View Full Version : World wide one child policy
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438
Anyone else think this reporter is an ill-informed jack ass?
She says that the only way to save the planet is to institute a world wide one child policy like China has. She says that China is leading the way in measures to reduce global warming just by having the policy, and that the 1 out of 5 people in the entire world living in China, are not over populating the planet. I'm not even sure I can take this article seriously. Doesn't this lady realize that the majority of 1st world countries have had declining birth rates for years now?
SA Friday
12-10-2009, 14:24
What's Global Warming and where's the proof it exists?
A premis based on a lie is false.
Well, my problem with the article was more along the lines of how she doesn't understand that most of the 1st world countries already have a declining population.
Also, I edited my first post because it's a lady.
Not so much that we are currently over populated, but we are beginning to realize the limits of global resources. One child... yeah sure, why not. Then again I've got 7 kids, so yeah, try to limit me now bitches!
And SA Friday, while you might think that Global Warming is a farce.. you might refocus the concept to Climate Change. I think the majority of organizations have changed their catch phrasing. But, having seen a conservation agencies efforts and data collection, I can say with confidence that there is hard science to support the reality that we, human beings, are indeed impacting the environment to the point of it being worthy of concern. I don't agree that the chicken little approach that many are taking is the right one, but it is scientifically factual.
Zundfolge
12-10-2009, 14:37
You'll notice that EVERY SINGLE "solution" to every "problem" proposed by the left takes liberty from the people and gives power to the government.
Its pretty obvious what their real goals are.
As for man-made threats to the environment, I am 100% convinced AGW is a lie. If its wasn't they could prove it without "cooking the books", since its clear these people are religiously committed to proving that mans actions are harmful to the earth, if we were seriously damaging the world in some other way (ie, not via carbon induced global warming) then they'd have dug that info up and proved it with clean, un-faked science.
Certainly there are places where man made pollution is having a deleterious effect on the local environment, there just simply is no global threat to the environment posed by man (with the possible exception of widespread nuclear war).
Bailey Guns
12-10-2009, 15:06
And SA Friday, while you might think that Global Warming is a farce.. you might refocus the concept to Climate Change. I think the majority of organizations have changed their catch phrasing. But, having seen a conservation agencies efforts and data collection, I can say with confidence that there is hard science to support the reality that we, human beings, are indeed impacting the environment to the point of it being worthy of concern. I don't agree that the chicken little approach that many are taking is the right one, but it is scientifically factual.
Yeah...every time "they" (in this case, the "they" are the ones who demand change in the name of AGW) run into a roadblock selling their product the catch phrase changes. It's a standard tactic used to deflect attention from the issue. Cute. For example, we used to have anti-gun organizations talk about "gun control". Now the new "catch phrase" for many of them is "gun safety measures".
And we're not talking simply about man's impact on the environment...we're talking about the global climate, specifically. Big difference. If we have a factory dumping pollutants into a river, it's easy to measure the negative impact. As for measuring man's impact on the climate...I sure as hell haven't seen any "hard science"...at least none that's irrefutable.
Sure...I believe climate change exists. I also believe that it's pretty much a naturally ocurring phenomenon that would happen with or without man on the planet. As far as it being "hard science" that man is affecting our climate? For every scientist that says this is the case there's at least one who says it isn't. So I don't buy that for a minute. And now we have the .gov saying even CO2 is a dangerous byproduct of man's existence.
AGW is a scam, pure and simple, in my opinion. I believe Zundfolge nailed it when he said:
You'll notice that EVERY SINGLE "solution" to every "problem" proposed by the left takes liberty from the people and gives power to the government.
You can believe in the hard science agenda of the left if you want to. No fair bitching when it starts taking (more?) money out of your pocket, though.
SA Friday
12-10-2009, 15:16
Not so much that we are currently over populated, but we are beginning to realize the limits of global resources. One child... yeah sure, why not. Then again I've got 7 kids, so yeah, try to limit me now bitches!
And SA Friday, while you might think that Global Warming is a farce.. you might refocus the concept to Climate Change. I think the majority of organizations have changed their catch phrasing. But, having seen a conservation agencies efforts and data collection, I can say with confidence that there is hard science to support the reality that we, human beings, are indeed impacting the environment to the point of it being worthy of concern. I don't agree that the chicken little approach that many are taking is the right one, but it is scientifically factual.
Opinions vary.... Think what you will, but annually the entire world's bovine population puts out more ozone depleting gasses via methane than the world's total industrial emissions. Agreed we cannot dump irreverable impacting poisons into the world, but that is entirely different than what global warming asshats like Al Gore are selling. They promote scientific fact that requires faith, and that's bad juju. I don't want mercury in my water table, but then again I don't want Govt forcing $5k worth of emissions controls on to my truck based on faith science or having to shoot steel at waterfoul instead of lead based on a DNR guess. The 'global climate' had been fluxuating as far back as the scientists have explored. Why would it be different now, and the polar bear population is far from in danger. Some enviornmental impact is clear and concise. Using mercury in gold mining, strip mining with pressure hoses, logging entire mountains, the proof is there these have terminal impact to the surrounding areas. Lumping them into this huge picture and concluding we are melting the polar ice caps is science based on faith. Making wide sweeping decisions based on this junk science is criminal.
newracer
12-10-2009, 15:20
Not so much that we are currently over populated, but we are beginning to realize the limits of global resources. One child... yeah sure, why not. Then again I've got 7 kids, so yeah, try to limit me now bitches!
And SA Friday, while you might think that Global Warming is a farce.. you might refocus the concept to Climate Change. I think the majority of organizations have changed their catch phrasing. But, having seen a conservation agencies efforts and data collection, I can say with confidence that there is hard science to support the reality that we, human beings, are indeed impacting the environment to the point of it being worthy of concern. I don't agree that the chicken little approach that many are taking is the right one, but it is scientifically factual.
I'd like to see that hard science.
It doesn't bother anyone that this person is spouting a one-child per family solution to a problem that doesn't even exist?
http://www.indexmundi.com/map.aspx?v=Birth+rate%28births%2F1%2C000+populatio n%29
Look at this map of fertility rates and you'll see that nearly every single country that is blamed for mass pollution already has a dwindling birth rate. Why is the author even suggesting this plan then?
**Note: I tried to look up where the birth rate switches from positive to negative, but I'm kind of busy at work and didn't find it.
GreenScoutII
12-10-2009, 15:32
I have four children of my own. This day and age, mine is considered a large family. Historically, we would have been considered average to small in size. Do I think the world is becoming overpopulated? No, I really don't. Overpopulated as compared to what?
As far as environmental inpact, yes more people on earth will consume more resources. This is more of a concern if we are talking about food supplies and access to potable water. The population surge is largely in asia. Specifically China and India. As such, these places are where we are observing the growing pains. I think over time as these countries modernize they will observe the same phenomenon (sp?) as western countries in terms of birth rate. It will decline and eventually stabilize. My point is this supposed problem is inherently self limiting.
As far as global warming is concerned, sure, I can see tha data and agree the earth does appear to be getting warmer. So what? Science has also documented that the earth has done this countless times before. We have ice ages followed by warming periods followed by ice ages again. Its all part of a natural cycle. Do humans contribute to it? Possibly. I think climate change will occur independently of any of our actions though. I do believe in developing clean energy sources and using them as much as possible but not because it will "save the Earth"..
Consider the so called green house gasses. Carbon dioxide and the like are also produced in massive volumes when volcanoes erupt. I think what we as a species produce is paltry by comparison.
Just my two cents fellas.....
I am in full agreement with GreenScout on this one.
green scout has it right.
I've shut the mouths of several libtards by telling them that a single volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gasses into the air than humans have produced in all of history.
Where did you hear that Elhuero?
GunTroll
12-10-2009, 16:59
Maybe and I mean maybe if the parents IQ was too low, I would support this measure. I like to think of it kind of like QDM. Maybe we can call it QHM. Dumb people breed way to fast. Bad genes messes up the pool. They need to be weeded out. Whaaaaat? Sounds like Nazi talk! Never mind!
I know this wouldn't work but thought I'd share all the same. If the government gains anymore control over us we are to blame.
Someone on another board suggested a cap and trade kind of measure, where you buy the rights to another child from someone else. Bad Juju.
Zundfolge
12-10-2009, 19:10
Someone on another board suggested a cap and trade kind of measure, where you buy the rights to another child from someone else. Bad Juju.
My wife and I can't have children ... I could go for this [Flower]
I'd use the money to buy another gun (or parts for my Porsche)
just another thing the .gov would like to control...how many kids we have.
in some cases (like the octomom lady) it would be a blessing, but that is an extremely small percentage which is so minuscule that is doesn't count.
or you could do like india and have an ultrasound, if it is a female, the .gov can pay the family to abort it, but then anti-abortion groups will offer more money to the family to keep the kid and put it up for adoption.
In the end, no one should have any impact on how many kids a family wants to have. there is too much control over our lives, there doesn't need to be control on how many lives we can bring into this world.
fuck this bitch.
I've seen several documentaries on the science channel and NatGeo that debunk the man made "global" bs.( a way for Al to make $$, to pay his 4 figure monthly electric bill at his "modest" home)
As for the kid thing we now have a residual thing going. Our kids are producing them things.
I'm not done having kids yet.
They can be a good income producer.. At least when we grew up on the farm we were productive or we didn't eat....
ColoEnthusiast
12-10-2009, 22:19
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ
Troublco
12-10-2009, 22:27
You have to consider the source with stuff like this. Sort of like when the 17 year old kid at McD's goofs your order up....Sure, you expect them to be able to do it right. But when they don't it isn't exactly a surprise, either.
Or, I suppose, you could quote Forrest Gump here.
Stupid is as Stupid does.
green scout has it right.
I've shut the mouths of several libtards by telling them that a single volcanic eruption puts more greenhouse gasses into the air than humans have produced in all of history.
Ouch. That's not even close to being true. Annually, ALL the CO2 emitted by volcanoes is less than 1% of that produced by human activities.
I loved the comment that over population is a self correcting issue. Ain't disease and famine just aaaaaaaaaaaaawSOME! uhg... But seriously, attempting to support populations with localized resources not sufficient to the need could be considered the source of wide ranging trade. Hey, that guy 100 miles away grows grain.. I can only grow beans.. if we trade, we have more food, if we have more food, we can have more people.. they can take care of us in old age, or better yet, we can go invade grain dude and take his shit and still keep our beans! ***Rinse*** Repeat*** Fun and Games in the Middle East and otherwise worthless parts of the globe ensue today. What's next, Helium3 wars on the moon?
I'm not too heavily versed in population statistics on a global basis, but I truly believe that at some point we will see some sort of breeding cap (cap and trade for kids?).. there just isn't anything truly necessitating it at this point in history.
On our other subject:
What I find most concerning here is that only one person began to branch out of the media fixation some have obviously adopted. The Global Climate Change issue is not solely focused on CO2 .. I would happily share the materials that are being gathered and consolidated but there are some pesky pre-release constraints. In short, the really smart sum-bitches here working on this stuff [..yeah, some are just as blinded but the majority are very open minded and acting like.. eh.. SCIENTIST and not zealots.. I've met and had beers with some of these guys] .. have managed to encourage me to look at the broader picture. They are just as pissed with the media and the failure of some conservation organizations in our own government to accurately and effectively talk about what the big picture looks like. Carbon and all that is the flavor of the moment, but there is soooooooooooooo much more going on here.
Do not mistake my statements for me being on of the zealots. I firmly believe we are in the midst (and have been for 20 years) of a PR campaign. One that obviously has some folks so fixated on a single facet that they cannot (people or the damned media) look at the whole picture. There are numerous facets involved, not just the petty shit going on here in Colorado, America, N. America or any other one or two parts of the world. It's the only frakking planet we have right now. It is a complex system and subject to many influencing factors, several of which are caused by mankind.
Naive comments like "bovines emit more CO2 than man" or that "Volcano's emit more than man" are just that, NAIVE. Why do we have so many damn cows? Oh yeah, they are a frakking food source for.. yup, you guessed it.. MANKIND (tie back to the over population intent of the thread)... Volcano's eh? Cause that happens all the time, but yeah, when they blow, they throw even more crap into the atmosphere thus compounding the crap we already dump there at a more consistent and persistent rate, not to mention what we do to land fills, the oceans, our critically needed water supplies inland, forrest ect... ect... ect..
I'm not supporting anything like that asshat Al Bore, er, Gore or any of the world is dying crowd of fuzzy tree huggers.. but I'm saying, stop being so singly focused here.
This is a complex and multifaceted issue. To not pay attention to the bigger picture is something I'll liken to ignoring an on coming train when your car is stuck straddling the rails. Yeah you have an opprotunity to get your ass off the tracks if you do something, but sitting there saying that there is no train or only that your car won't start is just down right ignorant.
I can tell you what causes the population growth to go negative... education and income. Well educated rich people are much less likely to have as many children as poor / uneducated people.
It's stupid to think that humans are incapable of creating damage to the entire biosphere.
http://carbonquilt.org/images/about/vis/atmo-sphere.jpg
That pink ball is all the atmosphere around our world, rolled up into a ball. Into that ball we are pumping more CO2 every year than the year before. So the problem is that growth is non-linear. China is turning up a new coal fire plant every week, while poor farmers in the Amazon burn down rainforest to provide farming / grazing land.
I agree that we don't need to implement Cap and Trade shit yet, I think we have enough time to move over "gently" to better technologies. I mean, I'd rather have solar panels on my house that produce the majority of my power anyway, so if the grid is down my power stays on. I'd love to switch to Fast Spectrum Pebble Bed Modular Reactors, I think smart nuclear is going to be the "base load" of the future.
I think that the only pieces of technology we're really missing are 60% efficient PV cells and a 10x increase in batteries. Perhaps these nano-particle "ultracapacitors" will work. I'd rather have an electric car with 100% torque available at 0 rpm. With motors integrated into each wheel.
End rant.
GunTroll
12-11-2009, 11:56
Wasn't there a movie that kind of hit on the dumb people are breeding faster than smart people. Can't think of it but it has Luke Wilson in it. Bad movie but it hit on this.
Idiocracy, and it was a wonderful movie.
"Electrolytes, it's what plants crave!"
Here is my favorite response to this on another board:
Hell of an idea. Tell poor, illiterate people in third world countries not to fuck. Sounds fool-proof.
GreenScoutII
12-11-2009, 12:26
I loved the comment that over population is a self correcting issue.
Goodmorning Badshot, I'm glad you enjoyed that one. I still stand by my origional point that with a trend toward modernization in the developing world will eventually result in a declining birthrate.
I'm not too heavily versed in population statistics on a global basis, but I truly believe that at some point we will see some sort of breeding cap (cap and trade for kids?).. there just isn't anything truly necessitating it at this point in history.
Ok, I'll allow that maybe I'm a little grumpy as I'm really trying to quit smoking right now, but seriously, am I understanding you right? Maybe you didn't intend it this way, but it sounds like you are advocating forced family planning if it becomes "necessary" in the future..
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but that statement sounds a little Nazi-esque for my liking. I really believe the government being involved in deciding how many children people should have is more horrifiing than just about anything else I can think of. No thanks.
Naive comments like "bovines emit more CO2 than man" or that "Volcano's emit more than man" are just that, NAIVE. Why do we have so many damn cows? Oh yeah, they are a frakking food source for.. yup, you guessed it.. MANKIND (tie back to the over population intent of the thread)... Volcano's eh?
Ok, so maybe I'm naive. So what do you suggest? No more cattle? Good luck with that. I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one here who is not willing to give up steak and cheeseburgers.http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/icons/icon8.gif
Easy Greenscout, I think he's saying that it doesn't matter if something produces more CO2 than mankind, because when those events happen, it's just going to be added to whatever effect we have. So since our "carbon footprint" (<- God I hate that term, I'm going to go wash my hands for typing it) is the only variable we can control, it is in our best interest to keep it as small as possible.
Wasn't there a movie that kind of hit on the dumb people are breeding faster than smart people. Can't think of it but it has Luke Wilson in it. Bad movie but it hit on this.
We don't have time for Starbucks!
As I understand it, when it comes to Volcanoes it's not the CO2 as much as the sulfur dioxide. It reflects more light than does CO2.
But anyway, I'll be happy when we aren't paying the middle east billions of dollars a year for energy. An infrastructure where everyone produces at least some portion of their power locally is also appealing to me. It's more robust than a largely centralized power grid.
GreenScoutII
12-11-2009, 13:32
Easy Greenscout, I think he's saying that it doesn't matter if something produces more CO2 than mankind, because when those events happen, it's just going to be added to whatever effect we have. So since our "carbon footprint" (<- God I hate that term, I'm going to go wash my hands for typing it) is the only variable we can control, it is in our best interest to keep it as small as possible.
Sorry... I'm not trying to be a prick. I really am trying to quit smoking. I'm grumpy as hell!!!!
Washing your hands after typing "carbon footprint" is the funniest thing I've heard all day! Thank you for that!
GreenScoutII
12-11-2009, 13:34
As I understand it, when it comes to Volcanoes it's not the CO2 as much as the sulfur dioxide. It reflects more light than does CO2.
But anyway, I'll be happy when we aren't paying the middle east billions of dollars a year for energy. An infrastructure where everyone produces at least some portion of their power locally is also appealing to me. It's more robust than a largely centralized power grid.
I'm with you on this one. I have 40 acres and one thing I have plenty of around here is wind! When finances improve, I really want to install a wind turbine...
GunTroll
12-11-2009, 17:44
We don't have time for Starbucks!
What does this mean?
Ouch. That's not even close to being true. Annually, ALL the CO2 emitted by volcanoes is less than 1% of that produced by human activities.
then those were some dumb libtards, weren't they?
It's a quote from Idiocracy. All the Starbucks in the movie were also strip club/brothels.
I'm with you on this one. I have 40 acres and one thing I have plenty of around here is wind! When finances improve, I really want to install a wind turbine...
Build your own! If some 14 year old in Africa can... There are video tutorials online on how to make it. You can start with a generator and build your own blades and tower, or you can go so far as to do your own windings.
Also there are very efficent PV cells you can buy that are 4" by 4". You build your own heliostat out of mirrors that reflect onto it. They're sold as "Sunflower".
Anyway, good luck on quitting smoking... I quit back in August, when I went up above treeline and couldn't walk very far without being out of breathe.
What does this mean?
Ah yes as Sturtle said it's from the movie Idiocracy. If you liked Office Space, you might enjoy this. Same writer/director.
H.
GreenScoutII
12-11-2009, 19:08
Build your own! If some 14 year old in Africa can... There are video tutorials online on how to make it. You can start with a generator and build your own blades and tower, or you can go so far as to do your own windings.
You know, thats a good idea. I'll ask my friend Google about it tonight and see what he tells me. I don't see why I couldn't. I can weld, wire, machine, etc.
Thanks for the heads up!
then those were some dumb libtards, weren't they?
Naive for believing you were stating facts, maybe. My brother-in-law quoted some figures at me once that proved AGW was a lie, but we were in a restaurant at the time. Once I got home and actually looked up what he had said, it turns out he'd been drinking your side's kool aid :)
Pancho Villa
12-11-2009, 22:53
There was a great guest speaker at DU a few weeks ago, who made an interesting point:
Regardless of the status of man-made global warming, the ability to cope with climate change and disasters is substantially better in places that are economically free than those that are not (and thus far less developed.)
Industrialization results in some bad stuff (pollution, waste, etc,) but the benefits so far outweigh the drawbacks that any serious talk of cutting back is a non-starter. Without industrialization probably half or more of us would have died of malnutrition before the age of 5, like kids did back in the middle ages. Even if you take the catastrophic, panic-mongering global warming folks seriously in their predictions, the only way to create a serious dent in our "carbon footprint" is to seriously start de-industrializing. I don't know about you, but I'll deal with 20 feet more of sea level over being dead because there isn't enough land to feed 300 million people in the US without industrial technology.
Or, as my wife has in her email sig:
City smog and filthy rivers are not good for men (though they are not the kind of danger that the ecological panic-mongers proclaim them to be). This is a scientific, technological problem-not a political one-and it can be solved only by technology. Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is whole-sale death.
two shoes
12-11-2009, 23:48
You know, thats a good idea. I'll ask my friend Google about it tonight and see what he tells me. I don't see why I couldn't. I can weld, wire, machine, etc.
Thanks for the heads up!
I have a book on home brew electric power.... I can let you borrow it....
Goodmorning Badshot, I'm glad you enjoyed that one. I still stand by my origional point that with a trend toward modernization in the developing world will eventually result in a declining birthrate.
Ok, I'll allow that maybe I'm a little grumpy as I'm really trying to quit smoking right now, but seriously, am I understanding you right? Maybe you didn't intend it this way, but it sounds like you are advocating forced family planning if it becomes "necessary" in the future..
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but that statement sounds a little Nazi-esque for my liking. I really believe the government being involved in deciding how many children people should have is more horrifiing than just about anything else I can think of. No thanks.
Nah you're not being cranky dude.. hard shit there, quitting smoking is a full born bastard. [Luck]
I'm not saying I am a supporter population controls.. I've got 7 kids, well unless we can stop stupid from spreading, but that ain't happenin' obviously.. look at Europe.
No what I said was that I expect that at some point that breeding restrictions will come down the pipe, more likely something along the lines of Genetic controls ala the movie "Gatica".
Think most folks are getting my point. Neither issue is founded or strongly supported on a single facet. I have also said time and again, I don't buy in to the over-reacting-fear-mongering libtards that insist that doom is upon us.
Ok, so maybe I'm naive. So what do you suggest? No more cattle? Good luck with that. I'm willing to bet I'm not the only one here who is not willing to give up steak and cheeseburgers.http://www.co-ar15.com/forums/images/icons/icon8.gif
That comment was more to point out that there are many "contributors" involved, something that the average Joe and the media often choose to over look.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.