• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Νεκτάριος said:
Kerdy said:
Νεκτάριος said:
Kerdy said:
Νεκτάριος said:
Kerdy said:
Νεκτάριος said:
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.
Really?  You don't send children to school or have them partake of any governmental services such as checking books out at a library? 
Do you enjoy government protection from bad guys?  I can make silly, over reaching statements as well.
Well which is it?  Should I have to pay for people to have sex or not?  It's not fair that I have to pay for this. 
I have a feeling you are the only one who knows what you are talking about.  Who do you pay to have sex?  I don't pay for anyone to have sex. 
You have sex.  You have a child.  I'm the taxpayer.  Your child takes money from me at the point of a gun via the IRS.  I' m paying for you to have sex. 
For starters, I pay taxes too.  IRS at the point of a gun?  Let's not be over dramatic.  And the entire puzzle you've created has pieces which do not fit together.  Isn't this called Non-Sequitur?  Perhaps Argument from final Consequences.  It's been some time since college English.  In any event, it doesn't work.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
HabteSelassie said:
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I think the biggest tragedy of the post-modern era is the demonization and vilification of the family and of having children.  In our modern world of business as usual and ambitious capitalism we have begun to demonize having children. The terms for people who have young families, or large families, are usually demeaning or negative.  The institution of the family and the place of children is generally looked as a detriment to progress, to making money, to achieving one's personal goals.  Wasn't having a family the point of ambition and goals in the first place? Even Darwin would agree with this..

The family is a gift from God.  It is a mystical experience.  We  must pray about it, to find the Grace to be able to fulfill our responsibilities and obligations, but it as much a gift as it is a chore.  Families are our purpose.  Further, as a Church or as a society we are all an extended family by default, because metaphorically speaking, we share the same planet and we are all in the same boat than in this regard.  We mutually effect each other.  This is why God has put us in this world, to act in synergy with His Grace.  We play our part, just like the Saints and Angels have their roles in the Heavenly Court.  The Devil is trying to destroy us and buy himself more time by trying to slow down the family.  In the Scriptures and in the Synaxarium we read of many righteous men and women praying their entire lives just to be blessed with a single child like Samson or Samuel, like John the Baptist or like Saint Tekle Haimanot!  Now, people pray to NOT GET PREGNANT!! Lord have His Mercy!! Where are our priorities? Our values?  The Devil might even think he was winning.

The myth of "over-population" is just that, a myth, and one of the Devil's most potent in his arsenal. It is fear mongering at the highest level, the complete opposite of love thy neighbor.  Instead of loving our neighbors, we arbitrarily decide some are worthy to live, and others are excessive, burdensome, over-populating..  What a crock!!  All life is valuable, God doesn't make mistakes as they say.  If God brings a life into this world, it is for a purpose, and no life is less sacred than another.  Overpopulation is not a physical reality, it is a political matter of resource distribution.  Whether we are talking about the 1984/85 famine in Ethiopia, the Irish "Potato Famine" of the 19th century, or even perhaps the famine which occurred during the time of our father Jacob and the Twelve Patriarchs who took the people of Israel in Egypt where there was plenty of grain.  How did the Apostles deal with the coming of famine in the book of the Acts? They prepared because of the gift of prophecy.  The Devil always tries to deceive us by fear, by making us afraid that we will never have enough, that we are never good enough, that we will always fail and even die.  The Devil suggests there are not enough resources to go around, to share, so people give into their passions and they fight, and they covet, and they steal, all of which are sins against the Golden Rule.  


We need to fight the spiritual battle in prayer, and pray for family like the righteous couple Elisabeth and Zachariah, and not let the Devil make us afraid of our very children who are what makes the world go around and a good enough reason as any to get up out of bed each new day :)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Except for the Capitalism thing, I agree with what you just posted.  

The family is the core of any social structure and we are now witnessing the imploding of that social structure, I think, as a direct result of dissolving the family and personal responsibility.  My children, for example, do not understand most of what I do or do not allow them to do.  I have a responsibility to them which I intend to fulfill.  I am not perfect, but if more people felt the same way, I have a feeling the world would be a little better than it is today.  

I won’t get into the details, but I come across countless kids whose parents just don’t care and when something bad happens to them, they don’t understand why.  Just today I took the family to McDonalds to enjoy some good old fashioned “fat pills”, and I was watching a child of about 4-5, climbing over a railing looking down at a 40 foot drop and his mother was too busy texting to pay attention.  I was about to get up when a random mother with her own kids stopped him.  Of course, his mother was shocked at what he was doing.  Pathetic!  I will stop rambling now.

We need to cherish our children.
 

DerekMK

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
5,437
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Kerdy said:
Νεκτάριος said:
Kerdy said:
Νεκτάριος said:
Kerdy said:
Νεκτάριος said:
Kerdy said:
Νεκτάριος said:
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.
Really?  You don't send children to school or have them partake of any governmental services such as checking books out at a library? 
Do you enjoy government protection from bad guys?  I can make silly, over reaching statements as well.
Well which is it?  Should I have to pay for people to have sex or not?  It's not fair that I have to pay for this. 
I have a feeling you are the only one who knows what you are talking about.  Who do you pay to have sex?  I don't pay for anyone to have sex. 
You have sex.  You have a child.  I'm the taxpayer.  Your child takes money from me at the point of a gun via the IRS.  I' m paying for you to have sex. 
For starters, I pay taxes too.  IRS at the point of a gun?  Let's not be over dramatic.  And the entire puzzle you've created has pieces which do not fit together.  Isn't this called Non-Sequitur?  Perhaps Argument from final Consequences.  It's been some time since college English.  In any event, it doesn't work.
I'm perfectly aware it doesn't make a lick of sense.  But you'll notice that is the logic that many of our posters who defend big families and the welfare they receive use when it comes to every other instance of government spending.  
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Νεκτάριος said:
Kerdy said:
Νεκτάριος said:
Kerdy said:
Νεκτάριος said:
Kerdy said:
Νεκτάριος said:
Kerdy said:
Νεκτάριος said:
I don't think I should have to pay for people to have sex.  If people can't stop having sex after a second child, they should film videos of themselves having sex and sell them in order to finance the extra social services their children will receive. 
Not every family requires assistance.  Some of us have jobs.
Really?  You don't send children to school or have them partake of any governmental services such as checking books out at a library? 
Do you enjoy government protection from bad guys?  I can make silly, over reaching statements as well.
Well which is it?  Should I have to pay for people to have sex or not?  It's not fair that I have to pay for this. 
I have a feeling you are the only one who knows what you are talking about.  Who do you pay to have sex?  I don't pay for anyone to have sex. 
You have sex.  You have a child.  I'm the taxpayer.  Your child takes money from me at the point of a gun via the IRS.  I' m paying for you to have sex. 
For starters, I pay taxes too.  IRS at the point of a gun?  Let's not be over dramatic.  And the entire puzzle you've created has pieces which do not fit together.  Isn't this called Non-Sequitur?  Perhaps Argument from final Consequences.  It's been some time since college English.  In any event, it doesn't work.
I'm perfectly aware it doesn't make a lick of sense.  But you'll notice that is the logic that many of our posters who defend big families and the welfare they receive use when it comes to every other instance of government spending.  
This isn’t a politic forum, so I will simply say the American federal government has been stepping beyond its bounds in spending since the 1930s, and leave it at that.
 

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
26
Location
The Underground
Faith
Christian
Jurisdiction
OCA
Νεκτάριος said:
You have sex.  You have a child.  I'm the taxpayer.  Your child takes money from me at the point of a gun via the IRS.  I'm paying for you to have sex. 
Better than giving the child a miserable childhood because his parents could not afford to feed him or give him schooling. And then in the future, due to lack of education, resorts to crime and goes to prison. Then you'll have to pay even more money to keep him in prison. Do you want that? Or, even worse, the child's parents kill him or abandon him because they cannot afford a child, and then you have blood on your hands because you were too greedy to help him. Education is a right; at least for children. All children should be entitled to education regardless of their economic status and/or how stupid their parents are.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
JamesR said:
Ortho_cat said:
...Even at this rate, our current population will double in only 65 years to 14 billion. Also keep in mind there is no guarantee that this rate will continue to decrease.
Playing Devil's advocate, there is also no guarantee that it will continue to increase...War, famine, disease, obesity etc. Humanity usually has some huge epidemic every hundred years or so that lowers our population.
Oh i don't doubt that it will decrease at some point, due to disease, famine, war, genocide, increased abortion rate, etc. I'm proposing that it is better to prevent such things from happening in the first place by being responsible and addressing the problem upfront before it gets too severe. I also think that adoption is a great way to help control population size.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
Νεκτάριος said:
I think the government at the very least should stop subsidizing large families.  No tax write offs after child number two.  No free public education after child number two.  etc. 
i thin there are better ways to go about it than by punishing the children (which this does)...
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
Marc1152 said:
Shanghaiski said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?
Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg
Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.
You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.
There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org
pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Shanghaiski said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?
Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg
Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.
You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.
There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org
pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc
People do have access to contraception.  They purchase it from the Pharmacy. 

Oh, you meant free. 
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Shanghaiski said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?
Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg
Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.
You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.
There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org
pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.
creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc
People do have access to contraception.  They purchase it from the Pharmacy. 

Oh, you meant free. 
I'm not talking about in America. Watch the video...
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
here is a decent video which presents a well rounded approach to overpopulation and its effects:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN06tLRE4WE&feature=related
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,817
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
USA
Ortho_cat said:
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
This would be interesting if the European countries strictly limit the birth rate to 2 or 3 , while at the same time the Muslim countries such as Niger, with 95% Muslim population, continue to have 6, 7 or 8 children per married woman.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Shanghaiski said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?
Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg
Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.
You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.
There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org
pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.
creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.
It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
stanley123 said:
Ortho_cat said:
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
This would be interesting if the European countries strictly limit the birth rate to 2 or 3 , while at the same time the Muslim countries such as Niger, with 95% Muslim population, continue to have 6, 7 or 8 children per married woman.
I agree.
 

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Ortho_cat said:
pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
The UN also came to the same conclusion that it is likely that the world population will plateau and actually fall into decline around 2100..



stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Shanghaiski said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?
Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg
Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.
You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.
There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org
pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.
creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.
It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.
So is everyone else. 

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.
So is everyone else. 

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.
have you read a book about evolution? if so, which one?
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.
So is everyone else.  

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.
have you read a book about evolution? if so, which one?
"a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years."
 

Apples

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
4,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat, why does your axe need grinding?
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.
So is everyone else.  

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.
fair enough. but if you are interested in investigating the subject, then I would suggest you read at least 3 of the following books:

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Books-Evolution-Published-Decade/lm/R6SZF692OH56G

write down a list of all the observations (evidence) mentioned in the book (it will be in the hundreds). Then come up with a theory that better explains ALL of these phenomena better than the ToE already does.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
William said:
Ortho_cat, why does your axe need grinding?
not sure. i just wanted to start a thread to see how people suggest solving the problem of overpopulation, and i find out that most people here deny that it is happening as we speak...right before our very eyes  ???
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
35
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.
So is everyone else. 

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.
If you can prove the ToE wrong with the simplest of questions, please do PM it to me. I'd dearly love to go down in history books for such a breakthrough, not to mention the fame and prestige that would be mine in the present. Think of the talk shows! ;)
 

vamrat

Merarches
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
9,471
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
Omaha
Faith
Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Diocese of New Gracanica
Limiting family sizes below replacement levels will only work if coupled with mandatory euthanasia for those incapable of taking care of themselves - i.e. the elderly, the disabled (both mentally and physically), and the work adverse.  It is too heavy a burden for society to bear to take care of those beyond those that they have the capacity to do so.  By too heavy I don't mean "inconvenient" I mean straight up impossible.  Having a ballerina bench press 250 impossible.

As a Christian I cannot support euthanasia of this sort and so I cannot support limiting family sizes across the board.

I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.
 

vamrat

Merarches
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
9,471
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
38
Location
Omaha
Faith
Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Diocese of New Gracanica
Ortho_cat said:
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.
Is that a good thing? 
 

Shanghaiski

Merarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
8,253
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
43
Location
Wisconsin, USA
JamesR said:
Νεκτάριος said:
You have sex.  You have a child.  I'm the taxpayer.  Your child takes money from me at the point of a gun via the IRS.  I'm paying for you to have sex. 
Better than giving the child a miserable childhood because his parents could not afford to feed him or give him schooling. And then in the future, due to lack of education, resorts to crime and goes to prison. Then you'll have to pay even more money to keep him in prison. Do you want that? Or, even worse, the child's parents kill him or abandon him because they cannot afford a child, and then you have blood on your hands because you were too greedy to help him. Education is a right; at least for children. All children should be entitled to education regardless of their economic status and/or how stupid their parents are.
Or maybe, like many other examples, he turns out to be inventive and save people from some other crap.

Who is being denied education in America? (Or indoctrination.)
 

Shanghaiski

Merarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
8,253
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
43
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Shanghaiski said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?
Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg
Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.
You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.
There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org
pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
No such thing as science without an agenda. Scientists are people. People who need people to fund their research. They're the luckiest people in the world.
 

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Ortho_cat said:
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.
Not even necessarily birth control, just education and development.  Birth control is like an artificial band-aid in developing countries to bridge to development gap, but in all actuality, lifestyle and demographics can have a more formative role than access and proportionate use of contraception.  In other words, we can be entirely (stereotypically) Catholic about life, and still reduce population numbers ;)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

Shanghaiski

Merarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
8,253
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
43
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc
People do have access to contraception.  They purchase it from the Pharmacy. 

Oh, you meant free. 
There are plenty of schools that hand out free condoms to children. Some even provide lessons on how to use them.
 

Shanghaiski

Merarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
8,253
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
43
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Ortho_cat said:
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Shanghaiski said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?
Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg
Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.
You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.
There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org
pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.
creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.
It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.
Facts. LOL. Facts require interpretation, which always presents a bias. Hence the existence of various competing "facts."
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,817
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
USA
vamrat said:
I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization...
Who will decide when parents are incapable of supporting their children? Would it be Kathleen Sebelius,  Hillary Clinton, Madeline Alldark or Elena Kagan ? My siblings and I were brought up in a situation where we were well below the poverty line, with four children to one small bedroom. Every night we would all get together in prayer before a small shrine we set up in honor of the  Mother of God.  And in the end, we made it just fine. I would have hated to have some ignorant government functionary come by and demand that  my mother had to get an abortion after 2 children, or else.  That would amount to killing off some of my siblings.
And not only that, but if you are going to make limiting family size dependent on the financial status of the parents, this rewards crooks who made millions  through illegal alcohol trafficking during prohibition, or mafia people who made millions on illegal enterprises, while penalising the honest, hard working, sweating, laborer who is trying to make ends meet on a meager income which puts him below the poverty level.
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
vamrat said:
Ortho_cat said:
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.
Is that a good thing? 
in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes
 

Ortho_cat

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,392
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Wichita, KS
Shanghaiski said:
Ortho_cat said:
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Shanghaiski said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?
Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg
Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.
You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.
There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org
pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.
creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.
It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.
Facts. LOL. Facts require interpretation, which always presents a bias. Hence the existence of various competing "facts."
yes that's right. all this technology that you are using right now and take for granted on a daily basis, which is explained by theories and based on observation of physical properties and our understanding of such is all just relative and biased...developed by scientists with "agendas"  ::) Strange we don't see all these alternative "theories" to the theory of gravity, relativity, and electromagnetism if there are all these competing facts out there. Theories are used because they work and they best explain observations about the world around us.  It's as simple as that.
 

HabteSelassie

Archon
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
3,314
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Los Angeles
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Ortho_cat said:
vamrat said:
Ortho_cat said:
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.
Is that a good thing?  
in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes
You are looking it at completely backwards, from the generally condescending perspective of Western governments and NGO think-tanks.  The reality is that population is a BLESSING for the developing world, not a hindrance.  Much of the developing world have a majority population of youth and young adults, that means they have bright potential for the future.  Population is a benefit, not a hindrance.  These are potentially booming and bustling populations, not cesspools of decaying life.  The Devil wants us to believe life is a burden, most people know and understand differently. Is it a mere coincidence that poor communities have and personally value larger families, where as more affluent communities tend to spurn children as burdensome?  Poor people are rooted in life, rich people are rooted in fantasy.  Reality trumps fantasy or ideology.  That being said, the future of the world is quite bright and optimistic precisely because developing nations are continuing to grow, and yes thrive!  Poverty is a myth.  Yes, people are really poor, true, but how we in the developed world tend to demean and degrade the lives of poor people simply because they don't demographically fit into our own contemporary life-styles is embarrassingly naive.  Poor people are often MORE happy than rich people.  Large families often do better in the long-run than smaller ones, and a growing population of young people is the promise of a better future, where as declining numbers and increasing ratios of elderly populations is the sure since of stagnation and inevitable decline ;)

Overpopulation is again, a myth, and one which is often veiled in classism and racism too..

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

Shanghaiski

Merarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
8,253
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
43
Location
Wisconsin, USA
Ortho_cat said:
Shanghaiski said:
Ortho_cat said:
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
Kerdy said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Shanghaiski said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 said:
Ortho_cat said:
So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?
Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?
Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing :)

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg
Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.
You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.
There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org
pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  ::)
Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.
creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.
It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.
i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.
Facts. LOL. Facts require interpretation, which always presents a bias. Hence the existence of various competing "facts."
yes that's right. all this technology that you are using right now and take for granted on a daily basis, which is explained by theories and based on observation of physical properties and our understanding of such is all just relative and biased...developed by scientists with "agendas"  ::) Strange we don't see all these alternative "theories" to the theory of gravity, relativity, and electromagnetism if there are all these competing facts out there. Theories are used because they work and they best explain observations about the world around us.  It's as simple as that.
You're note even looking at my point.
 

Shanghaiski

Merarches
Joined
Dec 26, 2009
Messages
8,253
Reaction score
339
Points
83
Age
43
Location
Wisconsin, USA
HabteSelassie said:
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Ortho_cat said:
vamrat said:
Ortho_cat said:
so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.
Is that a good thing?  
in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes
You are looking it at completely backwards, from the generally condescending perspective of Western governments and NGO think-tanks.  The reality is that population is a BLESSING for the developing world, not a hindrance.  Much of the developing world have a majority population of youth and young adults, that means they have bright potential for the future.  Population is a benefit, not a hindrance.  These are potentially booming and bustling populations, not cesspools of decaying life.  The Devil wants us to believe life is a burden, most people know and understand differently. Is it a mere coincidence that poor communities have and personally value larger families, where as more affluent communities tend to spurn children as burdensome?  Poor people are rooted in life, rich people are rooted in fantasy.  Reality trumps fantasy or ideology.  That being said, the future of the world is quite bright and optimistic precisely because developing nations are continuing to grow, and yes thrive!  Poverty is a myth.  Yes, people are really poor, true, but how we in the developed world tend to demean and degrade the lives of poor people simply because they don't demographically fit into our own contemporary life-styles is embarrassingly naive.  Poor people are often MORE happy than rich people.  Large families often do better in the long-run than smaller ones, and a growing population of young people is the promise of a better future, where as declining numbers and increasing ratios of elderly populations is the sure since of stagnation and inevitable decline ;)

Overpopulation is again, a myth, and one which is often veiled in classism and racism too..

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Agreed.
 
Top