The Forum > Article Comments > Here come the anti-populationists, there go the people > Comments
Here come the anti-populationists, there go the people : Comments
By Malcolm King, published 12/5/2010The anti-populationists say that population, technological progress and capitalism will irreducibly lead us to ruin.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
-
- All
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 16 May 2010 2:36:58 PM
| |
*are as sterile as the sterlisation programs they propound.*
Cheryl, you crap on with this line, over and over again. Yet nobody is suggesting forced sterilisation. What it comes down to is this: If you shag the guy down the road, you have choices when it comes to family planning methods and choices when it comes to abortion, should you want that choice. Give third world people the same choices as you have and the overpopulation question will vanish, as we know that roughly half of all foetesus arn't wanted. People the world over, tend to have sex for other reasons then making babies, they are commonly just an unfortunate accident. All very simple really, but clearly well beyond you. Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 16 May 2010 2:39:20 PM
| |
Nice to know we are the world's 7th richest country - but shouldn't we aim to be number one, like we were early in the twentieth century? If I could just remember what our population was at the time....and our carbon emissions.
Here's a game to play: think about what you consider to be the most important things in the Australia you would like to live in. Education, health, public transport, home ownership, number of poker machines, whatever you choose. Then think about when these were best provided in the last hundred years, or when you expect them to be at their best if you realistically see them improving. Then look at the population that goes with them. Then have a glass of wine and a good hard think. Posted by Candide, Sunday, 16 May 2010 5:26:37 PM
| |
It is not necesarily accurate to call Cheryl a Troll. She could be an automatic response.
Google RACTER. I first read about RACTER in Scientific American, back when. At one point in the late '80's, I had a copy that ran on my Apple 2e. I expect that, since then, similar programs have improved on the aims. Cheryl may appreciate the text below, and my meant apologies in the event that she (like Pinocchio) could be a real, live girl. "BILL. I love a child. MARCELA. Children are fortunately captivating. BILL. Yet my love is excellent. MARCELLA. My love is spooky yet we must have a child, a spooky child. BILL. Do you follow me? MARCELLA. Children come from love or desire. We must have love to possess children or a child. BILL. Do we have love? MARCELLA. We possess desire, angry desire. But this furious desire may murder a child. It may be killing babies someday. BILL. Anyway let's have a child. MARCELLA. My expectation is children. BILL. They will whisper of our love. MARCELLA. And our perpetual, enrapturing, valuable fantasy." from: http://www.ubu.com/concept/racter.html Posted by Sir Vivor, Monday, 17 May 2010 11:27:00 AM
| |
Thanks for a good laugh, Sir Vivor
Actually, responding to Cheryl might be better than ignoring her, providing that you can match her standards of civility and respect for logic and evidence. By the way, I don't want to silence people who disagree with me. Like most of us here, I enjoy a good argument and have had a number of them with Rhian, with both us remaining civil. Nor am I threatening to sue Cheryl. She is welcome to call Divergence a big dummy as often as she likes, although Graham might eventually intervene. However, if I were on the Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) executive (I'm not), I would consider a lot of what she has written defamatory. (Whether she is worth suing is another story.) It is not OK to call a named organisation with named people running it racist or fascist without solid evidence to back up the accusation. My own take on SPA and similar organisations, such as the Optimum Population Trust in the UK, is that they are composed of ordinary people (and a fair few scientists) who are concerned about how the population boosters are trashing their children's and grandchildren's environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedom, and general quality of life. Some also believe that other species have a right to live too or that God doesn't want us to destroy the environment. Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 18 May 2010 1:07:17 PM
| |
Aren't we so quick to tag people!(anti-pops)Quite sad really. The signs are out there folks! Dwindling fish stocks,diminishing resources, extra. This is a global problem not just Australia's How many ants do we need on our anthill(Planet Earth) Put your hand up, if you think we don't have enough poverty on the planet, The planet is already over populated. You don't need a university degree to work that out! The bigger the city,the more disgusting is it's under belly. How many people on this planet live unproductive lives, or destructive one's How many people live miserable lives because of genetic inherited defects in their DNA? We as humans are thought to strive for perfection. We need quality! not quantity! Time to licence people that want to breed. If you can't support and look after yourself, or have genetic defects! Then you shouldn't be aloud to breed. Put your hand up if you think we don't have enough welfare recipients in our community, or brain dead Ferrel's with anti social personalities! We all need to start think as global citizens and not just our piece of the plant. Time to kill the capitalist pig with in all of us, and become real humans and help clean up heal good old planet Earth. I'd like to see the human race reinvent it self! Something we could all be proud to be a part of! instead of just a big wank that is mankind to day!
Posted by Peterson, Monday, 24 May 2010 11:48:50 AM
|
This is typical of the tactics of those who are hellbent on unfettered population growth, which is don't offer reason just make broad sweeping statements and hope no-one is looking for the fine print.
Please outline your reasons why you think continuing to increase population is a good thing? Is there any point at which you think Australia (just for example) cannot provide sufficient resources for a reasonable quality of living - including water management, congestion, loss of arable farming land, drought management etc.
Did you not think the King article attacked the opposing view without offering any reasons for why population sustainability is an undesirable option.
There was also no attempt even to expand on what technological advancements might be that will assist in effectively enabling higher population growth, particularly in the developing world.