‘Population Bomb’ scientist: ‘Nobody’ has the right to ‘as many children as they want’

A third of the world's population is in two countries -- that is a problem.

 

Hilarious logic fail.

 

consider this,

1. if we perfect "secks without babies", we go extinct.

2. if we overpopulate the world becomes unsustainable, we go extinct.

so if that's the case, i'm just gonna enjoy and have as much sexy time as i can while i'm still around!!! :grin:

 

Considering we throw away half our food
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/10/half-world-food-waste

and
We can consumer as much as we like
Cars/etc/etc

These type of things are complete bull**** because they have alot of caveats
oooooo
We unable to sustain . . .and still have golf courses, basketball courts and a 'certain' standard of living blah blah blah blah

at its worse . . . .we can sustain alot more but not at a level of 'comfort' we have become accustom too . . . .
why is someone's right to comfort more important than someone's right to live or reproduce?
Probably because we are a selfish and self interested drived people.

Rocket River

 

hehehehehehehehe
Hilarious . . . Not many will watch their kids starve to death
What they will do is kidnap your kid and make you pay them . . .

Desperation will leave to a level of criminality that you are not truly prepared for . . .
People will kill YOU to save their kids. . . just like you want to kill their kids through starvation to maintain your comfort level.

Rocket River
Hilarity has ensued

 

So it is better for a country like China to have over 2 billion people (without its one child policy for the last 30 years) and have much higher unemployment rate (they are having problems as it is today with its current 1.3-1.4 billion people). Have much lower standard of living on average just so some of these people can have five or ten kids? Really.

 

i bet you it would turn into a race issue saying that rich, white people don't want the lower class minorities breeding.

 

I would love to hear how collectivism is a straw man.

And though I am not a huge fan of Rand, and I am by no means an Objectivist, I just want to clarify Rand's view on charity:

 

I don't see how what you posted really contradicts what JeffB said.

 

The way I understood his post, it gave the impression that Rand wanted no charity at all. When in reality she had no issues with charity itself, just the belief that the person providing charity is the height of morality.

Maybe the distinction was unnecessary to the point of the thread, but I was just jumping in to prevent the possible confused inclusion of Herbert Spencer, which tends to happen in discussions that involve charity, Malthus, Rand, and the like.

 

Except that in the quote you cite Rand says this:
[rquoter]There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. [/rquoter]

The key point there is that they are worthy of being helped which would mean that one of Rand's criteria is that they meet some standard that Rand has to be benefit from that charity and thus survive.

 

Even if she had arbitrary standards by which the person receiving charity must conduct themselves, that's not the same as no charity at all.

 

If this isn't sarcastic you're getting a massive face palm compilation when I get back. Hilarious.


On another note, I personally believe people should adopt given a choice. I think it's immoral not to do so.

 

Many years ago when I was in school, I learned Malthus, learned that population growth is a exponential problem, etc, etc. These are not hard to understand for anyone with a mind of logic. But, over the years, I slowly come to appreciate the human side of the story. Any solution addressing any human problem cannot lose sight of humanity and that I think is hard to grasp without sensitivity. The one child policy in China is draconian on paper and abusive when executed. It outlaws a fundamental human right regardless whether a person has means to be a responsible caregiver. Over-population has to be recognized, and measures should be taken, but it is dangerous, to say the least, to lose sight of humanity in pursuit of those measures. In extreme forms, didn't Nazis justify its killings (EUTHANASIA for example) on evolution theories?

 

People can be much more friendly to the environment, much more self efficient. If employment is the issue, people must stop relying for man to hand you money, to feed your family. People can become self efficient and grow there own food and support there family there selfs. Like one other has said, land is not a problem. Friendly to the environment, pollution can easily be solved it just doesn't want to be. Cars, machines and factory's can without a doubt run off of veggie oil's and many other natural much much cleaner oils, and natural energy's. Waste can be turned into fertilizer, fuel and electricity i'm hearing now, why dump it into the ocean? Nuclear power plants need to go, everything nuclear needs to go. We'r getting radiation from the sun, ill except that. I won't except human made radiation, absolutely ridiculous that they are using these to power electricity when there'r are many more natural non hazardous ways off creating electric with todays technology. Yeah natural energy's might not be as efficient, for 10 decades or so but once its made the new focus of the worlds electricity and power ill be damned if technology hasn't made natural not hazardous renewable energy's just as and even more efficient then most the things we use today.

Let the people have there kids, tell them to become self efficient and feed them, and only allow environmental friendly made products, shut down all the polluting factory's and energy plants.

Just thoughts off my head, also just a high school student, don't flame me too hard if theres something i don't know that would flaw my idea's.

 

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-Na9-jV_OJI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

You could start by educating yourself on nuclear power, which is incredibly safe, incredibly clean, and has killed virtually no one in 50 years of operation. Nuclear power is by far the best option out there, especially compared to foolish renewables that don't work.

Furthermore, people used to live like you suggested. Grew their own food and tried to be self-sufficient. It was a horrible, miserable lifestyle, and only a foolish romantic would want to emulate that again. For better or for worse, there is a reason why Americans have Mexicans do their food picking.

 

Very hilarious and juvenile way of thinking. I am amazed at the number of people who still believe these things. Not many people advocate these positions. Similarly, most people don't advocate the opposite, collectivism. Objectivism is a convenient strawman for dealing with libertarian conservatives similar to how collectivism is used to paint liberals. Most sensible people don't seriously believe this tripe.

If we have economic inequality, we need to provide economic opportunity and a social safety net for when markets go haywire. Alternatively, we can cynically "regulate the poor" with handouts and prisons. Desperation is the last thing we want.

With respect to the topic: education and an an expanding middle class will deal with population. How soon can the solutions be put in place? Is there a tipping point, a point of no return, with respect to the habitat?

Anyway... Mars.