Have Three Kids? I Guess You Hate the Environment.

[Rhodmhire]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,486390,00.html
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life ... 627634.ece
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/25/it% ... an-2-kids/

This is very old, but even to this day it's frightening how anyone could think this up.

I'll let you read the stories in the links above, or search it yourself, but the point is--Jonathon Porritt, a British global warming advocate, spoke about this subject a while back. He said:

“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate." As well as:

“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”

I'll admit, if you're financially unstable, on welfare [*cough* Nadya Suleman *cough*], or a struggling single parent--it might be best to have a limited number of kids, or just wait until you're financially stable, off welfare, or get re-married [or you're at least suited enough to raise your children]. But honestly, even if you're the most financially unstable welfare-hog of a single mother in the world--I can't, and shouldn't be able to tell you how many kids you can have.

Poritt looks like he's leaning towards an era where having more than two kids, regardless of how stable you are--financially or otherwise--is simply seen as irresponsible. Like having a car that runs off of gas is seen as irresponsible these days. Even though it's not when you get down to it. And quite frankly, Poritt shouldn't go around telling people what a decent number of kids to have is. That's something for families to decide for themselves. I'd like to see him say that if he had three kids, and I don't believe he does.

I know global warming advocates encourage recycling, and reducing pollution--that's all good, but it's these kind of things that make me think global warming is destroying true environmentalism. We're supposed to make Earth clean and beautiful out of our own hearts' intents, not limit our family size, waste money driving certain cars, and have our entire houses' energy replaced to do virtually nothing for the environment--or at least not what doing those things are supposed to do.

No offense, but to those of you who think you're saving the Earth by doing these things, you're wasting your efforts.

I think if we're going to encourage abortions of third children to help stop global warming, we mineaswell all kill ourselves now. Since we do exhale CO2. Therefore you and I are polluting the air as we speak.

Good thing we're not really, since global warming is a myth.

So what do you think about all of this? I know it's kind of an old issue, I felt like bringing it up, as it continues to vex me to this day.

[Galloism]

Doesn't it stand to reason that if people were only allowed to have two kids, the human population would decrease by the number of people who decided to only have one or those who had none?

[Sudreich]

Why have a decent environment if you have no kids to hand it for?

Some people grossly overrate environment.

[Chumblywumbly]

And quite frankly, Poritt has no right telling people what a decent number of kids is.

Why doesn't he?

He thinks it's environmentally unsound to have more than two children (in a developed country?). I see no lack of right in him to tell this to the world.

Good thing we're not really, since global warming is a myth.

Ahhh dear...

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I have three kids and I love the environment. Especially the muddy parts.

[Exilia and Colonies]

Put the exaggerations away and think about the point seriously. The earth is not infinitely big, nor does it have infinite food and water production capabilities. Therefore total sustainable population size is limited. Therefore 3 child families will eventually lead to collapse if they become the norm.

*note: argument assumes space travel not becoming reasonably viable while this process happens*

[Rhodmhire]

And quite frankly, Poritt has no right telling people what a decent number of kids is.

Why doesn't he?

He thinks it's environmentally unsound to have more than two children (in a developed country?). I see no lack of right in him to tell this to the world.

I should re-word that. He can say it, but it's wrong.

He'll have no right to do it when he tries to enforce a law telling people what a decent number of kids to have is.

Ahhh dear...

Don't tell me you buy into the global warming scam?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If it were up to me, humanity would teether on the brink of extintion.

[Atreath]

While I would never have more than 2 children for multiple reasons. The environment isn't one of them. And these population control types scare me frankly.

[Exilia and Colonies]

Don't tell me you buy into the global warming scam?

Global warming is not the be all and end all of evironmental conservation. With increasing populations you're going to run into water supply problems first anyway.

[Rhodmhire]

If it were up to me, humanity would teether on the brink of extintion.

There'd be no room for production, humanity would be too focused on trying not to become extinct, opposed to enhanced research aside from that matter.

You seem fond of scientific advancement from what I've seen you posting--there wouldn't be much in a world like that, aside from science involved with keeping humanity barely alive--not a very open and vibrant scientific department if you ask me...

[Ledarre]

Don't tell me you buy into the global warming scam?

Global warming is not the be all and end all of evironmental conservation. With increasing populations you're going to run into water supply problems first anyway.

Hold on surely:

Higher population=Less water=Hihger death rate= Lower population= More water

so in theory the problem would sort its self out

[Exilia and Colonies]

Don't tell me you buy into the global warming scam?

Global warming is not the be all and end all of evironmental conservation. With increasing populations you're going to run into water supply problems first anyway.

Hold on surely:

Higher population=Less water=Hihger death rate= Lower population= More water

so in theory the problem would sort its self out

Oh of course the problem would self correct. In the form of mass death. People don't like mass death for obvious reasons.

[Rhodmhire]

Don't tell me you buy into the global warming scam?

Global warming is not the be all and end all of evironmental conservation. With increasing populations you're going to run into water supply problems first anyway.

As much as I'd love to take the easy route to solving the population issue, doing this would cause immense complications.

You honestly don't believe if there were Population Laws, that everyone would follow them? Millions of children would be born illegally, complications would be immense, it'd be pointless.

It would fail in a matter of months.

I agree, population issues are increasing daily, but we can't just limit reproductive offspring and call it a day. It doesn't work that way. We either need to distribute the resources being consumed differently, find new ways to produce them, and once we're producing them, use that time to figure out alternative ways to stablize the consumption desires.

For example, people want oil, oil's running out. Stop depending on foreign oil, drill offshore, stablize oil production and satisfy consumption demands, utilize the time to study and develop alternative resources further, and slowly transition from A. to B.

It's far more complex than that, but it's the general picture.

[Techno-Soviet]

Good thing we're not really, since global warming is a myth.

Oh bolly, I do so hope you're joking about this.

[Farnhamia Redux]

Global warming is not the be all and end all of evironmental conservation. With increasing populations you're going to run into water supply problems first anyway.

Hold on surely:

Higher population=Less water=Hihger death rate= Lower population= More water

so in theory the problem would sort its self out

Oh of course the problem would self correct. In the form of mass death. People don't like mass death for obvious reasons.

I don't know why they don't, I mean, it's more than likely to just be poor people who die off, and there are always plenty of them. Not like we'll be running out of them, y'know?

[Rhodmhire]

Good thing we're not really, since global warming is a myth.

Oh bolly, I do so hope you're joking about this.

I don't believe it exists, and if it does, that it's not the global warming the celebrities on the shiny T.V. box says it is.

I have my reasons, and will be sure to create a forum post in the very near future describing my reasonsings.

Short answer is, I find a vast majority of the "evidence" to be psuedo-science. I think the argument itself is very one sided and needs to open up more debate. Screw Al Gore saying the debate is over. The debate is never over.

And I know you probably think I'm crazy because "all the scientists think it's true" or something.

But let me tell you, it used to be the crazy mentality to disagree with "all the scientists" who thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

[Tivea]

Good thing we're not really, since global warming is a myth.

Oh bolly, I do so hope you're joking about this.

Joking about the truth? Why would he be?

[Ledarre]

[/quote]

Oh of course the problem would self correct. In the form of mass death. People don't like mass death for obvious reasons.[/quote]

I should imagine that due to lack of vital supplies there would be little choice in the matter... and I did'nt mean deliberate mass death

[Exilia and Colonies]

Don't tell me you buy into the global warming scam?

Global warming is not the be all and end all of evironmental conservation. With increasing populations you're going to run into water supply problems first anyway.

As much as I'd love to take the easy route to solving the population issue, doing this would cause immense complications.

You honestly don't believe if there were Population Laws, that everyone would follow them? Millions of children would be born illegally, complications would be immense, it'd be pointless.

It would fail in a matter of months.

I agree, population issues are increasing daily, but we can't just limit reproductive offspring and call it a day. It doesn't work that way. We either need to distribute the resources being consumed differently, find new ways to produce them, and once we're producing them, use that time to figure out alternative ways to stablize the consumption desires.

For example, people want oil, oil's running out. Stop depending on foreign oil, drill offshore, stablize oil production and satisfy consumption demands, utilize the time to study and develop alternative resources further, and slowly transition from A. to B.

It's far more complex than that, but it's the general picture.

Well thats alright then. Its not a massive issue but it has the potential to become one. Besides the current population growth rate is 1.1%ish so it shouldn't be too hard to do something about.

[UNIverseVERSE]

But let me tell you, it used to be the crazy mentality to disagree with "all the scientists" who thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

Actually, no, it wasn't. Because realising the fact that the Earth moved was basically the first step on the road to modern science. There were not any scientists before this point, or at least none who can be accurately defined as scientists under the modern definition of the term.

[Gendara]

Doesn't it stand to reason that if people were only allowed to have two kids, the human population would decrease by the number of people who decided to only have one or those who had none?

The biggest problem is one of equality of burden. What does it really accomplish if the most affluent and educated members of the most developed nations voluntarily limit reproduction if the majority of other nations refuse to do the same?

From a statistical standpoint, the people least likely to produce a lot of kids are the exact people we should probably be ENCOURAGING to have kids. As a species, we're breeding for mediocrity.

[Galloism]

From a statistical standpoint, the people least likely to produce a lot of kids are the exact people we should probably be ENCOURAGING to have kids. As a species, we're breeding for mediocrity.

Or...

[JarVik]

While I'll agree that the worlds human population is a bit of a problem, I don't think laws about how many kids you have is an appropriate solution for a number of reasons.

If you wanted to stabilize or decrease the worlds population, education and equal rights for women in the developing world is the way to go. As it currently stands most western/developed nations are hovering on or real close to the 0 growth line, the average population growth of western nations would be slightly negative if immigration from the developing world wasn't toping it up just a bit.

Myself, I've got 1 kid and I'll probably have 2 or 3 but the worlds population problem isn't going to be a deciding factor for me there, its not like I live in a small desert nation thats had the population double in 20 years.

[Falsonia]

Since we do exhale CO2. Therefore you and I are polluting the air as we speak.

Hey, guess what! You're wrong!.

You see, the CO2 that we exhale comes from the respiration of the cells within our bodies, and is produced as a by-product of the breaking down of glucose to form ATP, which the cells use for energy. That glucose comes from (not directly, mind, but it still does) the things that we eat. The CO2 that we exhale, and this is coming from a University of Chicago professor (not me, but he and I were having a conversation about this topic a few weeks ago), is a directly recycled form of the component elements that were sequestered in the various structures of the things that we eat. This recycling happens on such a short term that the absence of those component elements has no effect in terms of greenhouse gasses.

The component elements of the CO2 that is released by the burning of fossil fuels, on the other hand, have been locked in the hydrocarbons that make up those fossil fuels for so long that their absence certainly has had an effect in terms of greenhouse gasses and the greenhouse effect in general.