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

Population theories are all fine and dandy so long as that stuff stays in the academic world. When it comes to actual humans, you don't talk it like they are whole bunch of science subjects. How substantial in terms of clear and present danger is the doomsday scenario and why someone has the means and disre to have more than one kid should bear the cost. The measures have to be justified; we already had Nazi running camps killing all sorts of people in the name of for the good of mankind on the theories of sicence.

 

Its not but it still is a socially Darwinian view.

 

The main problem with Malthus was that he ignored the development of technology. The other side of the over population argument is that more humans will be more productive and innovative to find ways to create more resources and use resources more efficiently.

I think there is something to that but it is pretty obvious that we are reaching diminishing returns regarding how much technology can make up regarding resource scarcities. My own opinion is that the only long term hope of humanity is to start moving onto other planets. Even with much greater technology I don't think our planet can handle more people consuming at the same level that the first world does.

 

The way I see it, we have several problems regarding population:

• 
  1) We've set a very high standard of living as the expectation for many. We cannot have 7 billion people all living like a middle class family, and I mean middle class worldwide, not the American middle class.
  2) The main contributors to overpopulation tend to be less educated and impoverished. The majority of rich or intelligent people seem to have somewhere between 0 and 4 children. The poor and uneducated - those who require the most resources - have between 4 and 10. Look at the countries with declining birthrates - they tend to be the ones that are more affluent and successful- Singapore, the EU.
  3) There's no way - short of a worldwide eugenics programme- to stop these two things, and even so, I for one am uncomfortable with a genocidal reign of tyranny.
  4) Space travel technology is too far behind to enable colonization of other planets. It would require massive amounts of funding and international cooperation, something no one will agree to.

 

Singapore is trying to do something about that declining birth rate.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/mITGQIzja5c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I also think over-population and poverty are related. In developed countries, there is a population problem but it is rather a problem of shrinking population. Among all people, their reproductive contributions cannot and maybe should not be considered equally. So to me, another fallacy of the population theories is that they tend to focus on the big picture, but not take into account of differences on individual levels. As sicentific theories, they may have some deserving merits but I think they should not be used as the overiding principle behind a policy or a law that actually affect individuals, see e.g., China. For one, the danger that these theories become pretenses for the corrupted or the abusive may be too grave to justify the polices and laws founded on these theories.
To answer OP's question, do people have a right to have as many as kids as they want? I think they do. That right is not betowed by anybody. It is is a right, a fundmental human right, not a privilege. That said, I think the right to reproduce may be restricted, just as other human rights, ONLY WHEN it actually interferes rights of others. These concern at least have to be a part of the consideration in dealing with the population problem..

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/contribute...ion-japan-irradiates-west-coast-north-america

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/study-fukushima-radiation-has-already-killed-14000-americans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
Just one, incident.

A 2006 report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[6] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more.[7] A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[8]

I'm sure thats what the power plant companies say, nobody's died, its safe clean and its the most efficient, nothing else can be more efficient, Just way more efficient then "foolish renewables" like water wind and the sun? which scientist have been given i'm sure no where NEAR as much money too look into and find ways to make green renewables ways more efficient, like they have been with how to make un renewable resources efficient, un renewable resources that you have to pay for because its limited and own'd by man unlike water sun and wind which thank god people are smart enough to see shouldn't be owned.

Oil, deserves to be own by man as much as the sun does.

Hell might as well have somebody just throw a huge blanket over your house, and say if you want the sun that'l be about 3 fiddy' every hour for them to remove the blanket for your house to have sun.

But why, and who has the right to do that? the sun is the sun? you cannot own it? But for some reason man can own a oil in the ground, he can just get all of the oil in the world, pay scientist to figure out how to make it the most efficient thing around. Make companies only run of this oil, now the finest products are only capable with his oil, the machines that make the products run of this oil because it is most efficient. He'l make you pay for the oil, and make you say renewable resources are foolish.

Its a big game enjoy depending on the machine and not being self efficient as you'v factually stated is a horrible miserable lifestyle.

Not trying to call you out or cause a issue with you, this is fun and casual debate for me lol.

 

You miss the whole point. Human activities range more than simply taking up space. We fish and drill for resources in the sea, farm so much that we have to do stuff like cut down rainforest for our growing diets thanks to the semi-immeadiate expectation and processing of food; we need stuff like hospitals, courthouses, schools, food processing and storaging. Heck, we need office space in general. And although I care for most people and wish them the best in not being engulfed in poverty, we all want to have privacy and even if our dwellings were small as a sacrifice, it'd still take up a lot of space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City

Plus, think of all of the disease and crime that would be caused with people living on top of each other. Look no further than places like India as well as large cities in the Third World like in Indonesia. And what a logistical nightmare it would be for people to do their daily routine, it'd be like going to Toyota Center at gametime multiplied by 100 at least.

And did I mention much of our land is wasteland? There are the oceans, rivers, lakes and seas to begin with not to mention almost ALL of Alaska, Siberia, the Western US deserts/plateaus, Saharah, Tibet, Canada away from the US, Antartica, Australian Outback and the agricultural wasteland in Africa (remember there are the rainy and dry seasons there). And while we don't take up much space, our activities take up a ton of space.

Did I mention wildlife? Sure, you don't exactly care about the life of a rabbit the way you do your cousin but they and all animals play a role in our ecosystem and some may hold the key to a cure to a disease and without them handling their roles, it could threaten our very existence. For example, dragonflies and mosquito hawks eat mosquitos and without them and similar predators, the mosquito population would explode to greater levels than they already do and thus so would disease.

Spoiler

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...tion_curve.svg/360px-Population_curve.svg.png

That's absurd. Something HAS to be done.

 

Well, that is true (more specifically, the elites, not average everyday whites. Look into the history of Planned Parenthood aka The N**** Project) but breeding needs to be slowed in the Third World, period. And who ends up paying for their food and medicine? We (and other rich countries) do.

Like I said in another recent thread, WTF are people in Hati of all places doing having 5-10 kids? And as much compassion as I as black guy to boot have for those poor children, there's not much of an excuse for a mother bringing in that many kids into type of situation short of them being (date) raped. You've gotta think for their welfare.

 

Bump...

 

Paul Ehrlich has been making apocalyptic predictions since the 70s, he's about as accurate as the Mayans

The ultimate objective is restriction of human activity. The justification is whatever happens to be convenient.

 

Obviously have the right, but obviously a right that shouldn't be exercised too often. I have 2 kids, and we want a 3rd, but not sure we will have one or not. We don't want a 3rd boy.

I do think a lower average life span would be more beneficial, but obviously we aren't going to do that intentionally. Nature will eventually take over and wipe a large percentage of us out with a new virus or bacteria.

 

Says who?
It is a by-product of our capitalistic obsession

We sell you foods that are killing you
We don't clean our water .. . just so we can sell you 'clean' water

Capitalism will kill off enough people. .. .

Rocket River
We have reached a point where Capitalism is counterproductive

 

our economy - the global economy - depends on an increasing population. Look what happens with Japan.

Ultimately this system will collapse. Whether because we hit a limit, or because we impose one.

 

What about what is happening in Japan or Germany?

 

I blame this whole problem Jon & Kate + 8, Octomom, Sean Kemp, and Antonio Cromartie.

 

Japan's economy struggled because of population decline.

 

All economies struggle; look at China, the are aging faster than Japan or Germany or the US. I would imagine the quality of life in Japan is very high; yet there are many countries with higher population growth rates and very low relative quality of life.

 

Its the whole thing of, no matter how advanced we are as a society, its who are WE to tell THEM what to do?

How did WE "see the light" and "advance" past them and become the ones who's standards supercedes everything else?

So you just have to be forcefully imperialistic with the developing nations to get the message across. Not an approach to feel to comfortable in.

Of course, as kinda mentioned, uppity caucasians dont like the "darkened" ethniticies "taking over" in size, so its that possible agenda to be accused about thats another issue in trying to get others to lessen their populations.

(Though yeah, would have to agree on why would a woman would allow so many kids into just impoverished conditions. It just shows how much at base animal bestial instinctual level humans both woman and man can operate from. Just existing to pass progeny along)

 

I never said we should tell people what to do. But we need to at least bring more education to as many corners of the globe as possible, including right here in the USA, about how overpopulated we are and just how many resources it takes for all of us to be properly taken care of.

But also keep in mind (something I mentioned but downplayed) that many women in these countries are so poor that they will use sex as a way to get food and shelter, especially if they have kids. It's not easy to be morally sound when a meal may not come every day, as you and your children can't eat that. Like I said, in Haiti they're literally eating dirt to stave off hunger pangs, people and especially women are getting desperate and I think it leads to a higher birth rate.

Plus, some are just naturally human and can't control their hormones and thus will have lots of sex. Unlike US people though, contraception is minimal which is a major reason why Third World women have so many children.