Is 300 million too many?

[Clarkie1]

Sunday, June 25, 2006; Posted: 8:32 a.m. EDT (12:32 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. population is on target to hit 300 million this fall and it's a good bet the milestone baby -- or immigrant -- will be Hispanic.

<snip>

The 300-millionth person in the U.S. will likely be born -- or cross the border -- in October, though bureau officials are wary of committing to a particular month because of the subjective nature of the clock.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/25/us.population.300million.ap/index.html

The U.S. has the third largest population of any country in the world behind China and India, countries which are also experiencing overpopulation problems.

So, what is the optimal U.S. population ceiling?

[SoCalDem]

1. The distribution is more the problem than the number

Look at the low-population states.. They could USE more people..of course jobs would have to be in place, and that would be difficult..As more and more poor people cram themselves into big cities, it makes for some uncomfortable times ahead..

Think back a few years.. the "distribution" IS happening, and a lot of the "local discomfort" is happening in places that "used to be" lily-white.. they never gave a hoot until THEIR communities started having "day-labor pick-up sites"...

All people need to eat, and to eat, you need money or land ...People WILL move when they need to go.. Lines drawn in the dirt are meaningless if you have a family to feed, so the "Globalizators" better take another look at their plan.. They were gung-ho about moving their JOBS to other places. People are just as eager to move too..

Corporations feel no restriction when they want to move for "financial reasons".. Well in a Global Village, people move too.... (Just not the US citizens so much....yet )

[Clarkie1]

2. What about the natural resource base in low-population states?

How many people can Nevada supply with water?

[SoCalDem]

4. Enough....until it runs out

:(

[xchrom]

8. there will be a catastrophic event in the far west

because of water and overpopulation -- even the states with few people use tremendous resources.

much of the west depends on a single aquifer for it's water -- lol -- that's not going to last too much longer.

you will see much corporate wailing and nashing of teeth then -- not to mention the citizenry.

[wuushew]

3. Yes we are running out of energy dammit!

Unless we stop growing we will never be able to make enough bio-diesel or erect enough windmills to prevent the lights going out.

[kedrys]

5. As I was reading "An Inconvenient Truth" this afternoon, I realized

the population of the planet has DOUBLED in my lifetime.

I'm SO freaked out. :scared:

[rman]

33. But large population is not the cause of global warming -

it is irresponsible use of resources that is the cause of global warming.

[TheFarseer]

95. It blew my mind to hear

more people are alive on the planet right now, than have *ever* died in the history of Earth.

[LostInAnomie]

6. Over population is not going to be a problem in the future...

... it is going to be THE problem of the future.

Humanity's foot print is fastly growing beyond what the Earth can handle. If our grand-children are going to have any of standard of living something is going to have to be done eventually.

[Joanne98]

84. I agree.

[SPKrazy]

7. Of Course There's Always The Next Pandemic

whether it is H5N1, or some other virus that jumps species and takes a lot of people out

Mother nature has a way of controlling populations I guess

[Eurobabe]

47. So does Bu$h/Chain-Knee

n/t

[ulysses]

9. we have more than Russia?

Doubt that.

[Igel]

14. More whats than Russian?

People?

Nearly twice as many people.

Not nearly as many blins, if that's what you're asking.

[JI7]

25. Russia's population is in decline

currently we probably about more than twice their population. and yet, if things don't improve in Russia the decline may result in their population being half the current level in a few decades.

[Joanne98]

85. Capitalism killed everybody.

[Art_from_Ark]

96. "Russia" had more population than the US in the Soviet Union days

but with the breakup into the 14 or however many republics, the population was split accordingly-- leaving Russia itself with a "measly" 160 million or so-- and dropping it down below the US, Brazil, and even Indonesia.

[Yollam]

10. Yes, it's too many.

Zero population growth was a good idea in the 70's and it still is today. Ideally, I'd like to see the Earth's population slowly brought down to a more sustainable level between 1 and 4 billion over the next few hundred years. Sadly, if it doesn't happen through family planning, it will eventually probably happen due to famine, disease, war and resource depletion.

The optimal US population ceiling is about 200 million.

[LiberalVoice]

11. The worlds resources are already stretched to the breaking point.

In my opinion adoption would be my first choice rather then having a child.

[ikojo]

12. I think this country can handle more people

but I am not sure the planet can handle more people living the typical American lifestyle. Americans use a lot of resources to maintain our lifestyle of typically one car for every driver and large suburban type homes requiring air conditioning in the summer and heat in the winter.

As China and India take on facets of the American lifestyle the planet's resources will be stretched to their limits.

MORE SCOOTERS!!

Fewer cars!

[screembloodymurder]

13. I think it's about 270 million too many.

Canada has it right.

[earth mom]

26. Agree with you there.

I'm really worried about resources like energy and water. :(

[rzemanfl]

15. And how many pregnancies were terminated since abortion

became legal?

[adriennui]

16. not enough

[onja]

23. Not enough?

The problem is that people that SHOULD get abortions aren't. We can hold more people. Third world countries can't. And they don't use birth control or abortions or any of that stuff.

[raccoon]

64. "We can hold more people." The problem isn't people per

square mile. The problem is resources.

Americans consume the lion's share of the world's resources.

[onja]

94. Clarifying, again

By "we can hold more people" I mean that we can give health care, food, water, etc. People elsewhere can't. If we grew a LOT quickly, we would strain the resources and be forced to find better technologies. If the other countries keep growing like they are now, then they'll have famines and other disasters, thousands or millions dying. Summary:Growth eventually will strain resources. But in the short term we can afford more population than others without our people dying.

[raccoon]

65. Which people is it that you think "SHOULD" get abortions? nt

[onja]

92. Clarify

I don't support compluslive abortion. I'm just saying that we Americans have enough money to ensure that millions don't starve. The people in Africa are poor and starving. We have resources to support our people while they don't. But the poor are growing much faster than the rich (U.S., Europe, Japan). If the Africans doubled their population, they'd starve. If we doubled our population, we could, painfully, afford it.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. So, then, I take it you're not pro-choice.

As in, it shouldn't be up to those other people to decide for themselves... it should be up to you?

[adriennui]

37. exactly, you see i'm running the world

this is my OPINION...get it? i have absolutely no power, no influence. poor societies could possible help themselves by not having too many people dealing with already limited resources.

[Warren DeMontague]

70. I agree- there's too many people.

Griping that other people should have gotten abortions, however, might not be the most tactful way to encourage a lessening of the population explosion. Perhaps you should start with the Vatican and their inane ideas about birth control, first- For some reason that I can't fathom, some of those poor societies listen to them.

[melm00se]

45. somewhere between

40 & 50 million abortions have been performed since Roe V Wade (according to the CDC)

[johnaries]

17. But, I was ready about a book earlier claiming Birth Control

was bad for the economy. So, doesn't that mean that over-population is GOOD for the economy?
:sarcasm:

[Uben]

18. Worried about over-population?

The entire population of earth could be placed in Texas, and the density would be no more than that of New York City. We are not even close to overpopulation. I also remember reading an article on arable land, and there is enough to sustain us for quite some time yet. Potable water could be a problem though. With the current heating trend, glaciers and ice caps are melting at alarming rates, and desertification is spreading more rapidly than previous centuries. There is plenty of water in the oceans, but it will have to be desalinated.

[dpibel]

19. A NYC the size of Texas?

That's a keen idea.

But why would you want to put the population of the world in Texas, and what do you think it proves? Nobody serious defines "overpopulation" as "running out of room."

It's those other little things you mention, like, oh, arable land and potable water that define carrying capacity.

You might want to look a little further than that article you read one time before you opine too deeply on the state of arable land.

And even you seem to realize that water's going to be a big problem (slight clue: all that water in the ocean that just needs a little desalinization? It takes big energy to get the salt out--and we're running into a little cheap energy problem these days, too.)

If you can't feed people, and you can't supply them with water, they can all fit into Texas. But they'll still be dead soon.

[rman]

34. Nobody defines "overpopulation", period.

Well, rarely if ever, anyway.

The definition is presumed as though it is self-evident. Simply put, the presumed definition is "poverty".

Few seem to realize that there are other, stronger factors causing poverty. The total amount of wealth on earth is plenty to provide a decent living for everyone on this planet.
The problem is in the distribution of that wealth, which is dominated by the most wealthy individuals. They set both their own and workers' salaries and bonuses, they make the rules so-called free-trade, etc. All to their own advantage, and to the disadvantage of the vast majority of people on earth.

Wealth Distribution Statistics
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/wealth_distribution1999.html

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorest people.

<that's a distribution ratio of 1 to 10 million>

The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries.

While global GNP grew 40 percent between 1970 and 1985 (suggesting widening prosperity), the number of poor grew by 17 percent.

Although 200 million people saw their incomes fall between 1965 and 1980, more than 1 billion people experienced a drop from 1980 to 1993. "

<more>

[Codeblue]

20. 300 million is too many

Get much higher than that and we'll really be screwed. We're already experiencing problems with our loss of open space, not to mention a lack of employment opportunities.

[Clarkie1]

21. kick for the late-night crowd n/t

[onja]

22. U.S. can hold a bit more

Overpopulation isn't a problem in 1st world nations. In fact, usually underpopulation is the problem. The main source of calamity is in the third world nations, and they aren't going to stop when we tell them too. Granted, China is doing their part in stopping growth. But they'll be screwed in 50 years (Too many men, old people)

[raccoon]

66. How's that again?

"Overpopulation isn't a problem in 1st world nations. In fact, usually underpopulation is the problem. "

Isn't that like saying to somebody, "Your end of the boat is sinking"?

"they aren't going to stop when we tell them too. "

Huh????

[ToeBot]

24. At about the same time the cost of the Iraq occupation will reach $315bil

So that's about $1050 for every man, woman and child in the country. Boy, that was money well spent. Imagine, some people would have wasted it on universal health care, damn liberals.

[fujiyama]

28. I don't really understand what "too many" means

This is supposedly a wealthy nation that should be able to provide for most of those people. This is also a relatively large nation, so there should be "enough" room (depending on how much each person defines as "enough").

But of course resources are scarce and if we don't find ways to curb our energy use and consumption, eventually our standard of living will undoubtadly get worse.

But when people start saying we have "too many" people, it creeps me outa bit and makes me think some people start becoming despensible. I know that's not anyone's intent, but ultimately I don't like imposing family planning policies like China. While the state can educate people on the potential problems of overpopulation, I don't want the state telling a woman she can't have a baby, any more than I want the state telling her she MUST have one.

And with few exceptions, most people are not continuing to have 3-4 children. The main problem is religious institutions and their lack of understanding of scarcity of resources.

[The2ndWheel]

29. Religious institutions?

That may be a problem, but I think the economic ones have a bigger impact.

"makes me think some people start becoming despensible."

Where have you been? Start becoming? When haven't people been expendable?

[JI7]

31. birth control is a big issue

religious institutions tend to be opposed to them including doing anything they can to prevent the govt and others from teaching birth control methods.

it's many things, but i do think religious institutions play a major role in this area.

[The2ndWheel]

38. No doubt

I'm just saying that I think exponential economic growth has more of an impact. Although that is more of a consumption/production issue than population.

Everything is tied together though, and humans are so out of balance with everything else, something will happen.

[Asgaya Dihi]

30. It's lifestyle, not people

We live in deserts and insist on lush green lawns instead of xeriscaping, we water farms with broad overhead spray patterns that not only waste great amounts to runoff and evaporation but that also require additional chemicals added to deal with fungus and mold now. Drip irrigation and living as if we belong in the area we're in rather than trying to turn it into something else would spread our resources a lot farther.

They used to say the US could feed the world and they weren't too far from the truth, the government has at times paid farmers not to grow so they wouldn't flood the markets with food. Then big business took over and there's hardly a "farmer" left out there these days, same with many other areas of life. The ones we still have are hardly paid no matter what happens to food prices at the market, it's controlled from the top by big business.

We don't have a shortage of resources. We have an excess of self concern and greed.

[rman]

32. To those who say "to many" - what is the basis for your opinion?

[MelliMel]

35. For those who say too many, what is your solution?

Forced abortions? Forced birth control? And let me guess, you fancy yourselves to be on the Board of the All Wise and Knowing and Who Will Decide Who Gets a "Reproduction Pass" and Who Doesn't?

[REP]

40. Education

Not necessarily sex education - just education. The more educated a person is, the less likely that person is to reproduce or have more than 1 or 2 children. The more education a woman has, the fewer children she produces.

In other words - college for everyone!

[MelliMel]

41. I have an education and still had more than the "acceptable" amount

of children. I have 5 kids and an MA. Did my education fail?

This may come as a shock to some, but some of us actually love children and can somehow handle more than 1.

[REP]

44. Then You Should Know Better Than To Post An Anecdote As Evidence

I'm sure you know what a stastical outlier is, right? And that a single anecdote doesn't prove anything?

I, on the other hand, have numeous studies:

EDUCATION AND FUTURE FERTILITY TRENDS
www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ completingfertility/RevisedCLELANDpaper.PDF

The Impact of Education on Fertility and Child Mortality
obssr.od.nih.gov/Documents/ BSSRCC/Seminar_Series/inpresferticomp.pdf

The Impact of Women's Education on Fertility In Latin America
www.nber.org/papers/W10513

The Dynamics of Education and Fertility:. Evidence From a Family Planning Experiment
adfdell.pstc.brown.edu/papers/educ.pdf

The Status of Women
www.prb.org/Content/NavigationMenu/PRB/ Educators/Human_Population/Women/The_Status_of_Women1.htm

Educational attainment and ultimate fertility among Swedish women
www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol14/16/

just to list a very few.

[MelliMel]

59. It was really more sarcastic than anything else.

However, I hate the way education is spun in this light. Almost as if motherhood is reserved for the drooling unenlightened masses. "Get them an education so they won't breed." For many women, we still want children and will still have them. Being educated doesn't mean that you look down upon motherhood. That smacks of arrogance.

[REP]

60. Who Said Anything About Looking Down?

I think you're reading your own prejudices and fears into a simple fact: the more education people have, the smaller families they tend to have. Yes, there will always be those who don't fit the model - childfree highschool dropouts and people with doctorates and six children. They, however, are not the norm.

Education does not make anyone "look down" on parenthood; it gives additional opportunities to them - and their children. That's looking up.

[MelliMel]

62. You have a positive outlook.

As a mom, I have had to endure many "enlightened" women assume that I am oppressed (I'm religious, ergo, I have no say in my life), uneducated, I don't really work ("Oh, you are a stay at home mom/housewife? How lucky you are! I have to work."), and that I am anti-choice (how they come to that I'll never know).

So thanks for being positive. I grow weary of enlightened folk on their self made pedestals telling me how much better they are.

[Tesha]

74. Do you understand that while *YOU* may have been able to choose...

> I have 5 kids and an MA

Do you understand that while *YOU* may have been able to
choose to have 5 kids, sometime not too many generations
down the road, your actions will have foreclosed your
descendents' actions, right?

Because having more than two times your "replacement
rate" is not sustainable in the long run, and we're
pretty quickly closing in on "the long run" that so
many people have been talking about for so long.

Tesha

[The2ndWheel]

42. The problem is that there is no solution

Humans like to increase things, not reduce them. We manipulate life spans with medicine. There is no counter-balance to humans. We play with our environments, we fear no predator, we cheat death. We will either continue to grow in number, or existence will even things out. China has done the forced thing, and they still have a billion people.

[Deja Q]

55. What did China do wrong? Have they looked at their methods and

change them? Or do they keep doing the same thing over and over and expect something different? (Much like how corporations want to crosstrain staff and think that everybody can do everything... :crazy: )

[mike923]

89. Would you like to have your reproductive rights taken away?

That was China's solution.

[hyphenate]

36. Personally

I think the limit should be when the majority of people in our country are receiving nutritional food, healthcare and proper educations, and the amount of poverty in the country is below .3 percent. Once that has been accomplished, we will have grown to our peak in population. As it is, we likely passed that mark about 50 years ago, or earlier.

But to add: China has a population problem which dwarves our own. However, while there are many sections of China that remain intolerable for habitation, they still have more square footage than we do in the contiguous 48 states in comparison. In the former Soviet Union, they too have more space, but I don't know anyone who would choose to settle in Siberia. :)

[mwb970]

39. We have too many idiots.

Look at the crazy things Americans believe, especially the religious nuts and the Fox viewers. The herd needs thinning.

[MelliMel]

43. Of course, herd mentality, as you put it, is ok

if they agree with you, right? If it's your herd and all....

[Deja Q]

51. Nix everyone whose IQ is under 120 and that'll take care of it all!

It's fair and as the republicans rant Americans are dumb; they'd be in their best interests to raise the IQ bar a tad; especially as most are under 120 and most of them are more concerned about the latest kenmore sale at sears...

:crazy:

[Bridget Burke]

46. Overpopulation is a global problem.

Of course, there are also problems with distribution. Some countries--like the USA--use more resources per person than others.

The USA cannot become a Gated Community. Improving the lot of all the world's people--with education & better health care--will help us all. Educated women generally have fewer babies than the uneducated. And I don't mean those with advanced degrees--simple literacy helps.

Let's not forget the USA has crippled international contraception/health aid when those programs even mention abortion as an option.

[Deja Q]

53. An educated populace is also a non-profitable one.

We know our rights.

That is the presumption I'm basing on the destruction of our rights. It is just a presumption, of course...

And most of the people doing the populating are not in the US.

It's a bizarre problem, our world.

But don't blame me for breeding. I can't even get a date. :7

[novalib]

48. 100 Million is Too Many

The Poll does not permit the option of saying that anything less than 300 million is too many.

100 million is too many.

In fact, 50 million is probably too many.

Before the Europeans came to this continent, and raped both the people and the resources here, people lived in balance and harmony with nature.

And there were far fewer than 50 million people.

We would be much better off with far fewer than 50 million people.

[Deja Q]

50. Possibly, but riddle me this: Are you prepared to give up your life

as compensation for our overpopulated planet?

I would answer in the same exact way as you: "No, I most certainly will not!"

[novalib]

54. And Just Why Should I Have To Answer Your Question???!!!!

Why do you pose such a question?

I have no children. I don't intend to add to the extreme overpopulation brought on by people who seem to have need to reproduce.

I think that getting the population from 300 million to something under 50 million can be accomplished without telling people they must kill themselves.

It starts with some severe restrictions on who can reproduce -- and aat what rate they reproduce.

[melm00se]

57. and what

criteria will be used? who will decide the criteria? who will enforce the criteria?

your comment smacks of arrogance....

[novalib]

67. What Criteria?

How the HELL do I know what the criteria will be???!!!

Let's start with what China has already done -- one child per couple.

That should have some effect.

Who decides? WE, THE PEOPLE -- we decide.

Who will enforce the criteria? WE, THE PEOPLE, of course.

As to your snarky comment about "sounding arrogant", I would much rather sound a bit arrogant that be someone who throws up his/her hands, and says, "Oh, we just have to live with 300+ million people because any attempts to diminish the number of people through enlightened policies is arrogant!"

[melm00se]

71. well

if you are so quick to toss around limiting something as basic a human right as reproduction, you damn well better have some ideas as to who and how.

the point that you are missing is that limits like that are so prone for abuse:

Means criteria
Intelligence criteria
Political criteria
Racial criteria

all the things that were used to severely limit and curtail other rights throughout history, your solution would revisit upon us.

Just because "WE, THE PEOPLE" decide that a basic human right belongs to this group but not that other group does not make it right. (qv slavery, segregation etc). I would like you to meditiate on the word and policy known as "eugenics"

Now as to the Chinese view of population control: how many "great" people were not the 1st child of a couple? How many of those geniuses would we toss away?

[novalib]

73. I'll Play

"Now as to the Chinese view of population control: how many "great" people were not the 1st child of a couple? How many of those geniuses would we toss away?"

How many children have died because of over-population? How many children or older people have died because people have brought more mouths into the world? How many people have suffered with lingering diseases because other people have brought more and more people into the world that cause the world's resources to be strained even more?

I have no clue how many geniused were not the first child of a couple!

But I do know this -- people -- many of them very young children -- die horrible deaths from starvation because of overpopulation.

Your "solution" seems to be to let people breed without limit -- no limits on the precious "right" to reproduce. You seem to suggest that ANY effort at all to limit the precious right to breed will necesarily lead to slavery or eugenics or some other terrible horror.

Well, the HORROR is already here. People are starving! Children are starving. Old people are starving. We are running out of reasources to feed the people we have now! We are using so much fertilizer and other chemicals to produce the food now that we are rapidly poisoning the water supplies needed to sustain life!

You want some criteria? How's this -- anyone who is a registered Republican and who votes the Republican ticket is forbidden from having any more children!

I could easily live with that criterion.

[melm00se]

75. ok - tennis shot in return

how many 1st born female children are killed each year because a culture calls for a male child and you only have one shot?

Mozart
Michelangelo
RFK
FDR

shall I continue?

I noticed you completely ignore the human rights aspect of the issue.

BTW, were you the 1st born of your family? got any brothers and sisters? how about your parents? both 1st born?

You seem to suggest that ANY effort at all to limit the precious right to breed will necesarily lead to slavery or eugenics or some other terrible horror.

you underestimate man's inhumanity...rarely are rights restricted fairly and equitably...and something this truly fundamental will bring out the absolute worst in Man.

precious right to...

how about your precious right to life? you are consuming food and other resources and thru some purely arbitrary rule, you get wacked because you aren't....something...

[novalib]

76. One Of Us Just Isn't Getting It.

First borns, second borns, third borns, my consumption of food and other resources.......

One of us jusy isn't getting it.

The fact is that there are already far too many first borns, second borns, third borns, and fourth borns.

There are TOO MANY PEOPLE NOW!!!

And there will continue to be far too many people unless restrictions are placed on people's right to breed without limit.

I am NOT one of those people who favor mass starvation and pandemics caused by overpopulation.

I am NOT one of those people who favor increasing consumption of the world's precious -- and very limited supply of -- natural resources!

I also do NOT advocate killing anyone, as you seem to suggest I do.

What I do suggest is putting limits on the number of new mouths that can come into the world, so that the population can decrease to a level that is actually sustainable.

The HORROR is going on right now, and the horror is caused by unrestrained breeding of new people.

[melm00se]

80. yup

one of us isn't.

Starvation is not a population issue, it is a political one.

more than enough food is grown to feed the planet, but it is politics that prevents the proper distribution.

Myth one: Industrial agriculture will feed the world

The truth:
World hunger is not created by lack of food but by poverty and landlessness, which deny people access to food.
http://www.alternet.org/story/13900/

Not Enough Food to Go Around

Reality: Abundance, not scarcity, best describes the world's food supply. Enough wheat, rice and other grains are produced to provide every human being with 3,500 calories a day. That doesn't even count many other commonly eaten foods - vegetables, beans, nuts, root crops, fruits, grass-fed meats, and fish. Enough food is available to provide at least 4.3 pounds of food per person a day worldwide: two and half pounds of grain, beans and nuts, about a pound of fruits and vegetables, and nearly another pound of meat, milk and eggs-enough to make most people fat! The problem is that many people are too poor to buy readily available food. Even most "hungry countries" have enough food for all their people right now. Many are net exporters of food and other agricultural products.
http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html

The world does produce enough to feed everyone.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4038205.stm

shall I continue?

You are looking to take extremist measures to solve a mundane problem. As with other extremist and extremist's positions, you view your solution as the only viable solution - and damn the rest of us and our solutions.

[novalib]

83. Abundance Comes at a Price

Just how much of that food that is in so much abundance comes about as a result of genetic engineering of plants?

Or as a result of over-fertlization using chemicals that get into the ground water?

Did you know that the aquifers under the Great Plains of the USA (which produces some of the great "abundance" you talk about) are becoming increasingly toxic, because the chemicals used by the large agri-businesses to produce great amounts of food are seeping into the ground water?

Mass populations require mass techniques for farming food. And those very techniques are NOT natural. And, over time, the require an enormous price.

[SteppingRazor]

81. OK, I'll play with that... I have serious problems with your criteria...

The idea that we, in the United States, would restrict people from having children based on their political affiliation is so grotesque I hardly know where to begin. The things that you seem to be suggesting time and again -- war with Republicans, restrictions on the basic rights of Republicans -- are so far from the philosophies behind modern liberalism, and even the very basic tenets of democracy that I can't believe you could possibly take this stuff seriously and still call yourself a Democrat, a progressive, or anything like it.

[novalib]

86. So You Think the World Would Be A Better Place

So, you think the world would be a better place with lots of Young Republicans running around?

Would you allow racists to reproduce without limit? Or fascists?

Are you really willing to allow that in order to protect your own right to breed?

[SteppingRazor]

87. A better place? No, I don't think so.

But would I allow it?

You're damn right I would. To quote Voltaire: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

OK, so he probably didn't really say that. But you get the idea. If we do not give people the freedom to choose their own political philosophies, we will have become the tyrants ourselves.

On edit: And by the way, it has nothing to do with my own "right to breed." I don't intend to have children.

[melm00se]

88. in the thread before

I indicated that you don't underestimate man's inhumanity to man.

Dude you are just proving my point.

where does it end? what other mind sets are excluded from your vision of population controlled utopia?

[Bridget Burke]

63. Please share your criteria on "who can reproduce"....

I'm sure you have some.

[novalib]

68. See Comment #67

N/T

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[novalib]

82. No One Should Be MADE to Reproduce

But unrestrained choice, when it means unrestrained breeding, leads to unrestrained starvation and suffering.

I don't know if your snarky comment about being glad that I have removed myself from the gene pool was meant as an insult (I think it most likely was). I don't consider it an insult at all.

In fact, if more of us were to remove ourselves from the gene pool (and if more of us considered comments like yours NOT to be an insult), the world would gradually become a much better place.

Those of us who remove ourselves from the gene pool are treating Mother Earth a lot better than those who breed without regard to the rest of the planet.

[The Stranger]

78. The question is one of birth rate, not asking people to commit suicide.

There is really no question about this one -- there are too many people for the planet to support.

[AngryAmish]

56. Warren Buffet is a menace then

He is giving his fortune to the Gates Foundation which is devoted to curing endemic diseases. Without these diseases the world's population would be much higher.

Would a proper weaponized disease be more up your alley?

Oh, your noble savage ideas are nonsense. Mankind is mankind and native americans were responsible for a whole lot of enviromental change.

[novalib]

69. He Is??!!

Who said ANYTHING about not curing endemic diseases? YOU brought that subject into the discussion -- NOT me!

And I'll take the "enviromental change" wrought by the Native Americans over the environmental catastrophes (global warming, depletion of resources, etc) wrought by the people who came to these shores since 1700. ANY DAY.

[wuushew]

91. Freepers claim Buffet is a pro-abortionist

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655421/posts


it seems one could conceivably have fewer mouths and fewer malaria parasites at the same time, no?

No one deserves malaria except Chris Mathews.

[Deja Q]

49. We're not even at 300 million until NOW?!

Damn, we've been doing a good job.

Until now.

300 mil is plenty.

How will countries that have BILLIONS resolve their problems?

[Fox Mulder]

52. Most definitely.

[Bushwick Bill]

58. Color me Malthusian.

On worldwide population issues, at least.
http://www.eroei.com/solutions/population.html
http://www.dieoff.org/

Everyone should watch this video.
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/lectures/461
http://media.globalpublicmedia.com/RAM/2005/08/AlbertBartlett.ram

[slackmaster]

61. My problem is that at least 150 million of them are dumbshits

:nuke:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

72. Nature has ways of balancing things out.

Alas, for us, nature is indifferent to species. Even "smart" ones with an overabundance of self-important hubris.

[The Stranger]

79. The religious cults are distracting billions from the true dangers to the

planet, the fact that there are too many people for the planet to support, and preventing people from using contraception.

[Odin2005]

90. The world population should be a 1/10th of what is is now.

There are far to many people on earth to be sustainible if we want everyone to have a Western standard of living. I am for mandatory population control, a one-child policy.

[TheFarseer]

93. Four billion on the planet is too many

as long as we're having this discussion. Of course it's probably more like 6 billion now. I've lost track.

[conflictgirl]

97. How about sensible sex-education, abortion and birth control policies?

The US government's current approach to reproductive policy is contributing to overpopulation both at home and in other countries. Before we start arguing over eugenics, forced sterilizations and mandatory one-child policies, how about pointing the finger at something that shouldn't be controversial at all and doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights? Get religion out of public health policy, start funding real and honest sex ed, make birth control easier to get, make abortions easier to get, and resume funding to similar programs in other countries with higher birth rates.

If anything, current policies are responsible for overpopulation, since so many people who want to prevent or terminate pregnancies are unable to do so and because official sex-ed policy for young people regarding birth control is only to teach that "it doesn't work".