Radical Depopulation Of The Earth - The Solution To Mankind's Problems?

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

.

Family planning programs could make a great inroad into reducing the population, with focus on the developing nations where population growth is totally out of control. .

Echoes of Margaret Sanger she said

The third group of society are those irresponsible and reckless ones having little reagrd for the consequence of their acts.many of this group are diseased,feeble-minded and dependent upon the normal and fit members of society for their support.There is no doubt in the mind of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped

I guess you are in good company there.

[imp]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

Well, human reproduction has generally been seen as a basic human right. But the earth is in crisis and replacing light bulbs with flouresents, or riding a bicycle rather than using a car will not solve the climate or pollution crisis. The problem is that the earth has too many humans all wanting to live the highly extravagant and wastful lifestyle of the developed western world. There is no way that, that lifestyle could even be initiated much less sustained for the current 6.5 billion souls on this planet much less for the projected 9.0 billion in 2030 ! So unless we reduce the human footprint, substantially, we and the present species on this planet are probably doomed.

Family planning programs could make a great inroad into reducing the population, with focus on the developing nations where population growth is totally out of control. With a worldwide coordinated effort, we could see substantial reductions in populations in 50 years, and a dramatic positive impact on the planet's climate, resources and eventually living standards of all.

Ah yes! Those are inspirational words. Stop the unwashed masses of Africa from reproducing so that you will have a better quality of life. /sarc

That is the definitive liberal elitist attitude. Just remember - everybody is looking over their right shoulder for fascism when, in fact, it is about to jump on top of you on your left side.

At least those in the UK are beginning to recognize envirowackism for what it is - they soundly rejected the envirowackos in the latest election.

[wmiddlemas]

I think everyone is promoting this concept because it is the only really long term solution. Without a radical depopulation of the earth, all other measures are just "thumbs in a dyke about to burst !" A population of 1-2 billion would be sustainable. At that population technological advances in food production, medicine and technology in general could raise the living standards of all the emerging and third world countries. Wars would be reduced because scarce resources could be better distributed and shared. As I said before, an agressive and effective world-wide family planning program would quickly reduce the world's population withing a few generations.

Let's face it the developing world is not going to cut back on carbon emissions and use of dirty fuels--- wealthy countries are not even doing it so how can we expect emerging countries to do it? Depopulation is the only realistic solution.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

The problem is that the earth has too many humans all wanting to live the highly extravagant and wastful lifestyle of the developed western world.

BUT, the smaller the population, the higher the cost of labour, due to lower availablilty, so the use of machinery rather than manual labour becomes more ecconomic, if you want the same goods. Which has the lower environmental impact, a team of humans doing a job or the design, manufacture and running of relacement machinery?

Either was I think peple would have to change their lifestyles, so why not change in a way that allows natural population reduction (such as natural disatasters) rather dictating such things to people?

Wobs and co have provided infromation that suggests peple tend to choose to have less children when their circumstances improve. One factor is that people do not need to produce so many babies to achieve the same number of health adults because infant mortality is reduced. Also more afluent societies tend to have other things to spend their time on, such as going to the theatre/cinema so thay do not tend to spend so much time rearing children.

[forfismum]

Exactly Spadlet. But lets conduct a proper scientific experiment into the whole business before we make any rash decisions.
I suggest we take a city,lets say New Orleans.The population there are mostly not white,they are an uneducated lot and not really civilised as we saw after that hurricane,they only produce jazz and babies and looking at them on TV they all consume too much anyway.So we sterilise all of them by putting something in the water or food and voila ,we can carry out all sorts of tests and garner statistics.[I vote not to have to do the chi squared thing.]
If you think this would be wrong ,I am only following the suggestions form the Ford,Rockefeller anf Gamble families of the last century.
Look up salt rice jelly ,which was made by Procter and Gamble.

[imp]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

I think everyone is promoting this concept because it is the only really long term solution. Without a radical depopulation of the earth, all other measures are just "thumbs in a dyke about to burst !" A population of 1-2 billion would be sustainable. At that population technological advances in food production, medicine and technology in general could raise the living standards of all the emerging and third world countries. Wars would be reduced because scarce resources could be better distributed and shared. As I said before, an agressive and effective world-wide family planning program would quickly reduce the world's population withing a few generations.

Let's face it the developing world is not going to cut back on carbon emissions and use of dirty fuels--- wealthy countries are not even doing it so how can we expect emerging countries to do it? Depopulation is the only realistic solution.

One of your fundamental problems is that you do not understand economics. You have not been educated in the concept of "economies of scale". If you were educated in this concept you would understand why human quality of life has improved as gloabl population has climbed. The notion of "overpopulation" is the most thouroughly debunked theory in history. For over 250 years, since the time of Malthus, people have said the planet was overpopulated. They have been WRONG,WRONG, WRONG! Just as you are wrong.

[GreenGoblin]

I think this is a very important discussion to have.

These are issues that don't get enough coverage in the media.

But issues regarding population are becoming more and more prominent, and there are huge differences of opinion about how to deal with them.

Hopefully when people look for answers to these issues they will look to God for the right answers.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by GreenGoblin

Hopefully when people look for answers to these issues they will look to God for the right answers.

Read the post at the top of the main page.He just explained to you that he was busy,wot with a new job and new home and he has no time to deal with having too many fat people in the world.We just have to get on best as we can.

[wmiddlemas]

Originally Posted by imp

One of your fundamental problems is that you do not understand economics. You have not been educated in the concept of "economies of scale". If you were educated in this concept you would understand why human quality of life has improved as gloabl population has climbed. The notion of "overpopulation" is the most thouroughly debunked theory in history. For over 250 years, since the time of Malthus, people have said the planet was overpopulated. They have been WRONG,WRONG, WRONG! Just as you are wrong.

If human population is not causing climate change then what is ? The Rhino ? Obviously, the exponential increase in human population is causing stress on the earth's climate. With a dramatic reduction in current population obviously there won't be as great a demand for water, food and energy resources creating the only realistic possibility of reducing man's carbon footprint.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by wmiddlemas

If human population is not causing climate change then what is ? The Rhino ?

What a stupid question to ask,note there are very few first graders in our forum.Take a little time to read the threads on this subject and the many points of view covered.