• 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?

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
stanley123 said:
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.
Nice way to quote out of context.  I said nothing about abortion.  I said "mandatory sterilization after maximum size has been reached".  The definition for where this size would lay is up for debate, supposing such a policy were enacted, though if it the decision were mine I would consider maximum size to be where the family can support the children without permanent government assistance.  People have no right to breed more children and then refuse to take care of them.  I believe that some people fall on hard times.  I have stated in numerous places that I believe in a safety net but not a safety hammock.  If your parents were working class yet still managed to take care of you and your siblings, then I don't see what the problem is.  If neither of them were working and requiring the state to support them and their children while simultaneously continuing to breed...well, sorry, but that is wrong.  I don't care how people support themselves, so long as they do.  I believe that we should do our Christian duty and help people who have fallen on hard times, because God knows it could happen to any of us at any time, but at the same time everyone should do everything in their power to not squander the talents and blessings that God gave them and do their best to support themselves.
 

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:
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
Agreed.  But what about in industrialized societies where people can support themselves?  These people will get old someday and if they choose not to self replicate it will fall on the backs of the dwindling numbers of the future generation to support them.
 

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
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
Large populations of young adults without future prospects make excellent soldiers/guerrillas.  Beyond that, they are a benefit only if the society has the means to provide them work, education, and a future.  Without those, they are a ticking timebomb.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,817
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
USA
vamrat said:
stanley123 said:
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.
Nice way to quote out of context.  I said nothing about abortion.  I said "mandatory sterilization after maximum size has been reached".  The definition for where this size would lay is up for debate, supposing such a policy were enacted, though if it the decision were mine I would consider maximum size to be where the family can support the children without permanent government assistance.  People have no right to breed more children and then refuse to take care of them.  I believe that some people fall on hard times.  I have stated in numerous places that I believe in a safety net but not a safety hammock.  If your parents were working class yet still managed to take care of you and your siblings, then I don't see what the problem is.  If neither of them were working and requiring the state to support them and their children while simultaneously continuing to breed...well, sorry, but that is wrong.  I don't care how people support themselves, so long as they do.  I believe that we should do our Christian duty and help people who have fallen on hard times, because God knows it could happen to any of us at any time, but at the same time everyone should do everything in their power to not squander the talents and blessings that God gave them and do their best to support themselves.
We never took one cent from the government, but lived with what we had. I would object in having some stupid government low level functionary invade our house and demand that my mother undergo sterilization. I realise that you are not advocating this, but government functionaries often exceed their authority and some are known to act with a certain arrogance. Some years down the line a court of law might decide that the government functionary acted illegally, but it would be too late to reverse the harm that the sterilization had done. 
 

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
stanley123 said:
vamrat said:
stanley123 said:
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.
Nice way to quote out of context.  I said nothing about abortion.  I said "mandatory sterilization after maximum size has been reached".  The definition for where this size would lay is up for debate, supposing such a policy were enacted, though if it the decision were mine I would consider maximum size to be where the family can support the children without permanent government assistance.  People have no right to breed more children and then refuse to take care of them.  I believe that some people fall on hard times.  I have stated in numerous places that I believe in a safety net but not a safety hammock.  If your parents were working class yet still managed to take care of you and your siblings, then I don't see what the problem is.  If neither of them were working and requiring the state to support them and their children while simultaneously continuing to breed...well, sorry, but that is wrong.  I don't care how people support themselves, so long as they do.  I believe that we should do our Christian duty and help people who have fallen on hard times, because God knows it could happen to any of us at any time, but at the same time everyone should do everything in their power to not squander the talents and blessings that God gave them and do their best to support themselves.
We never took one cent from the government, but lived with what we had. I would object in having some stupid government low level functionary invade our house and demand that my mother undergo sterilization. I realise that you are not advocating this, but government functionaries often exceed their authority and some are known to act with a certain arrogance. Some years down the line a court of law might decide that the government functionary acted illegally, but it would be too late to reverse the harm that the sterilization had done. 
I see your point about government functionaries.

I was kind of just brainstorming with this because the other option is to stop giving out handouts to people who refuse to work, something that would not have affected people like your parents.  The problem is, the bleeding hearts want us to throw money at the problem with no real solutions offered.  I was just trying to find a compromise, the sort that would have made King Solomon smile...
 

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!

I am getting appalled at the vilifying and demonizing (blame the victim) of government assistance to the poor.  The Church doesn't snub her nose at accepting BILLIONS of dollars of government assistance to feed the poor, for hospitals, for education, run by the Church, why do folks here on the forum continually demonize public assistance? We pay taxes just like Christ asked us too, why should we then demonize the good things the government does with it like feeding the poor or carrying for the sick?  Sure, everyone seems to wave the flag about going on a US crusade against the Muslims, but heaven forbid Uncle Sam give a poor child a bite to eat without the forum demonizing the child as a bum and the government as having some kind of nefarious agenda.

How can we reconcile this with Matthew 25 and Galatians 2:8-10 exactly?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

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
HabteSelassie said:
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I am getting appalled at the vilifying and demonizing (blame the victim) of government assistance to the poor.  The Church doesn't snub her nose at accepting BILLIONS of dollars of government assistance to feed the poor, for hospitals, for education, run by the Church, why do folks here on the forum continually demonize public assistance? We pay taxes just like Christ asked us too, why should we then demonize the good things the government does with it like feeding the poor or carrying for the sick?  Sure, everyone seems to wave the flag about going on a US crusade against the Muslims, but heaven forbid Uncle Sam give a poor child a bite to eat without the forum demonizing the child as a bum and the government as having some kind of nefarious agenda.

How can we reconcile this with Matthew 25 and Galatians 2:8-10 exactly?

stay blessed,
habte selassie
For starts, the reasoning behind the .govs feeding the poor is less one of morality but rather of weaponizing the masses (demagoguery) or at best it's Machiavellian in keeping them entertained and fed enough that they won't disrupt the social order.  Like I said in my last response to you in this thread - young poor people with no future are a powder keg.

I for one do not like sitting on a powder keg.  I would rather see them have a future and become part of what makes a nation strong.  To do this they need to do some of the work themselves.  They need to be motivated.

Keep in mind also that we do not have true poor like you would have found in Christ's time, except possibly the hobos.  We do not have poor to the level they have in third world countries.  The lower classes in the US live in a very comfortable species of poverty, one that comes complete with automobiles (albeit, often antiquated ones), cell phones, fashionable clothing, et cetera.  There are some dirt poor people, but they are not the majority.  They are usually rural.  Many of them would probably prefer to better their lot, and many of them do not receive the assistance they need.  Most of it goes to a growing class of "professional poor".  These are the ones I feel antagonistic towards.
 

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!

Poverty is complex.  Too think that people should be as starkly poor as folks were living in Auschwitz to deserve assistance or charity is deplorable.  Christ didn't ask us to define the level of merit for charity, simply to give when asked by those in need if we have it to give.  The US certainly has plenty to give.  By the way, I agree completely that over dependence on government assistance is a problem, for example, on  macro-level it is crippling Ethiopian development, and yet, at a localised level, we can't negate the value of public assistance in putting food, education, and healthcare in the hands of those in need.  There is a myth in the American economy, one of so-called meritocracy, and it is as prevalent and unsubstantiated as these myths of overpopulation we read on this thread :(

Lord have His Mercy!!

stay blessed,
habte selassie
 

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
HabteSelassie said:
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Poverty is complex.  Too think that people should be as starkly poor as folks were living in Auschwitz to deserve assistance or charity is deplorable.  Christ didn't ask us to define the level of merit for charity, simply to give when asked by those in need if we have it to give.  The US certainly has plenty to give.  By the way, I agree completely that over dependence on government assistance is a problem, for example, on  macro-level it is crippling Ethiopian development, and yet, at a localised level, we can't negate the value of public assistance in putting food, education, and healthcare in the hands of those in need.  There is a myth in the American economy, one of so-called meritocracy, and it is as prevalent and unsubstantiated as these myths of overpopulation we read on this thread :(

Lord have His Mercy!!

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Poverty is complex.  As you might have noticed I divided the poor into four distinct groups (and more might exist) - working poor, rural poor, hobos, and "professional poor".  For every malady you often need a different cure.  Christ told us to visit the sick but He never told us how to do it.  If someone has Ebola and your only solution is to amputate his leg...well, you're not going anywhere.  Some cases of poverty, especially temporary poverty, can be dealt with by a quick influx of cash.  In other cases, like the rural poor, they may have lived that way traditionally (like hillbillies) and might be better off if they are just left alone.  The working poor need to be given education so they can become more skilled - from there they will do the work.  The professional poor need to have their crutch taken away.  They need to be motivated.  You can keep throwing cash at them all day...but what have you accomplished!  This is their biological niche!

Christ told us to help the poor.  Look at the paralytic.  First, Christ asked if He wanted to be healed.  The poor must want to be helped before we can help them.  Then Christ made the man work...on the Sabbath even.  He told him to take up his bed and walk.  What we have been doing for the last generation has accomplished nothing.  I say we stop thinking outside of the box and think a little bit more in the Book.
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
35
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
vamrat said:
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).
I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
Surplus labor. Well functioning capitalism, especially the capitalism of our day requires quite a bit of it.

Already had to give this simple lecture today to some privileged guy psychologizing a group and making them responsible for the role they fill made necessary by the system we all partake of.

Gotta have the unemployed. In fact, we make sure of it. (Anyone remember the hay day of the Clinton years and having to keep the dropping unemployment rate in check?)

The new and interesting development of global capital is the unemployable class.

A beautiful world.  
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
ZealousZeal said:
vamrat said:
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).
I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.
No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  

I posted a modest proposal on this before. It was in jest. And it would work.
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
35
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
orthonorm said:
ZealousZeal said:
vamrat said:
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).
I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.
No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  
I hesitated to use the word "autonomy", but in the end I couldn't think of a better one. I don't believe we are absolutely autonomous either, yet mandated sterilization makes me twitchy. It seems such a gross violation of what autonomy we do/should have. A line better left uncrossed, I think.
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
ZealousZeal said:
orthonorm said:
ZealousZeal said:
vamrat said:
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).
I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.
No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  
I hesitated to use the word "autonomy", but in the end I couldn't think of a better one. I don't believe we are absolutely autonomous either, yet mandated sterilization makes me twitchy. It seems such a gross violation of what autonomy we do/should have. A line better left uncrossed, I think.
I'll save my joke about what liberal is for the politics forum or something.
 

Kerdy

Taxiarches
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,813
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Shanghaiski said:
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.
I know.  It's despicable.
 

ZealousZeal

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 8, 2011
Messages
3,980
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
35
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
orthonorm said:
ZealousZeal said:
orthonorm said:
ZealousZeal said:
vamrat said:
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).
I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.
No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  
I hesitated to use the word "autonomy", but in the end I couldn't think of a better one. I don't believe we are absolutely autonomous either, yet mandated sterilization makes me twitchy. It seems such a gross violation of what autonomy we do/should have. A line better left uncrossed, I think.
I'll save my joke about what liberal is for the politics forum or something.
There's plenty of threads down there just ripe for such a joke, I'm sure. Or you can PM it to me. Can't be worse than the one vamrat sent me once (which I've gotten decent mileage on BTW. Thanks, vamrat!  ;) ).
 

orthonorm

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jul 24, 2010
Messages
17,715
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Faith
DSM 5
Jurisdiction
Apostle to the Church of ASD
Kerdy said:
Shanghaiski said:
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.
I know.  It's despicable.
What do you find piscable?
 

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
ZealousZeal said:
orthonorm said:
ZealousZeal said:
orthonorm said:
ZealousZeal said:
vamrat said:
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).
I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.
No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  
I hesitated to use the word "autonomy", but in the end I couldn't think of a better one. I don't believe we are absolutely autonomous either, yet mandated sterilization makes me twitchy. It seems such a gross violation of what autonomy we do/should have. A line better left uncrossed, I think.
I'll save my joke about what liberal is for the politics forum or something.
There's plenty of threads down there just ripe for such a joke, I'm sure. Or you can PM it to me. Can't be worse than the one vamrat sent me once (which I've gotten decent mileage on BTW. Thanks, vamrat!  ;) ).
I aim to please/disgust/please!   ;D
 

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:
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
Agreed.  But what about in industrialized societies where people can support themselves?  These people will get old someday and if they choose not to self replicate it will fall on the backs of the dwindling numbers of the future generation to support them.
if they are living sustainably then they are doing great; I say carry on with busines as usual. Unfortunately few societies are in this position today (I doubt any industrialized nations are). Most nations are depleting their resources faster than they can replace them.
 

yeshuaisiam

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
4,695
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ortho_cat said:
vamrat said:
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
Agreed.  But what about in industrialized societies where people can support themselves?  These people will get old someday and if they choose not to self replicate it will fall on the backs of the dwindling numbers of the future generation to support them.
if they are living sustainably then they are doing great; I say carry on with busines as usual. Unfortunately few societies are in this position today (I doubt any industrialized nations are). Most nations are depleting their resources faster than they can replace them.
All I can say is research Eugenics, and overpopulation propaganda.  I don't know if you live in the city or not.  But please, just use google maps.  Look around and there is barren land everywhere. 

If anything, I believe we could quadruple the world's population and be just fine, if not more.  It's not a problem.  If we talk "using resources" that's a different issue.  People could build "earthships" (google them they are cool). 
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
69
Location
Maryland
Jurisdiction
Rocor
Ortho_cat said:
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.
There is no problem... Population will peak in 25 years and then go down again. The population will be exactly what it is today in 75 years.

If you monkey around and try to limit population ( for no good reason, see above) you will alter the basic structure of society. That is the result in China. They will soon have just one male to support three to four generations above him. They are screwed. Let's not do the same..Thanks for your concern.
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
69
Location
Maryland
Jurisdiction
Rocor
Ortho_cat said:
vamrat said:
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
Agreed.  But what about in industrialized societies where people can support themselves?  These people will get old someday and if they choose not to self replicate it will fall on the backs of the dwindling numbers of the future generation to support them.
if they are living sustainably then they are doing great; I say carry on with busines as usual. Unfortunately few societies are in this position today (I doubt any industrialized nations are). Most nations are depleting their resources faster than they can replace them.
Not really..We will eventually have an oil problem but there are plenty of resources to support a much larger population than we have now.

Here, take a few minutes and watch these and then try to relax ;

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/content/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/food-theres-lots-it

http://overpopulationisamyth.com/overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,970
Reaction score
179
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Ortho_cat said:
Marc1152 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 are worrying needlessly. Population growth is slowing. China screwed itself with the same fears you have. There are plenty of resources to handle the human population even when it max's out in a few years. Then it will decline. Yawn

The real challenge is to increase family size in advanced countries. Russia is addressing the issue vigorously. Even Mexico has dropped back to a 2.2 replacement rate so all the immigration pressures on the United States will ease.

Things are not getting worse and worse. They are getting better and better.

Put  some time into that demographics site:   www.pop.org
Unfortunately i don't think sticking our heads in the sand and acting like it isn't happening will fix anything. The world population increased by 200 thousand today and will increase by 8 million this year. That means many more people will go hungry and without basic necessities.
Only if people cause it.

Singapore and Hong Kong are among the most "overpopulated" areas in the world.  They are also among the richest.

You could fit all the world's population in an average American home lot in Texas, and the rest of the world would be uninhabited. At present, my background noise is the "Matrix" in which there is a line I caught where the machines deride humans as the only species that depletes its resources and then moves on to survive.  It seems the agenda behind that didn't notice that plenty of places have been inhabited by humans for millenia.
 

Apples

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
4,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Okay seriously denying humans their reproductive autonomy is WRONG. Ends do not justify the means.
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Age
69
Location
Maryland
Jurisdiction
Rocor
William said:
Okay seriously denying humans their reproductive autonomy is WRONG. Ends do not justify the means.
Plus, overpopulation is a myth so the ends and means would both be an error.
 

Gunnarr

Archon
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
"THOSE WHO DENY GLOBAL WARMING IS ANATHEMA!"

- The Green Patriarch Bartholomew
 

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
Gunnarr said:
"THOSE WHO DENY GLOBAL WARMING IS ANATHEMA!"

- The Green Patriarch Bartholomew
Huh?
 

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
yeshuaisiam said:
vamrat said:
Gunnarr said:
"THOSE WHO DENY GLOBAL WARMING IS ANATHEMA!"

- The Green Patriarch Bartholomew
Huh?
It's not easy being Green....
Green with envy of the great Patriarch +++Kyrill I+++ of the Third Rome.
 
Top