paying to support the uneducated and unproductive, we should be paying the ubersuccessful and the highly educated to have more children.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Nov 24 2007, 01:28 AM) [snapback]543500[/snapback]</div>

Resource imbalance is nature's most natural way of selection. When we run out of food, oil, land, blah blah blah, abortion will be the last thing needed to curb the population.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(amped @ Nov 23 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]543525[/snapback]</div>

I told you, there is no definitive answer but we know that more is generally acacerbating the problem. So less is better in our context, more is better in other contexts (Romania, Norway etc). If you are looking for a simple answer then you will not find one. Why does it have to be an issue of someone making a decision? Why cannot people be educated on the issues and allow them to make the right choices? Well, that is if we took religion out of the reasoning process.

I've started to consider the idea of foster children should I ever decide to raise a child. My studies in genetics makes me leary though. I will admit that sound shallow but I am trying to be honest. I think it is great your friends decided on that route, assuming they did not do it for monetary reasons.

I'm not trying to be condesending to you Amped; rather, I am simply trying to explain another point of view. If I have been rude then let me know and I'll modify my tone.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Nov 23 2007, 11:25 PM) [snapback]543516[/snapback]</div>

I know. I just hate to think of us subject to such simple matters when we should be above this natural law considering our knowledge base. The fact that many of us know and would willingly abide by this rule yet we may starve in the long run due to others inconsideracy or ignorance.

This is where the ideas of survival of the fittest and compassion battle it out in my mind. True the planet has evolved not through combat, but networking, yet I cannot wonder if we have evolved beyond the point of constant competition and into a time of cooperation. We have seen what constant combat leads each civilation to and I would hope we could learn from this and try a different way or else the documentation of history is all for naught.

 

Just because *I* choose not to have any kids doesn't mean I think *YOU* should not have any kids. You see, the "Choice" in "Pro-choice" works two ways. Just like just because *I* drive a Prius doesn't mean I think YOUR Hummer should be illegal. Yes, I personally don't think you should drive a Hummer, but I would not support a law saying you shouldn't be able to.

Also, an above assertion is incorrect: Even if all the "wealthy" nations had a birth rate of zero (or rather, just enough to sustain or gradually decrease the population), the people of the poor nations would still be poor. They already have more than enough food to eat in those countries; the problem is the supply chain and the leaders of those countries refusing to give the people the food.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stev0 @ Nov 24 2007, 09:51 AM) [snapback]543592[/snapback]</div>

This is based on the assumption that food and resources (materials and intellectual) are shared between nations. In Romania there is not a huge food surplus like in Australia and in the rural areas there are not enough young people to do the work of producing it. If young people are only in the larger cities pursuing specialized jobs, then that leave food growing to the old or to mechanization (industrial farming) and the enormous degredation that industry causes. The food shortage idea is still valid in that when we degrade the landscape by overharvesting our soils and aquifers, we limit our ability to produce large yeild numbers in the future despite genetic modifications. So the food surpluses we see in some areas are artificially boosted by this destructive process and is much like using the principle in your bank account as opposed to using only the intererest. I would not assume Rwanda has plenty of food available for it's citizens and it is a simple supply chain issue. Their land plots are rediculously small per person.

This does provide another example of how difficult this issue of over population really is. If one were to step back from the planet and play "god" and could manipulate each country as a game piece (think SIMMS) then we could likely manage ourselves in such a way that everyone could live in a relative level of comfort and safety. Since humans and society are so dynamic and unpredictable that could never happen and we will see warfare and plague as the likely mode of depopulation.