beforewisdom Posted January 5, 2011 Share Posted January 5, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallas Posted January 6, 2011 Share Posted January 6, 2011 And we can't even feed everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryofire Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Blame Octo-mom http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ll-media.tmz.com/2009/03/04/0304_octomom_exc-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tmz.com/2009/03/04/octomom-birth-tape-coming-soon-for/&usg=__psRmZ16RTjQOFC2UaBFOgFehaos=&h=469&w=490&sz=77&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=ssgmvHXrPq3eMM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=159&prev=/images%3Fq%3Doctomom%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-US%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D819%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=809&vpy=106&dur=1375&hovh=220&hovw=229&tx=94&ty=95&ei=Zq8nTcq-B4SBlAfmjqGwCA&oei=Zq8nTcq-B4SBlAfmjqGwCA&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lean and Green Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 Blame Octo-mom http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ll-media.tmz.com/2009/03/04/0304_octomom_exc-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tmz.com/2009/03/04/octomom-birth-tape-coming-soon-for/&usg=__psRmZ16RTjQOFC2UaBFOgFehaos=&h=469&w=490&sz=77&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=ssgmvHXrPq3eMM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=159&prev=/images%3Fq%3Doctomom%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-US%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D819%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=809&vpy=106&dur=1375&hovh=220&hovw=229&tx=94&ty=95&ei=Zq8nTcq-B4SBlAfmjqGwCA&oei=Zq8nTcq-B4SBlAfmjqGwCA&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=27&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0 LOLZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 Its mostly China and India. Stupid leaders told their people to have more children for War. That might be true, but it isn't the reason for the current size of the global population. Poor people have more children because they have higher child mortality rates due to poverty and they have more children so there will be someone to support them when they are old. The National Geographic enjoys a very good reputation for getting information right. If you haven't, watch the video. It states that the population problem isn't just about raw numbers of people. It is about resource consumption and pollution generation. In other words, Westerners need to cut back on people as well as we use several times more resources.........even when we are conscientious ( it is built into our infrastructure ) than 3rd world people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryofire Posted January 23, 2011 Share Posted January 23, 2011 Its mostly China and India. Stupid leaders told their people to have more children for War. That might be true, but it isn't the reason for the current size of the global population. Poor people have more children because they have higher child mortality rates due to poverty and they have more children so there will be someone to support them when they are old. The National Geographic enjoys a very good reputation for getting information right. If you haven't, watch the video. It states that the population problem isn't just about raw numbers of people. It is about resource consumption and pollution generation. In other words, Westerners need to cut back on people as well as we use several times more resources.........even when we are conscientious ( it is built into our infrastructure ) than 3rd world people. People need to keep their legs closed, and their dick in their pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 -OR- just use condoms, advocate for better birth control methods being available, reading up on population issues and still having sex anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryofire Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 -OR- just use condoms, advocate for better birth control methods being available, reading up on population issues and still having sex anyway Yea, your idea sounds better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted January 24, 2011 Author Share Posted January 24, 2011 The world replacement fertility rate is 2.something children per woman. If people stuck to no more than 2 kids, the population would eventually stabilize. If people could just be taught that, that would be HUGE. You don't have to turn people away by asking them not to breed, just to stop at 2, which I think many people would be happy doing if they learned about all of the issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryofire Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 If people want so many kids, they should adopt. It's a better solution, because why bring more children into the world, when there are already children who need homes that are already here. It's not fair to them at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vege Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Its mostly China and India. Stupid leaders told their people to have more children for War.I am just wondering where did you hear about this information? Check this outhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 If people want so many kids, they should adopt. It's a better solution, because why bring more children into the world, when there are already children who need homes that are already here. It's not fair to them at all. The best way to make sure that a positive change never happens in the world is to focus on "shoulds" instead of working with "what is". - Adoption is extraordinarily expensive and can take years. - Many people feel compelled, perhaps by instinct, to have some kids of their own. Given that those two things are never going to go away it is better to accept those things as a reality and work with it by educating people as to why they would want to stop at a maximum of 2 kids, if they want kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobsteriffic Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 The best way to make sure that a positive change never happens in the world is to focus on "shoulds" instead of working with "what is". +1 Couldn't agree more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryofire Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 If people want so many kids, they should adopt. It's a better solution, because why bring more children into the world, when there are already children who need homes that are already here. It's not fair to them at all. The best way to make sure that a positive change never happens in the world is to focus on "shoulds" instead of working with "what is". - Adoption is extraordinarily expensive and can take years. - Many people feel compelled, perhaps by instinct, to have some kids of their own. Given that those two things are never going to go away it is better to accept those things as a reality and work with it by educating people as to why they would want to stop at a maximum of 2 kids, if they want kids. Adoption is expensive, but so is having lots of kids. That's why a lot of people end up poor because they're ignorant and think that they can afford it. And second of all there's nothing wrong with adopting. Step parents can be just as loving if not more than biological parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobsteriffic Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I know two different couples who went through the adoption process and it was very, very long and arduous, and caused a lot of heart break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryofire Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I know two different couples who went through the adoption process and it was very, very long and arduous, and caused a lot of heart break. That's unfortunate for them. But it's still a better option then having more than two or three kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobsteriffic Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 They didn't want more than two or three kids. They just wanted one. Agree 100% with not having more than 2 or 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. not 2 or 3, 2 max if we want the population to stabilize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobsteriffic Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 This is interesting to me as in Canada certain Conservative politicians talk about how we [Canadians] need to reproduce more, as we are not reproducing at a high enough rate to sustain our population, and we are dependent on immigration (which some Conservative politicians are opposed to). But I suppose Conservatives aren't known for their well-thought out arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 This is interesting to me as in Canada certain Conservative politicians talk about how we [Canadians] need to reproduce more, as we are not reproducing at a high enough rate to sustain our population, and we are dependent on immigration (which some Conservative politicians are opposed to). But I suppose Conservatives aren't known for their well-thought out arguments. Translation: white people aren't breeding enough to keep Canada from turning brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lobsteriffic Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 This is interesting to me as in Canada certain Conservative politicians talk about how we [Canadians] need to reproduce more, as we are not reproducing at a high enough rate to sustain our population, and we are dependent on immigration (which some Conservative politicians are opposed to). But I suppose Conservatives aren't known for their well-thought out arguments. Translation: white people aren't breeding enough to keep Canada from turning brown. Ha, precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryofire Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 This is interesting to me as in Canada certain Conservative politicians talk about how we [Canadians] need to reproduce more, as we are not reproducing at a high enough rate to sustain our population, and we are dependent on immigration (which some Conservative politicians are opposed to). But I suppose Conservatives aren't known for their well-thought out arguments. Translation: white people aren't breeding enough to keep Canada from turning brown. Ha, precisely. I know what you mean. My mom always says, "it's the blacks, hispanics who have tons of kids." When really white people have just as much children. Plus she believes in having tons of children too. She only cares about overpopulation concerns when a different ethnicity is doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beforewisdom Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 I know what you mean. My mom always says, "it's the blacks, hispanics who have tons of kids." When really white people have just as much children. Plus she believes in having tons of children too. She only cares about overpopulation concerns when a different ethnicity is doing it. It is not a myth. Those demographics tend to be poor. The poor have more children. For a number of reasons, rational, not rational, good and bad It is also one of the reasons why adoption is not the universal answer to overpopulation ( aside from those parents WANTING their children ). Call it racist, but people want to adopt babies that look like them. The people who can afford to adopt are white. The majority of the world's orphans or babies put up for adoption because their parents are poor......tend not to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryofire Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I know what you mean. My mom always says, "it's the blacks, hispanics who have tons of kids." When really white people have just as much children. Plus she believes in having tons of children too. She only cares about overpopulation concerns when a different ethnicity is doing it. It is not a myth. Those demographics tend to be poor. The poor have more children. For a number of reasons, rational, not rational, good and bad It is also one of the reasons why adoption is not the universal answer to overpopulation ( aside from those parents WANTING their children ). Call it racist, but people want to adopt babies that look like them. The people who can afford to adopt are white. The majority of the world's orphans or babies put up for adoption because their parents are poor......tend not to be. There are white people who also live in poverty, who have tons of children, trust me, come to the projects in South Boston. It sickens me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vege Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Overpopulation is a myth. Made up thing. We have resources to feed everyone on this planet. We just need to change the capitalistic system. It is not the overpopulation that makes people hungry, it is the greed of the people who run our societies and own the means of production. We need revolution. Anarchy, yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now