Voluntary, one child policy
- Thread starter Will E Worm
- Start date
He's a little late on this. The New Agers already have this written in their own American Stonehenge - The Georgia Guidestones. They make people feel bad for even living.
I agree with him. This is a good idea that will help save the world's resources. People don't want to give up their right to do anything, though. The human race is just gonna just ride the Personal Liberties Train right into extinction and possibly bring the whole planet with it.
Last edited:
I don't believe this policy could become a 'voluntary' one. I feel that there would need to be a strong element of legislation to make it worthwhile and ultimately successful.
I don't see it at all saying people should feel bad for living.It is clear the planet cannot sustain the current population at 6.5 billion much less continued growth.What were maybe reasonable notions in the past like "be friutful and multiply" is past its time.We have done all that all too well and it is time for as your link referenced for an " age of reason".Is it really neccesary to have unlimited population for man to feel good about himself?
And I agree with you!:thumbsup:
This thread is really timely as I was thinking of starting a thread asking the question "If the planet is really headed for a crisis driven by overpopulation with the results of that being immense damage to our enviorment and over utilization of all resources which is unsustainable and threatens the very existence of mankind as the dominant species on this planet,would you give up some freedoms to mitigate that?" As you said Senob I think clearly the answer is no they would not willingly give up their rights even if that is what is unfortunately neccesarry to be done.This is why even though it will be very far along in the process with a lot of damage already done,a place I think we already clearly at now the truth is democracy will never be able to cope and do anything about that.You will never get popular support for the restrictions that would be neccesary.
We will need restrictions on pro-creation,use of resources etc.And they must be mandatory,not voluntary.Recently there was a time magazine cover that some ww2 vets objected to which used the image of the flag raising at Iwo Jima with a tree replacing the flag.The point was that the climate crisis is as important as ww2 was.
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20080428,00.html
I think the climate crisis is much more of danger than ww2 was,mankind has survived many wars but none of them (unless we have a nuclear one someday) have threatened us the way climate change which is a result of overpopulation does.We had all kinds of restrictions during ww2 (gas rationing as an example) in order to win the war.
And any beleif system or anything else that try's to get in the way of the necessary steps must be aggressively surpressed on a world wide scale or as you say senob the train will just keep heading ineviatbly to a place where mankind itself is threatened.Culture of live(being pro-life) is insanity in the face of what is happening.If laws,rights and beleif systems are basically suicide pacts then they must be abolished.
Here is a link that lays out where we are population wise now and where were headed.
http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/index.php
"Current Population is 3x Sustainable Level"
"Current global population of over 6.6 billion is already two to three times higher than the sustainable level. Several recent studies show that Earth’s resources are enough to sustain only about 2 billion people at a European standard of living. An average European consumes far more resources than any of the poorest two billion people in the world. However, Europeans use only about half the resources of Americans, on average."
Hopefully someday there will be some survivors who remember the lessons of what happened to mankind over the past couple of centuries and go on with a new appreciation of living within natures bounds.
^^ Very good post there, Friday. For sure, giving up certain personal liberties is not an easy decision. It flies in the face of much of what we have been taught, and indeed what our forefathers fought for. But I believe this is one example where governments can and should do some of the thinking and planning for their people. There are times when organizations such as the ACLU can be extremely valuable and indeed almost necessary. But when you are talking about the fate of mankind, all you can really hope for are sound leadership and sound policies that most, if not virtually all, people can understand and see the value of.
Thank you for not breeding.
...nothing personal, just a general thought.
you wanna leave your mark on the world
by bringing another boy or girl
into this terrible fucking place
i think its selfishly derate
and you're too arrogant to see
all the reasons why you shouldn't breed
we have people starving on the streets
but you want to make another mouth to feed
a million kids that already need a home
but you say you've got to have one of your own
its your attempt at immortallity
i think its pure stupidity
...nothing personal, just a general thought.
you wanna leave your mark on the world
by bringing another boy or girl
into this terrible fucking place
i think its selfishly derate
and you're too arrogant to see
all the reasons why you shouldn't breed
we have people starving on the streets
but you want to make another mouth to feed
a million kids that already need a home
but you say you've got to have one of your own
its your attempt at immortallity
i think its pure stupidity
maybe this should be exercised first in well lets say, countries with limited carring capacity were famine and drought are normal occurances and breeding is done at the drop of the hat. (where the aids epidemic is the worst also) mostly eastern africa. this isn't a bad idea but lets work on the worst offenders first. We dont want to breed ourselves out of our own civil liberties, we can still have children 1-2 not 4-5. one or two kids would be flat growth, not per mate (thinking of alot of single women i know) per person
that's a load of rubbish. what about mormons and religious nuts that don't believe in birth control? they all have like 12 kids. and rich people have a shitload of kids too, because they have to pass on the family history of their slave owning ancestors, and because they are the only one's that can really afford it.
you are right though, it's the working class people that get the shaft always.
you are right though, it's the working class people that get the shaft always.
You have to keep in mind that the enviormental impact of an american is many times what most others peoples is.Not that they should be reproducing eitheir at high rates, but the enviroment would benefit most from the countries consuming a lot of resources curtailing growth.And before we can start using reason to encourage others to curtail population growth we probably need to show some reason and abandon all these religious views that think it is your duty to have as many children as you can.We have policys against funding programs that pay for abortions here and around the world as well as mnay others who are against things like the morning after pill and other programs that might reduce pregnancies.
i apologize in advance to the progressives here. i am going to say two things, and this is just an observation. i'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it is a fact.
1) all life is driven by one biological imperative: to reproduce.
nothing can ever stop this, not global starvation, not armageddon, not ted turner.
2) population is self-regulating. war and starvation. that's it.
all the best intentioned plans of altruists and hypocrites alike will never change this, or be anything more than mental masturbation.
besides, what are david rockefeller and ted turner really trying to accomplish in the. . .bohemian grove?:anonymous
1) all life is driven by one biological imperative: to reproduce.
nothing can ever stop this, not global starvation, not armageddon, not ted turner.
2) population is self-regulating. war and starvation. that's it.
all the best intentioned plans of altruists and hypocrites alike will never change this, or be anything more than mental masturbation.
besides, what are david rockefeller and ted turner really trying to accomplish in the. . .bohemian grove?:anonymous
Isn't China reducing population?
It would seem to me that we already have a voluntary one child policy. Nobody made me father more than one. I made the other three because I do so love banging cooch!
There are some countries that are below 1.0 on the child scale right now. I think Italy and Spain if memory serves me correct. How is that working out for them?
There are some countries that are below 1.0 on the child scale right now. I think Italy and Spain if memory serves me correct. How is that working out for them?
that's why I sneak into people's homes at night and zap their crotches with microwaves.
Similar threads
