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

[Julius Skrrvin]

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 ...

you're mocking MY worldview without justifying your own. Where is the evidence of massive corporate landgrabs. Post sources. The fact is is that people need land to live on, and land to grow food that can be sourced to them before it spoils. Businesses and farms require that this land be close by, because the cost of transport can ruin profits (hence why we choose not to sell excess food to other impoverished countries). You've said absolutely nothing to disprove the simple fact that people need space to live on, and this country proves that they prefer to have a lot of it for their personal use. Please, tell me how corporations are solely to blame for this and not human beings as a whole. Hell, any expansive organism.


I dont get your stance. Are you saying we should be socialists? Are you blaming capitalism?

 

[acri1]

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.

There's no easy fix I can think of. If everybody in the world had kids at about the same rate that people in the U.S. did, the population would be stable. The problem is that, in addition to lack of availability of contraception (and in some cases, cultural biases against it) people in poor countries have an incentive to have a lot of kids.

Poor countries don't have a lot of the social safety nets that richer ones to, and the higher child mortality rates mean that fewer kids make it to adulthood. That means that people have a huge incentive to have a lot of kids - they need someone to work and take care of them when they get old, and without a social safety net only having 1 or 2 risky.

Things I think might help:

1. Economic development. There's a reason people in rich countries have kids at a MUCH lower rate. Not only are kids more expensive, but since we have things like social security, people aren't as reliant on their children taking care of them when older. Not to mention people need their kids to work and bring in money as soon as possible. If the economy gets better in a lot of these countries, people will automatically start having fewer kids.

2. Encouraging women's rights. Countries where women work and have more rights (and are more sexually liberated) tend to have lower birth rates. This is because women have more control over when they have kids, and also because they work and tend to choose to have fewer. Patriarchal companies are the opposite. Plus, if women can work then you're less likely to have China-type situations where many people people only value male babies.

3. Education - self explanatory.

4. Social safety net - ties in to what I said earlier about people in poor countries having to rely on their kids to look after them when they're old.

 

[The Real]

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

None of these guarantee that overpopulation won't happen. People won't mysteriously start dying more when the population tries to grow. By your logic, all populations should remain at a constant number, because nature would keep them from overflowing. That view has no basis in reality, where no population has an absolute limit, only contingent ones, and overpopulation is a real problem facing many animal species: Overpopulation in wild animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why didn't nature magically stop them from experiencing overpopulation?

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.

Of course the War on Drugs is flawed. It's flawed because it's trying to regulate things that aren't problems and using flawed methods to regulate things that are problems. But it has nothing to do with a hypothetical scenario in which overpopulation would be a real problem and require real solutions, whatever those solutions may be. And I know the history of the War on Drugs, but it did not reach its height until Reagan.

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".

So what are you saying? That overpopulation is true? The general consensus among scientists does not agree.

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.

Sub-stain?

Check my response to TUH, which addresses this point.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

I always liked the idea behind geodesic domes even if they aren't ideal. shyt reminds me of teletubbies.

 

[thekingsmen]

you're mocking MY worldview without justifying your own. Where is the evidence of massive corporate landgrabs. Post sources. The fact is is that people need land to live on, and land to grow food that can be sourced to them before it spoils. Businesses and farms require that this land be close by, because the cost of transport can ruin profits (hence why we choose not to sell excess food to other impoverished countries). You've said absolutely nothing to disprove the simple fact that people need space to live on, and this country proves that they prefer to have a lot of it for their personal use. Please, tell me how corporations are solely to blame for this and not human beings as a whole. Hell, any expansive organism.

Your view on the world is stuck in the box by what is told to you by so called experts of the world instead of living it. Your view on based on profits and not economics.

farmlandgrab.org | Home

World Bank helps corporations with land grabs in Africa: Environmental groups | The Raw Story

GRAIN — Squeezing Africa dry: behind every land grab is a water grab

Land Destroyer: REPOST: British Corporation Mass Murdering Ugandans in UN Sanctioned Land Grab

The Finance of Land Grabs: Peasants, Herders, Fishers Dispossessed by Corporate Investors | Global Research


Mozambique Farmland Is Prize In Land Grab Fever : NPR

Stop the Global Land Grab by Multinational Corporations and the Financial Elite

Do you need more?




I dont get your stance. Are you saying we should be socialists? Are you blaming capitalism?

I'm not a socialist or capitalist.

 

[Julius Skrrvin]

Yes, that is enough. I was aware of these practices in South America (Brazil etc) but not in Africa, which i originall thought was being cased by the big boys for rare earth metals primarily. Although for people like the saudis I can see how it would be a superior alternative than their own environment for growing.

At any rate, it doesn't change what I was saying. More people means more space occupied. Thats just the way it is. Not everyone in the world is keen on city life and sacrificing personal space. I agree with The Real's stance- that while we can certainly support a lot more, increased expansion will ultimately result in greater land consumption simply because many people choose to live in less dense areas, and procure as much land for themselves as possible. Corporations may grab land for farming etc, but people will not always be amenable to living in close quarters. The US is a perfect example of that.

 

[thekingsmen]

None of these guarantee that overpopulation won't happen. People won't mysteriously start dying more when the population tries to grow. By your logic, all populations should remain at a constant number, because nature would keep them from overflowing. That view has no basis in reality, where no population has an absolute limit, only contingent ones, and overpopulation is a real problem facing many animal species: Overpopulation in wild animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something about you trying to convince people with your animal fetish. First it was the GAY Animal Kingdom and now this...



Let's get to the real thing here...Nature does this with humans which was explained earlier...you are continuing to beat around the bush by using animals that have really nothing to do with the Overpopulation Policy Push. Humans are considered Capital- Human Capital. The Elite have written about this for years but they want to create a world where the Capital can be controlled at the level they want




Why didn't nature magically stop them from experiencing overpopulation? Who is bigger on the food change?


Of course the War on Drugs is flawed. It's flawed because it's trying to regulate things that aren't problems and using flawed methods to regulate things that are problems. But it has nothing to do with a hypothetical scenario in which overpopulation would be a real problem and require real solutions, whatever those solutions may be. And I know the history of the War on Drugs, but it did not reach its height until Reagan.

Hypothesis are educated guesses...that's all. I can guess all damn day about stuff but b/c those who create policies such as Gun Control, War on Drugs, War on Poverty follow the same Policy Guide lines in Population control. It's control my friend...you seem to miss this.



So what are you saying? That overpopulatio is true? The general consensus among scientists does not agree.

You guys and your consensus b.s. Who creates policy scientists who are apart of a consensus or scientists part of a meal-ticket of the Elite?



Sub-stain?

Im half a sleep with half a bottle of Nite-Quil down my stomach.


Check my response to TUH, which addresses this point.

 

[thekingsmen]

Yes, that is enough. I was aware of these practices in South America (Brazil etc) but not in Africa, which i originall thought was being cased by the big boys for rare earth metals primarily. Although for people like the saudis I can see how it would be a superior alternative than their own environment for growing.

It's everywhere but Africa for the reasons it has more resources than any continent on planet earth.



At any rate, it doesn't change what I was saying. More people means more space occupied. Thats just the way it is. Not everyone in the world is keen on city life and sacrificing personal space. I agree with The Real's stance- that while we can certainly support a lot more, increased expansion will ultimately result in greater land consumption simply because many people choose to live in less dense areas, and procure as much land for themselves as possible. Corporations may grab land for farming etc, but people will not always be amenable to living in close quarters. The US is a perfect example of that.

Those articles should change your statement. This isn't about Over-Population which doesn't exist, it's about taken more and more leaving others to defend what's left, at the same time creating policies to rid the earth of those fighting back.

 

[kermit da hustla]

This planet is capable of sustaining double or triple the population now.

and i'm sure, with a little bit of rationing, i can feed 10 hungry mouths while living in a studio apartment and making 8.00/hour. mayo sandwiches and koolaid for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

 

[CouldntBeMeTho]

Ive seen these quotes before. people have been saying the earth is overpopulated for a long time now. ever heard of Malthus? I personally believe population control is a dangerous idea, and a very slippery slope. he's talking about sterilizing people without them even knowing. ever heard of eugenics? (google it if you havnt) hitler practiced a form of "population control" by mass murder. he determined who was fit to reproduce and who wasnt. thats the slippery slope im worried about, who gets to determine who gets to live and die basically, it can even come down to mass murder.

3/4 of the surface of the earth isnt even being used, floating cities are the future brehs, i truthfully have faith that we can put our minds to it and apply science to find a way to make it work without mass sterilizations, even if not, id rather take my chances not being sterilized

Overpopulation is a myth |

^check it out

 

[Rice N Beans]

This seems extreme, but population control should be honestly one of the biggest areas of concern for human beings moving forward.

I agree but only to some degree; you can fit all of the Earth's human population into the state of Texas at the density of those living in NYC.

 

[88m3]

How many Muslims in the world are there?

 

[Vagina Thief]

Didn't Nazi Germany try to do the same thing? ​

 

[acri1]

Didn't Nazi Germany try to do the same thing? ​

I also heard Hitler was a vegetarian.

Indisputable proof that vegetarianism is evil.

 

[daze23]

I agree but only to some degree; you can fit all of the Earth's human population into the state of Texas at the density of those living in NYC.

perhaps, but a large portion of the state is uninhabitable. many of the resources also require open space. maybe we could overcome these things with technology, but is it our place to reshape the planet until it looks like cybertron?

I don't know the answers, but these are real issues. overpopulation is already an issue in many ways

I'll leave you with a picture of the Academy of Science in San Francisco, and it's "living roof"