quinton

I decided to spread the news and started a topic on this similar forum: http://www.canadiancontent.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=14533 There were some interesting comments there. Check it out.

betsy: Africans go extinct without Western aid? I doubt it. I liked your last post, but just be careful to back up your statements with good reason or fact.

What am I doing? Not owning or operating a car. Educating others. Trying to further my understanding of nature by learning about local wildlife before it becomes extinct. Trying to plan for a fulfilling lifestyle that is environmentally friendly. As far as proposing a solution the the overpopulation problem, it is futile because the public is too wrapped up in the economy to recognize the problem. Without recognizing the problem, the solution will seem extreme. If the public recognized the problem, I would propose the solution to reduce breeding and reduce consumption. (Both have to be done, not just one) Unfortunately all countries, religious groups and corporations have the opposite goal (increase their numbers and increase their consumption). Economic Growth as a goal must be stopped to avoid mass extinctions and war from overcrowding. Life becomes quite cheap when there are 6.5 billion of us, over half living in poverty, rapid species extinctions, low resources per capita, huge gap between rich and poor, and the numbers keep growing. Humans have the power to either destroy or save the planet's natural integrity. They can't save it all because some has been irreparably damaged (many species already extinct, much toxic and nuclear waste, etc)

To even consider the idea that the economy will take care of the environment is ridiculous. (You should look for the nearest rock to crawl under and hide in shame)

geoffery, nobody here suggested a mass cull of humans.

As you will see from the topics I started on these forums, I strongly agree with Eric Pianka's perspective. Indeed, the earth would be in a better ecological balance with 10% of it's current population, and indeed humans would also be better off with 650 million other humans instead of 6.5 billion. His point of view: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/Everybody.html A pseudo obituary with info about Eric Pianka: http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/obit.html

Ultimately your answer may depend on your interests. i.e. whether you like malls and skyscrapers, or whether you long for more vast unspoiled habitable spaces. I believe human's have already taken way more than their share. The population of humans on earth is too high and consequently too much of the earth's resources become consumed by humans. Every country, religious group, and corporation has the same goal: growth of their people and growth in how much each one of their people consumes. Eventually we'll have to ask the question of how much space and resources earth's other inhabitants deserve. If we agree that we need to stop expanding humans on earth, we'll need a complete paradigm shift of values to something other than economic growth.

It is morally wrong in my opinion for humans to expand indefinitely; taking more than their share of the planet's resources away from all other living things. Have humans taken too much of the earth for themselves? There is no "right" answer to this question. It is a matter of opinion. There are scientific facts that support my position however.

The whole point is that there should not be a new 250 unit housing development in an already overpopulated southern Ontario. It is morally wrong in my opinion for humans to expand indefinitely taking more than their share of the planet's resources away from all other living things.

There are too many similarities to list between Harper and Bush -both are evangelical Christians -both think that "God" will save us from our environmental degradation -both want to make abortion illegal so that if a woman gets raped she'll have to add to the 6.5 billion people already overcrowding the world. etc, etc

"we have the resources" Isn't that what Russia said when they sold Alaska to the USA? Do we want to liquidate our resources for short term profits? I sure don't. Look at the clearcuts visible from space at http://maps.google.ca Canada isn't that vast afterall when you consider how many people have a piece of our so-called "unlimited resources".

The whole thing makes me sick how Canadians can be oblivious to the environmental damage occuring in our northern forests. Apparently all Canadians care about is about is the profits of big forestry corporations as they mechanize further to cut more forest using fewer employees. Either that or Canadians have no clue about the kind of clearcutting that is going on and how vast beautiful biologically diverse forests are being eradicated and "replanted" with non-native economic trees with little value to native wildlife.

margrace, are you purposely trying to annoy the person who posted this topic? Your comments have nothing to do with the discussion.

So I guess if the government is about to spend a few billion on a wind turbine farm, it would have prepared by using our CPP contributions to buy stock in a start-up wind mill company before hand. Everything is related to everything else in one way or another.

I just want to emphasize again that I hate Dalton McGuinty. Especially for the fact that he has not made any progressive environmental legislation since he was in office. For starters, he did not take the leadership of stopping clearcutting in Algonquin Provincial Park, which still sneakily goes on.

A non-issue?! Awarding benefits to dependent pairs of people that live together only if they have sex and discriminating against those who do not have sex is not an issue? August1991, I disagree.

August1991: Yeah, but the topic got truncated, so I had to start over since I couldn't edit the topic to make it fit. This board lets me edit post, but not topic, and there's no way of knowing if your topic title is too long until you post it and see whether or not it gets truncated. Perhaps I should have previewed the post. Oh well, there's two topics on the same thing now.

Yes Renegade, I reposted it because in this thread the topic got truncated, and it would not let me edit the topic. Thanks again for sharing your point of view, which I agree with by the way.

Renegade, you have a sensible point of view. I believe fairness, reasonableness and equality should always be the goal.

Yes I think that gays should be able to get CPP Survivor Benefits but only if other partners like a father and son, a brother and sister, two friends, etc who live together can also be eligible for those same benefits. geoffrey, I agree that gay rights are trumping the rights of non-sexual partners. Prior to that, heterosexual rights were trumping human rights. If the CPP Survivor Benefits program exists at all, it must be extended to any dependent partners that cohabit together. Why should the government only award these benefits to partners that are having sex? I don't know what would happen if a partnership claimed common-law status and told the government that they were virgins... maybe the government would tell them that they couldn't have CPP Survivor Benefits. Or what would happen if two family members lied to the government that they were having sex so that they could have CPP Survivor Benefits? Ultimately, Trudeau said it best when he stated that the government does not belong in the bedrooms of society.

Michael, a husband can be a widow too if his wife dies. geoffery, I agree that this benefit should be extended to any pair of humans living together for 'x' days regardless of what their relationship is.

Estimate is that it would only cost $30 million annually to extend this benefit to non-sexual dependent cohabiting partners

A widow is not necessarily a she! You seem to have a narrow mind.

Michael Hardner, you are making no sense. You said "Because they don't need it" ?????? Please explain this. You think that a surviving dependent partner like a brother, son, sister, friend, aunt, etc does not need support when the partner they depend on dies? And you do think a "widow" does? I'd like to hear your rationale for that! BTW the present system allows a husband, wife, or gay partner who is in a common-law relationship to collect the pension benefits of his/her deceased partner until he/she is 60.

Michael Hardner you just said that the system is set up to support dependent people who were living together at the time that the CPP pensioner died. So why do you think that a father and son, two sisters, two friends, etc living together in a dependent relationship wouldn't be worthy of CPP Survivor Benefits as common-law gays or heterosexual couples are?