Obama's Science Czar believes in Mass Sterlizations and Forced Abortions

[The Real]

We don't need population control...natures does that on it's own. It's neither legitimate or a topic of discussion on the minds when it comes to saving lives. It goes the same hand and hand with gun control laws, War on Poverty, War on Drugs and War on Terror. They don't work cause they don't fix the core problem.

Nature does not do that on its own. Nature is not some magical equilibrium machine. We use population control with animal populations all the time, because otherwise, entire ecosystems would be thrown out of balance and destroyed.

And population control in the hypothetical scenario would be nothing like the War on Drugs or other Reaganite measures in our present time.

So he is writing about Bizarro World....a made up planet called Earth?

No, but he is writing about one possible scenario that could occur in the future. None of our possible futures are our present, and do not resemble them. We currently don't have problems with overpopulation, only with population density and infrastructure.

What is a collapse? Financial? Explain cause the argument you are selling follows right into the 2000 Global Report about Depopulation.

It could be a number of different kinds of collapses, but let's assume that there is an extremely disproportionate ratio of resources to people- a Malthusian scenario.

 

[Type Username Here]

Yes, but at the cost of a great deal of the earth's wealth of species and would necessitate massive improvements in efficiency. Expanding to space is one thing. We need to streamline and cut the fat off our cost of living imho. I don't believe humanity should relentlessly expand and consume because we simply can.

Forcing others to give up their ability to procreate violates rudimentary biological 'rights' and is extremely dangerous in implementation.

This issue is not an issue involving resources, but control of resources and land. If all things were equal in some sort of utopia, the same resources we have now would sustain a lot more people than you think it could. The problem is greed and lack of reason, not the amount of people.

In my opinion.

 

[thekingsmen]

We ALL need to do this. The more people we have, the more we consume, the more land we convert to farming, the more diversity we lose in our earth, as well as disruption of the natural balance. And what on earth are you talking about? I don't exclusively praise Obama. Don't fill in blanks on your own.

Ummm you continue to believe that garbage saying about
"More People, More consuming" when over 1 Billion people eat one meal a day. Plus the Consuming consists or more than 5 things... Sadly the so called experts wont tell you who is consuming what. Do you know how much good food is thrown away a year in this country? 25 Million Tons of Food a Year....( 44 Billion dollars) that's 1400 Calories a Day for people all over the world.





We as a species are augmenting our carrying capacity by devouring the earth for our own needs and you see something wrong with curtailing our expansion? Surprising. I always saw you as a naturalist kind of guy

You sound like you have been reading the Elite's handbooks. Come back with stats about all the positive things about depopulation and then we can talk. Ask Mao, Stalin about Depopulation.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Kingsmen i am fully aware of the inefficiencies in this society, hence what i said to TUH. I'm talking about consumption of LAND. Seizing areas of the world for human expansion and farming where everything else but humans live. I'm saying that its unethical for us to keep converting more of that land as we expand in size, and we will.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Forcing others to give up their ability to procreate violates rudimentary biological 'rights' and is extremely dangerous in implementation.

This issue is not an issue involving resources, but control of resources and land. If all things were equal in some sort of utopia, the same resources we have now would sustain a lot more people than you think it could. The problem is greed and lack of reason, not the amount of people.

In my opinion.

What about the right of all the fauna and flora to exist and proliferate? It is highly unethical for us to keep expanding. Human presence for farming, colonization, whatever- causes a drop in species diversity and populations. You should of course have a right to procreate, but what how much you procreate?

You cannot curtail greed and lack of reason. They are intrinsic to the human experience.

 

[The Real]

Forcing others to give up their ability to procreate violates rudimentary biological 'rights' and is extremely dangerous in implementation.

This issue is not an issue involving resources, but control of resources and land. If all things were equal in some sort of utopia, the same resources we have now would sustain a lot more people than you think it could. The problem is greed and lack of reason, not the amount of people.

In my opinion.

This is a great point. On the other hand, though, we have the problem of standard of living. If everyone on the planet were to live like the wealthy people of the US or Saudi Arabia, or even upper-middle-class people, we would definitely need more land, etc, particularly with the growth rate as it is in some places. It's a difficult problem. I definitely don't have any clean answers. I agree that efficiency and innovation should be pursued as the first priority and to its limit, though.

One thing to note, though, is that there are large swaths of the Global South where birth rates would be much lower with access to education and contraception. Many people don't actually want all those kids. It's also interesting to note that the birth rate in some of the countries with the highest quality of life index ratings is pretty low, even worryingly low.

 

[Type Username Here]

Kingsmen i am fully aware of the inefficiencies in this society, hence what i said to TUH. I'm talking about consumption of LAND. Seizing areas of the world for human expansion and farming where everything else but humans live. I'm saying that its unethical for us to keep converting more of that land as we expand in size, and we will.

What makes you think in this primitive way about land?

We already have skyscrapper cities designs that are ready to be built upon, with their own gardening floors, solar energy, etc.. Why have we stopped using our damn minds and engineering abilities? We can literally build farming skyscrapers if needed. Don't be afraid to dream a little friend.

Necessity should breed innovation, not systematic systems of biological suppression.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

What makes you think in this primitive way about land?

We already have skyscrapper cities designs that are ready to be built upon, with their own gardening floors, solar energy, etc.. Why have we stopped using our damn minds and engineering abilities? We can literally build farming skyscrapers if needed. Don't be afraid to dream a little friend.

Necessity should breed innovation, not systematic systems of biological suppression.

Designs, but no drive, no will to be more efficient. Expansion and conversion is considered easier and easier. I COMPLETELY agree that city planning from this day forth should be done with an environmental focus, encouraging growth. But thats not the way it is right now.

When I was a child I once thought people would eventually care about such things, that rooftops across America would be covered in a wreaths of green, but people don't care to spend the money or thought on it. They just want to consume. Myself included.

 

[Type Username Here]

 

[thekingsmen]

Nature does not do that on its own. Nature is not some magical equilibrium machine. We use population control with animal populations all the time, because otherwise, entire ecosystems would be thrown out of balance and destroyed.

You sir aren't too bright but want to make logically sense by using big words and statements without any back of proof. Nature does it on it's own.

People die...

1.Old age.
2.At birth.
3.from snake/spider/insect bites
4. Floods/tsunami's/storms
5. Earthquakes/Tornadoes/Hurricanes
6. Sickness
7. Famines
8. Health conditions




And population control in the hypothetical scenario would be nothing like the War on Drugs or other Reaganite measures in our present time.

Your hypothesis lacks real substance. Over 65,000 People in Mexico lost their lives over failed policies on the "War on Drugs" which is flawed. It continues in the same merit as policies of the same individuals creating policy for Depopulation. Btw...Nixon was the creator of the War on Drugs not Reagan.



No, but he is writing about one possible scenario that could occur in the future. None of our possible futures are our present, and do not resemble them. We currently don't have problems with overpopulation, only with population density and infrastructure.

The 2000 Global Report written in the 70's undermines everything you wrote here as it claims "Over-Population problem facing the generations now and in the future".



It could be a number of different kinds of collapses, but let's assume that there is an extremely disproportionate ratio of resources to people- a Malthusian scenario.

The Earth can sub-stain more life than the ration now if those didn't control patents on resources, land and crops which you truly bypassed( well ignored) proven that you don't read up on how Major Corporations are pushing the lead for Depopulation all the while buying up land, resources, minerals and patenting them from masses living the masses helpless.

 

[acri1]

People that advocate these things are usually trying to protect economic stability. This planet is capable of sustaining double or triple the population now

This is factually inaccurate. The planet (using current technology) can't even sustain everybody at the same standard of living as an average U.S citizen.

At some point we have to stabilize the size of population, otherwise something else (such as famine or disease) will.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

 

[thekingsmen]

Kingsmen i am fully aware of the inefficiencies in this society, hence what i said to TUH. I'm talking about consumption of LAND. Seizing areas of the world for human expansion and farming where everything else but humans live. I'm saying that its unethical for us to keep converting more of that land as we expand in size, and we will.

Who is seizing the land? It's not the masses.

To think someone like this man thoughts are acceptable b/c the fear of population is growing shows ignorance on the behave of the posters claiming "Population is a problem". Population isn't the problem it's people with mindsets like this ...

 

[the cac mamba]

wow, so this dude laid out what we should do in an overpopulation scenario where we have no other options, huh :belip:

 

[thekingsmen]

This is factually inaccurate. The planet (using current technology) can't even sustain everybody at the same standard of living as an average U.S citizen.

At some point we have to stabilize the size of population, otherwise something else (such as famine or disease) will.

The Average U.S. consumes more than he/she needs but Capitalism teaches us to take what we want even though we don't need it. Your second statement is straight from the 2000 Global Report but in that report the include famine and disease as a stabilizer.