G Huxley Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 I think it's a disaster for the world environment and it will affect Canada as well. Overpopulation is the single biggest problem on the planet right now and has caused the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs died out. Quote
marcus Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 I don't think it will have that big of an effect. China has entered the consumer phase, with a large number of the population moving into cities. Having a large family is no longer feasible. We will see a plateau, just like we are seeing in the West. Quote "What do you think of Western civilization?" Gandhi was asked. "I think it would be a good idea," he said.
Canada_First Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 Meh....this is somewhat newsworthy. Not really much discussion value. Quote
Bonam Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 (edited) China's fertility rates won't increase much, it's already in the natural declining fertility phase of development anyway. Anyway, it will be a big benefit because it will likely mean a reduction in sex-selection in couples who do choose to have children. There is a huge lack of women in China right now because since 1980 parents have been aborting female embryos/fetuses since sons have been considered more valuable than daughters. The lack of women means a lot of males who end up unattached and with no hope of ever finding a wife or even a meaningful relationship, and that means social unrest. Getting rid of this policy means this unrest might only last one generation as opposed to even longer. And unrest in China is a bad thing, both because it is one of the world's largest economies and because it could mean confrontation with its neighbors or other countries. As for the whole overpopulation argument... world population is naturally reaching a plateau anyway and anyone who supports a policy in another nation of forcefully preventing people from having children while continuing to enjoy that freedom themselves is a hypocrite and a cruel and terrible person. Edited October 30, 2015 by Bonam Quote
G Huxley Posted October 30, 2015 Author Report Posted October 30, 2015 I disagree. I've heard this complaint before, but actually it is better if there are less females than males, because the more females the more children can be produced. Quote
Boges Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 I disagree. I've heard this complaint before, but actually it is better if there are less females than males, because the more females the more children can be produced. So perhaps we should provide incentives in the West to reduce the number of females that exist as well. I'm sure that'll go over very well. Quote
Bonam Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 I disagree. I've heard this complaint before, but actually it is better if there are less females than males, because the more females the more children can be produced. If your #1 priority is reducing population, sure. War is very good for that too. As is disease and starvation. But while all those may sound like a good time to you, I would disagree. Quote
Guest Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 It all seems so obvious to me. Forced, reversible sterilization for all male children. Then, if you pass all the tests, it can be reversed. If it's also in the public good. Quote
Rue Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 BC that sounds very StalinHitlerMaoGermaineGreer like. Stay away from my pee pee. Quote
Guest Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 BC that sounds very StalinHitlerMaoGermaineGreer like. Stay away from my pee pee. They wouldn't even know it had been done. It would be like circumcision. It beats the preferred methods of population control of those you mentioned. Not counting GG of course. Quote
GostHacked Posted October 30, 2015 Report Posted October 30, 2015 I think it's a disaster for the world environment and it will affect Canada as well. Overpopulation is the single biggest problem on the planet right now and has caused the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs died out. Overpopulation is not the problem. But the means to this problem have included abortions (many forced by the state) abandoned children, and even infanticide. Boys were preferred over girls, and well, there is now the ratio between men and women are really messed up. I would think that human lives matter, but maybe not. But another strange thing is these large empty cities China has built but no one lives in them. That is also an environmental disaster. Even the dam that was build and put many villages under water is an environmental disaster. Heck, just look at Beijing on a nice 'sunny' day. Quote
G Huxley Posted October 31, 2015 Author Report Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) If your #1 priority is reducing population, sure. War is very good for that too. As is disease and starvation. But while all those may sound like a good time to you, I would disagree. I'm a pacifist. Having restrictions on the number of children that can be produced is a method of reducing a population without disease, starvation and war. It is obviously the better solution. Or perhaps you would prefer disease, famine and war as a method of reducing the population? Edited October 31, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
G Huxley Posted October 31, 2015 Author Report Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) Overpopulation is not the problem. But the means to this problem have included abortions (many forced by the state) abandoned children, and even infanticide. Boys were preferred over girls, and well, there is now the ratio between men and women are really messed up. I would think that human lives matter, but maybe not. But another strange thing is these large empty cities China has built but no one lives in them. That is also an environmental disaster. Even the dam that was build and put many villages under water is an environmental disaster. Heck, just look at Beijing on a nice 'sunny' day. Over population is the problem. It is in fact the #1 problem on this planet right now. "I would think that human lives matter, but maybe not." If our governments thought human lives mattered then we wouldn't be engaged in constant war. When the world is over populated it will start to be obvious that we have over valued human life at the expense of all other life on the planet which shows how selfish humans really are, and that we are not half as great as we like to think. "But another strange thing is these large empty cities China has built but no one lives in them. That is also an environmental disaster. Even the dam that was build and put many villages under water is an environmental disaster. Heck, just look at Beijing on a nice 'sunny' day." Now they've built all those empty cities and now plan to fill them. Yep the world is screwed. Edited October 31, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
Bonam Posted October 31, 2015 Report Posted October 31, 2015 I'm a pacifist. Having restrictions on the number of children that can be produced is a method of reducing a population without disease, starvation and war. It is obviously the better solution. Or perhaps you would prefer disease, famine and war as a method of reducing the population? No, I prefer people to have individual freedom. Quote
Bonam Posted October 31, 2015 Report Posted October 31, 2015 Over population is the problem. It is in fact the #1 problem on this planet right now. Evidence? Quote
-1=e^ipi Posted October 31, 2015 Report Posted October 31, 2015 1 child policy would have lead to an insane population crash in a few decades. A 2 child policy is more sane, and I'm surprised they didn't change it sooner. Quote
G Huxley Posted October 31, 2015 Author Report Posted October 31, 2015 The only thing insane would be a population increase. Quote
G Huxley Posted October 31, 2015 Author Report Posted October 31, 2015 No, I prefer people to have individual freedom. Would you apply the same logic to a serial killer? Quote
G Huxley Posted October 31, 2015 Author Report Posted October 31, 2015 Evidence?We've caused the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs were wiped out. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Posted October 31, 2015 We've caused the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs were wiped out. That's OK....as mass and background extinctions are natural events. Over 99% of all species that have ever lived went extinct long before any human "overpopulation". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bonam Posted October 31, 2015 Report Posted October 31, 2015 Would you apply the same logic to a serial killer? Err... what? Is your implication that having children is the same thing as being a serial killer? Quote
G Huxley Posted October 31, 2015 Author Report Posted October 31, 2015 Overpopulating the earth involves the serial murder of countless species. Quote
G Huxley Posted October 31, 2015 Author Report Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) That's OK....as mass and background extinctions are natural events. Over 99% of all species that have ever lived went extinct long before any human "overpopulation". Go live on Mars then seeing as you prefer dead planets. Edited October 31, 2015 by G Huxley Quote
Bonam Posted October 31, 2015 Report Posted October 31, 2015 Overpopulating the earth involves the serial murder of countless species. Humankind has driven other species to extinction since there were only a few million of us. But at this point species extinction is on the radar and is almost universally regarded as something to be avoided. Humankind is the only species which now takes deliberate steps to try to prevent the extinction of other species. And, if we survive for the long term, then it is likely that many species that exist today will be preserved along with us due to our efforts, species that would otherwise have gone extinct by natural causes otherwise. Go live on Mars then seeing as you prefer dead planets. We'll get there, as well as other planets. Probably even other planets with indigenous lifeforms of some sort, some of which we'll possibly cause the extinction of too. Quote
G Huxley Posted October 31, 2015 Author Report Posted October 31, 2015 "But at this point species extinction is on the radar and is almost universally regarded as something to be avoided."Hardly humans are continuing to drive species to extinction at an ever more alarming rate."Humankind is the only species which now takes deliberate steps to try to prevent the extinction of other species."As a species we haven't done anything to stop our species from exterminating species."And, if we survive for the long term," Not at this rate. "then it is likely that many species that exist today will be preserved along with us due to our efforts, species that would otherwise have gone extinct by natural causes otherwise."The other species are losing the battle against us. "We'll get there, as well as other planets."How will we do that if we've wiped out life on earth? Also why would we do that if we just destroy the life on other planets? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.