The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Our legacy: how we will be viewed in 2050 > Comments

Our legacy: how we will be viewed in 2050 : Comments

By David Swanton, published 5/1/2011

Will our views and ethics appear just as quaint to our descendants as our forebears' do to us?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
funny there's mention of human rights but the issue of abortion is never mentioned, as if didn't matter.

abortion is today's equivalent of slavery and until most people wake up to the simple fact that mass murder is being committed every day for the sake of 'choice' (convenience) and 'sustainable' population, we will be a most hypocritical society and have all sorts of other evils follow, like a replacement of the current generation to maintain a tax base for the upkeep of the pension.
Posted by SHRODE, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 8:19:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much wisdom expressed

What will our grandchildren know

Of us from their world?
Posted by Shintaro, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 9:09:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A curious article from an ethicist. I don't have the problems that Shrode has with abortion - unless government agencies do mass sterilisation programs that they did in India and Africa in the 50s and 60s.

First of all the too many people proposition is laughable. Look at the growth curves beyond 2050 - they go down. Japan's pop is nose diving. Australia's pop is growing only though migration.

The anti-pops believe humans have the agency of rabbits. We're just big eared carrot eaters. No sense of future, no sense of past, no intelligence, no technology. Just rabbits. We're doomed, doomed, doomed.

Get out of here. Let me help the anti-pops because they really need a hand what with Dick Smith and falling off the media agenda.

Focus on one nation - not the whole world. Don't extrapolate that what is happening in one country is happening across the world. Look on the consumption side of the equation in the first world. Here you are on stronger ground. Look at fish stocks.

Oh yeah, I note the writer has already written on euthenasia. Is death or non procreation the only solutions the anti-pops have?
Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 9:21:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great stuff.

The trouble is is that we are an unconscious "Civilization" which at its root is about the drive to gain power and control over every one and every thing - a vast pattern patterning driven by the momentum of over three millenia of patriarchal HIS-story.

The inevitable end result of the power drive of HIS-story was dramatically pictured in the recent Avatar film.

The techno-barbarian invaders, having already "created" a dying planet (just like us) were compelled by the inexorable logic of their one-dimensional power seeking "culture" to invade and conquer more "virgin" territories (just like we always have).

The culture of life understood as an indivisible unity and lived as such by the Navi versus the "culture" of death as dramatized by the techno-barbarian invaders. A "culture" in which every one and everything is just more stuff to be ground into mince-meat and rubble.

The three Matrix films were about this theme too. The dreadfully sane "normals" having taken the blue pill were completely unaware of how their machine driven "culture" was on the verge of completely wiping out all forms of living-breathing-feeling humanity.

The REAL state of our "culture" was also prophesized in both Brave New World and 1984. Our "culture" is now a combination of both of these dark visions.

The obese dreadfully sane every-person is the new normal. The ultimate product of Western "civilization". Completely self-oblivious and stuffed full of junk "food", a cornucopia of drugs, both legal & illegal. And his/her mind and psyche stuffed full junk "culture" via TV.

In the background of all of that there is the ceaseless propaganda of the permanent warfare state, complete with the new individual and collective hate objects.
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 9:52:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes I agree, we should try to reduce the load on the planet.

However my method would be a little different.

First we should get rid of all those useless fairies down the foot of the garden.

Obviously we should get rid of all the useless fairies in academia.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 10:47:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shrode: “funny there's mention of human rights but the issue of abortion is never mentioned, as if didn't matter.”
David Swanton: “Some religions deny gays the same rights as heterosexuals, deny women equality and the right to their own bodies by opposing abortion …”
That’s not a detailed discussion but it is the mention that you said it never got.
Your assertion that abortion is today's equivalent of slavery is way over the top. Slavery operated on big strong human beings with completely developed nervous systems, brains and (often) responsibilities to other similar human beings in family and community. Constraining their freedom had huge knock-on effects to other people. Abortion operates on a relatively miniscule bunch of cells with no cognitive function, hardly recognisable human attributes and no responsibilities whatever to other humans.
Posted by GlenC, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 11:42:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A foot note to my previous post.
Art is always coincident with culture.

Films in one form or another are easily the most popular and influential form of art in our day and age. As such they inevitably reflect the zeitgeist and anxieties of the time in which they appear.

More importantly they are also very potent forms of propaganda. Hollywood was a key player in producing patriotic propaganda during World War II
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 12:08:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A good measure of the relative effects of population and consumption is to look at environmental footprints such as these from the Global Footprint Network

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/ecological_footprint_atlas_2008/

Environmental footprints allow rough comparisons of consumption between different countries by converting consumption to notional hectares of land. The methodology is explained here

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/methodology/

If the main problem is that a relatively few people are hogging all the resources, then you would expect the global per capita footprint to be quite high. If it is too many people to give everyone a decent quality of life, then the average environmental footprint would be low. If the resources were divided equally, then everyone would be poor. In fact, the global average per capita footprint is 2.7 hectares. This represents the average standard of living of Botswana or Romania. However, we are currently in overshoot, so that we are effectively living on our capital. If we stopped doing this, the global footprint would decrease to 1.8 hectares, the standard of living of Ghana or Guatemala. Cheryl may consider these sorts of living standards adequate, but I suspect most of us would not, and neither would the people currently living with them.

A very few, mostly badly overpopulated countries have declining populations, but the global population is continuing to grow at 1.2% (doubling time of 58 years). This is less than in the past, but since the growth is from a larger base, we are still adding about 80 million people a year. Demographic momentum from pyramid-shaped age distributions means that it can take up to 70 years for growth to stop. I have seen calculations that India's population would double before it stabilised, even if the fertility rate dropped to replacement level tomorrow and stayed there.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 4:18:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Look at the growth curves beyond 2050 - they go down*

Err Cheryl, the growth curves don't magically go down by themselves.
They go down because some of us are aware that some of us do
breed like rabbits. Some are even forced to breed like rabbits,
by those wonderful religious.

But then you are fortunate enough, not be have been one of those
women, forced to pop out and try to feed 8 kids. Lucky you.

Some of us will continue to lobby for all women having it as easy
as you do, the choices that you have. The planet and our future,
would certainly be improved.

That is why the graph heads down, but it will only go down if
we keep lobbying, pushing and shoving. It would not go down
if the Vatican and others had their way. Luckily through all
the lobbying against them, they are losing power bit by bit.

Eventually one day, third world women might have the choices that
you take for granted.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 4:23:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Err, Yabby. Do you really believe that the population of western democracies is going down because we don't want to overpopulate the planet? It's going down because of our affluence. We don't need children for superannuation, we don't have to pump out 10 kids to have 3 survive. We don't need sons to work our subsistence farms. Our women have choices NOT to have children. Your point about religion being a major cause of overpopulation is also ridiculous.
If you really want third world populations to drop and for women there to have the same choices as you then you should really be out promoting democracy and free markets. You should be lobbying the UN to invade these places and replace their evil and corrupt governments. But we wouldn't do that, would we? Much better to "think good" than to actually address the problems.
Posted by bozzie, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 6:12:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The legacy of 50 years the faith of secular humanism has led one of the most selfish, violent immoral generations the world has seen. The murder of the unborn, the greed, the immorality are all fruits of the idiotic notion that we arrived here by chance. The quickness of current ethicist to judge previous generations is unbelievable considering the mess their philosophies have got us in now. I noticed the author is a disciple of the global warming faith which to many is a very poor self righteous attempt to somehow display some moral superiority. Appealing to the inept and corrupt UN shows how willing these ethicist are to overlook the rot in man's heart. The sad part is that it sounds like David believes his own faith. The only good legacy that will last will be by those who have had their corrupt natures dealt with by Christ.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 6:31:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Our women have choices NOT to have children. Your point about religion being a major cause of overpopulation is also ridiculous.*

Exactly Bozzie, our women have choices. From the pill, the norplant,
the snip, the loop, the abortion and a heap of other choices.

Third world women commonly don't have those choices. They don't
have the money, organisations like the Vatican make sure then in
countries where they have influence in politics and in the hospitals,
that it remains that way.

People in third world countries have sex just like you. If you
had no family planning methods at your disposal, what would you do?

Hundreds of millions of women in the third world have an unmet
need for family planning. But run off and do some homework.
Come back to me and apologise, when you notice that I am correct.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 6:51:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yabby,

You make a few unsubstantiated and personal assumptions about my domestic position, but as you're young and naive, I'll let them pass.

Demographers knew the pop would go down back in the 70s by the year 2050. The death of the whole boomer generation (about 1 billion) will have passed, plus improvements in education, falling developed world family numbers (still not enough in Africa) and access to contraception is helping. Strangely, China's one child policy didn't help at all. In fact there were some very odd results re raw numbers and social problems now.

I know the anti-pop message is appealing because it hawks death, environmental disaster and its all because of us, you, me - the people. How silly and misanthropic.

I want you to go to bed tonight and when you're all snug and tight, think about first world consumption and the type of things we consume. Most of the 'stuff' we have we only need one of: house, car, meal, blankets, power, etc. Sure we can drink heaps and go silly but generally our needs are met relatively simply. This is net individual consumption.

Now think about corporate Australia, the big steel mills, car production, fisheries, etc. We trade much of what we make and its this that makes us rich. But keep in mind your house and our roads are also funded from corporate Australia. They are massive consumers of power and materials. This consumption is of a far different order than individual consumption. It's first world consumption that is the problem - not the net number of people on the planet.

How will we be viewed in 2050? They'll be astounded that we started talking about population control when the real problem is rapacious corporate greed
Posted by Cheryl, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 7:06:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*You make a few unsubstantiated and personal assumptions about my domestic position*

Not at all Cheryl, for to me, you are nothing but a name on a
screen. But you also reprepresent Ms/Mrs average Australia, and the
choices that she has, compared to her third world sister.

*They are massive consumers of power and materials. This consumption is of a far different order than individual consumption. It's first world consumption that is the problem - not the net number of people on the planet.*

Of course the net number of people matters. If 10 billion eat fish,
rather then 3 billion, we'll wipe out the fish.

Go to India, Rwanda etc. Diseases used to keep the population in
check. So we sent them vaccines, their kids stopped dying. But
we forgot the family planning. So farmed plots are getting ever
smaller, generation for generation, as the land is split between
more kids. Many "farms" are less then an acre, no wonder they
have a problem. Cut it in half once again, you'll have little but
a house plot.

So population matters hugely in the third world.

Corporations are nothing but a paper entity, to achieve an objective.
Yes they consume resources, for people like you, who want computers,
who want pots and pans, who want tvs. So your simple needs is what
drives them. The more billions of people you add, the larger your
problem.

Cheryl, you are ignoring the very basics of nature, which is that
biodiversity is what creates sustainability. Overcrowd any species,
eventually the thing collapses. Things like the species barrier
matter. Ignore them at your peril.

Defecate in a field, its called fertiliser. When 10'000 people
do it in the same field, it becomes a pollution problem, with
disease implications.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 5 January 2011 8:26:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course Yabby's attitude re 'nothing but a name on a screen' typifies the misanthropic objectification and instrumentalism of the (un)sustainable people of Australia loony tunes faction.

He thinks he is on solid ground mentioning 'diversity' as we all nod sagely (must have diversity of species) but then he shafts the blame on this real problem to all people and not people's behaviour. The logical extension of this is that if you don't like a member of a particular family, kill them all.

Remember Dick Smith's paid anti-people rant on the ABC recently about how we should slash migrant numbers before we're all 'over run'? Then he makes a TV commercial where his staff are more diverse than members of the UNHRC. I don't mind a bit of hypocrisy, but fair suck of the the save.

Lets cut to the chase - what we have here with Yabby and a few of his mates is a diatribe that seeks to destroy a womans reproductive rights in the name of environmental facism. It's sad anonymous lonely heart club of blokes who instead of collecting stamps or model railway trains, have decided to use the Internet to vent their neurosis.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 6 January 2011 10:34:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Populate or perish is still the order of the day, One million new cars were born in 2010 in AU. No increase in pop; no increase in economy.
Ye can no have it by not cloning.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 6 January 2011 11:58:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Lets cut to the chase - what we have here with Yabby and a few of his mates is a diatribe that seeks to destroy a womans reproductive rights in the name of environmental facism*

Er not so Cheryl, you remain confused. What we have here is Yabby
thinking that all women should have the right to choose the size of
their families, just like women in the first world. For then we
know, that on average they choose to have far smaller families.

Some people might choose to breed like rabbits, others are quite
happy to just have sex like rabbits, without all the children.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1812250,00.html

This is the sort of thing that your Catholic Church gets up to,
they should be ashamed of themselves.

Force people to have children that they don't actually want and
you land up with what we have now, poverty starvation and
population growth for people who can't afford it. Its hardly good
for the planet either.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 6 January 2011 2:52:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I see the error of my ways. It's all the Catholic Churches fault! The CC are an easy target. They're like the banks but they pray more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4768644.stm

This link is fairly old. Pop in Europe is falling even more rapidly now. Pop in Russia is in free fall. They want emigrants to come home.

And Catholic Italy is in the pooh with an ageing population and falling birth rates. Maybe the anti-pops should be following their social policies.

It's one reason why I said in my first post here that the anti-pops really needs to be careful about making sweeping generalisations. Population is one vector of analysis and not even the most compelling in the 21st Century. It's first world consumption and finding new energy forms.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 6 January 2011 3:38:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cheryl,

The environmental footprints include industrial consumption of resources, not just consumption at the household level. The fact remains that if global resources were divided equally, we would all be poor, even with the present population. You haven't shown otherwise.

You also haven't shown that everything is hunky-dory with the environment. This paper from Nature, probably the world's leading peer-reviewed science journal, is concerned that we will cross nine different environmental thresholds so that we are no longer in "a safe operating space for humanity". Climate change is only one of them, so even if the sceptics are right, we still have a lot of other problems. According to the paper, we have already crossed the thresholds for biodiversity, climate change, and interference with the nitrogen cycle, and are rapidly approaching four more.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html

Or is it all a vast conspiracy? You lie about aquifers being pumped dry under major food bowl regions, and I will lie about collapsing fish stocks and dead zones in the oceans?

It is quite likely that population will decline after 2050 - as a result of collapse in a number of countries. According to a news report this morning, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation is very worried about global food supplies this year and the effect of high oil prices on them. They are reminding us of the food riots we had in 2008 in 34 different countries.

Our main concerns here in Australia have to be to stop degrading the environment, to discourage senseless waste, and to maintain generous safety margins against possible really nasty effects of peak oil, climate change, peak phosphate, etc., as well as long, severe natural droughts. Foreigners are not the childlike little brown brothers of your rescue fantasies. They are (mostly) grown up people who live, and want to live, in independent countries. We can't tell them how to think or what to do. Nor can we, or are we obliged to, shield them from the consequences of their bad decisions. Except for a token few, they will have to fix their own problems.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 6 January 2011 3:50:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for that Divergence.

First of all I reject that climate change is a function of population. If climate change is categorically proven, I suggest it may be a function of first world consumption. Population is a meaningless ill defined term and its used like a battering ram by the Unsustainable People lobby to try scare the bejesus out of people.

As I have said in other posts, it is not individual net consumption. It is industrial consumption of goods which is a problem as the externalities cause environmental degradation. This is capitalism in action.

This is a long, long way from discussions of population control in the developed or developing world or the postulates of the Catholic Church. Yet time and time a collective of posters on this forum keep hammering away at what is essentially a misguided notion that it's people who are the cause of all the world's problems.

People are the solution.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 6 January 2011 6:24:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are some environmental problems that are not related to population. It only took one idiot to introduce the rabbit into Australia. However, most, including greenhouse gas emissions, are covered well by

I = PAT

where, I is the impact on the environment, A (affluence) is the average consumption, and T is a factor for the "dirtiness" of the technology used to sustain that level of affluence. If you double any one of them, you double the impact. China, not the US, is now the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and would still be one of the largest even with a fair system that assigned emissions to the country of the final consumer. The average Chinese is hardly wallowing in luxury, but there are a great many Chinese, so all the small numbers add up to something very large.

There are abundant examples of societal collapses in history and in the archaeological record, with overpopulation and mismanagement of the environment, often provoked by overpopulation, playing starring roles. See for example, Jared Diamond's "Collapse", "Constant Battles" by Prof. Steven LeBlanc (Archaeology, Harvard), and "Dirt: the Erosion of Civilizations" by soil scientist Prof. David Montgomery. You probably watched one such collapse, the one in Rwanda, on your television screen in 1994. See this account by James Gasana, Rwanda's former Agriculture Minister, including a table showing the correlation between massacres and calories per person

http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/EP155B.pdf
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 6 January 2011 7:25:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*It's all the Catholic Churches fault! The CC are an easy target.*

Cheryl, your constant attempts at strawman arguments or ridicule,
win you no brownie points I'm afraid.

Nobody has claimed that its all the Catholic Churches fault. The
claim is that no organisation on this planet has done more to
prevent third world women from benefitting from modern contraception,
then the Vatican. If they'd elected a little more enlightened
popes in the past, the world would not be facing a population
increase of 250'000 a day, as it does now.

*People are the solution.*

Err, not people forced to live in poverty, people missing out on
education, people unable to provide for their huge families, because
of church dogma. The Time article presented the situation in
the Philippines, rather well. But what does Cheryl care. She's
right, living the cushy lifestyle in Australia.

Luckily many nations are starting to wake up to the fact, that
ever more people, can actually be the problem.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 6 January 2011 10:31:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence's Nature article is quite good. I think he has posted that before.

Yabby, lets talk about the anti-pops attitude to developing world poverty. The anti-populationists want to pull back aid to Africa and Asia to ensure population falls - dies. It's hardline for sure.

They say the only way we (us in the West) will survive is if we erect trade walls and reduce foreign aid.

There's another odd Marxist cliche of anti-pops who say that world capitalism is keeping the poor people of Africa poor - that grinding poverty is due not only to external forces and that the only way to solve the problem is NOT to attack capitalism, but to reduce the population of Africa.

Lets call a spade a spade. The anti-population movement has the intellectual consistency of a dog's breakfast. It's so full of internal contradictions, of dangerous far left and right fascist and social engineering tendancies, as to be a danger to progressive groups such as the Greens.
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 7 January 2011 10:00:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well there you go again Cheryl. You throw anyone with a basic
understanding of biology, into your neat little anti pop bucket.

Then you make all sorts of weird and wonderful claims about them,
creating your own little strawman arguments as you go.

Its rubbish, Cheryl. It might make you feel better about yourself,
but that is about all.

When Bob Geldorf went back to Africa a second time, to rescue the
starving millions, it eventually hit him that now there were twice
as many to feed. Fact is that feeding the starving millions without
family planning, creates even more starving millions. This is not
rocket science, but seemingly well beyond you.

Yet the evidence shows that these mega millions would like access
to family planning, many simply can't afford it, or its not available
to them.

I saw an interesting documentary on CNN a while ago, about Nigeria.
The female reporter was quite shocked, when she went into the
backblocks of the country. Women were coming up to her, offering to
give her their babies, as they simply could not cope with them all.

Now mothers who try to give away babies, are clearly desperate people.

But you ignore all that, raving on with your strawman arguments about
the anti pops. Anyone who understands the ramifications must be
in a "movement".

I belong to no movement Cheryl, but clearly I understand biology
far better then you do.

Stop raving Cheryl. Its making you look foolish.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 7 January 2011 2:20:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee Yabby, you've taken this a bit personally. Remember, I'm only a name on a screen.

All I'm trying to say, apart from refuting your tin man comments, is that the picture is not as simple as you suggest.

There are some things which the anti-pops are right about. 9B people will be living on the planet by 2050. Can't do much about that. Will there be challenges? Undoubtly.

I'm simply pointing out that population needs to be studied case by case as its in free fall in large parts of Europe.

Divergence made a pretty good point that gross human consumption needs to be factored in to environmental footprint equations - although I'm also mindful of treating people like units and the sheer amount of error when trying to aggregate these equations.

Quite right about the international price of food. Cost have skyrocketed due to failing grain crops. Is it due to climate change? Or simply poor weather? Damned if I know.

The fallacy of generalisation is at the root of much anti-pop thinking.
Posted by Cheryl, Friday, 7 January 2011 3:26:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Remember, I'm only a name on a screen.*

Yup Cheryl, that is all that you are. But when that name on the
screen keeps writing bunkum, its not a bad idea to point out that
its bunkum and why its bunkum.

* 9B people will be living on the planet by 2050*

Yup. Which means that much more pressure on the environment, resources, and alot more fighting over land etc. Next you will
be telling me that those who have 8 kids, can't feed them all.

*I'm simply pointing out that population needs to be studied case by case as its in free fall in large parts of Europe.*

There is no shortage of people happy to move to Europe, if required.
Perhaps now, some people will be able to actually buy a house in
Europe. In the past, they squashed them into tiny apartments.
At 450 million, the place is hardly underpopulated.

*Quite right about the international price of food. Cost have skyrocketed due to failing grain crops*

The price of food is linked to the price of oil. As oil becomes
more expensive to find, food will follow. Those with 8 kids will
squeal even louder. Perhaps the Catholic Church can sell its mega
billions of land, banks and other assets and feed them all.
They are after all encouraging and cajouling, enforcing people
to keep breeding like there is no tomorrow. Let them solve it.
And Cheryl of course, she seems to be all for it, more people is
the answer she says.

*The fallacy of generalisation is at the root of much anti-pop thinking.*

Hehe Cheryl, that is coming from you, who throws everyone into the
same anti pop bucket, as you generalise away
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 7 January 2011 8:17:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Excellent article; my compliments to Mr Swanton.
The statistics on population growth have been in for decades, and the conclusions are obvious. When women are given even roughly equivalent rights as men, regarding education, careers and a chance to lead meaningful, productive lives without becoming mere 'baby factories', a large number of women choose not to have children at all; and when a society becomes sufficiently affluent that infant mortality drops below about 4%, couples start having fewer children.
As an Arab oil sheik pointed out back in the 80's (I think): "we were very poor. It was common in many families to have 6 or 7 children, in the hope that one might live."
Among other mitigating population factors is the relentless migration from farms to the cities; farmers in all countries -including ours- have traditionally had large families for 'free' labour.
Limiting population growth therefore does not require any draconian measures; the exact opposite in fact.
The forecast that population growth will stabilise, and even fall back a tad is largely based on the expectation of increasing standards of living in the third world.
Unfortunately, they're going to have to be a bit cleverer than western countries were; they won't have the luxury of cheap fossil fuels.
Let's hope they can learn from our mistakes.
Posted by Grim, Tuesday, 11 January 2011 7:48:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy