How Do We Deal With Overpopulation, While Respecting Human Rights?

[bush_cheney2004]

25 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trudeau's policies push to reduce climate change.  Trump's policies reduce climate change counter-measures.  The work of past presidents is in the past.

 

That's what Chretien, Martin, and Harper said too...led to a massive Kyoto FAIL.

Why can't Canada do better if it is so important ?

 

[Zeitgeist]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's what Chretien, Martin, and Harper said too...led to a massive Kyoto FAIL.

Why can't Canada do better if it is so important ?

 

I agree.  Action should match policy.

[taxme]

19 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I put solar panels on my house (cost $33000.00 CAN) and I recycle/reuse everything I can.  I don't understand your argument.  Are you suggesting that by pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement the U.S. is going to be more persuasive in leading countries to cut emissions, especially large emitters like China?  The U.S. had a huge head start in industrial development over China and India, which are trying to reach the U.S.'s standard of development.  You want China and India to make sacrifices without having your benefits.  The current U.S. government wants to retain all the benefits of its high level of development without making any sacrifices.  Global warming has no borders and requires international measures.

I would never spend $33,000 to solar panel my house. Ridiculous. Personally, that is a hell of a lot of money being blown on your part for nothing. For that price the whole house must be solar paneled from top to bottom then, eh? So, do you own a car? If so, are you planning on selling it to help save your environment?

How does recycling help stop global warming? We are not talking about pollution here. I don't understand you argument either. Why are you in a panic over global warming is beyond me. There are probably a thousand people like you in Canada that does not give a crap about global warming. Do you honestly think that tens of millions of Canadians are going to follow your example and go spend $33,000 to solar panel their houses? Not very likely. And I am sure they are not going to sell their vehicles either. 

I am not aware of why the US pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement and nor do I care. Let China and India be the persuasive ones here. With China and India having a population between the two of them of over two billion people do you think that they will ever come anywhere close to being able to stop global warming on their part? Not very likely. Let them make the sacrifices. They are the biggest global warming producing countries if they are at all. Then you have Africa, Middle East and Europe to deal with also. The only people that make plenty of money off of people like you are David Suzuki and Al Gore and so many more like them who have been able to convince people like you that there is a real problem here. They get people like you all upset over nothing. Those two misfits alone are great contributors to this so called global warming crises. They fly around the world in jet airplanes and own several houses and cars between them. Those two are a fine example of hypocrites if you ask me.  

[Zeitgeist]

The reason that recycling, reducing and reusing is important isn't only to prevent adding more waste to landfills.  It takes energy to produce products.  Much of our energy is produced through the burning of fossil fuels, which emits greenhouse gases.  Incineration of waste also emits GG.  Transportation of waste emits GG.  Reducing energy consumption is important.

[eyeball]

Quote

How Do We Deal With Overpopulation, While Respecting Human Rights?

Short answer?

We don't, or won't as the case will be.

[Rue]

Short answer, at this time human rights activists have declared any  attempt to contain population growth a human rights violation.

Bottom line, planned parenthood let alone population control is shrouded in references to illuminati conspiracies of the hidden elite trying to consolidate their control, by wiping out unruly savages they do not need as slaves.

Me I am only too glad to cooperate. I am rotting as we speak and will feed myself to the vultures soon enough.

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, Rue said:

Me I am only too glad to cooperate. I am rotting as we speak and will feed myself to the vultures soon enough.

I'm sorry to hear that rue.

[Rue]

On ‎10‎/‎14‎/‎2018 at 7:03 PM, eyeball said:

I'm sorry to hear that rue.

. Does your liberal guilt have no limits? Gads such a  Saint.

[turningrite]

On 9/30/2018 at 11:56 PM, eyeball said:

Short answer?

We don't, or won't as the case will be.

Actually, population growth will take care of itself except for a few areas in the world where cultural factors promote the retention of high birth rates. I believe the UN estimates that after 2050 about half the world's countries will experience population decline due to declining birth rates. The only Western countries that won't do so are those with high immigration rates. Perhaps limiting immigration to the West might encourage more responsible family planning elsewhere, where it's really necessary. Our goal in Canada, where due to our climate we're high level GHG emitters on a per capita basis, should be population stability rather than population growth.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, turningrite said:

Actually, population growth will take care of itself except for a few areas in the world where cultural factors promote the retention of high birth rates. I believe the UN estimates that after 2050 about half the world's countries will experience population decline due to declining birth rates. The only Western countries that won't do so are those with high immigration rates. Perhaps limiting immigration to the West might encourage more responsible family planning elsewhere, where it's really necessary. Our goal in Canada, where due to our climate we're high level GHG emitters on a per capita basis, should be population stability rather than population growth.

I expect it'll be nature 'taking care' of things.  It's more likely that hundreds of millions perhaps billions will be dying from environmental causes by 2050.  Limiting immigration to the west will be a pretty heartless and at times violent business.  Canada will be overrun from the south.

[turningrite]

22 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I expect it'll be nature 'taking care' of things.  It's more likely that hundreds of millions perhaps billions will be dying from environmental causes by 2050.  Limiting immigration to the west will be a pretty heartless and at times violent business.  Canada will be overrun from the south.

I think these fears are vastly overblown. According to UN projections, the world's population growth curve is set to flatten considerably, particularly after 2050. Sure, there will be places that experience varying degrees of environmental stress, particularly due to rising seas as well as food scarcity. However, virtually all countries immediately south of Canada, with the exception of the U.S. itself, are expected to experience natural population decline between 2050 and 2100. Between 2050 and 2100, Brazil's population is project to decline by almost 30 million and Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, Jamaica, Colombia and Peru are all expected to experience population decline. There will be little or no population stress in the Western Hemisphere, with the possible exception of a few countries in Central America like Guatemala and Honduras. Africa, especially Nigeria and the DR of the Congo, and some countries in southern and western Asia will continue to experience population growth, but how likely is it that the most vulnerable from these countries will reach our shores? Not very, I suspect. Meanwhile, population giants like China and, later, India will experience population decline (considerable in China's case) by the end of this century.

[taxme]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

Actually, population growth will take care of itself except for a few areas in the world where cultural factors promote the retention of high birth rates. I believe the UN estimates that after 2050 about half the world's countries will experience population decline due to declining birth rates. The only Western countries that won't do so are those with high immigration rates. Perhaps limiting immigration to the West might encourage more responsible family planning elsewhere, where it's really necessary. Our goal in Canada, where due to our climate we're high level GHG emitters on a per capita basis, should be population stability rather than population growth.

I would prefer to see the West start giving the people in the third world that have too many children crates of birth control pills. It is too bad that they cannot be educated enough to try and get them to have less than one or two children at the most and try to get those children educated and trained to eventually help their own people to get out of their baby making programs and their poverty. They truly do need a real planned parenthood program over there.

Allowing millions of third world immigrants to immigrate to Western countries every year is doing more harm than good to those countries. By taking in millions of their poor appears to encourage those in the third world to keep on having more children and then dumping many of them on the West. The West has done all it can to try and help those countries and they now need to start to show and say enough already with some tough love and say to those 3rd world leaders to keep your poor we don't not need nor want anymore of your poor. Fix your birth problems yourself. My opinion. 

[Goddess]

12 minutes ago, taxme said:

The West has done all it can to try and help those countries

I disagree but only because of 2 things - there is only so much we can do for them.  A lot of people in 3rd world countries have the amount of children they do because they are hoping that if they have 6 or 8 kids, maybe 4 or 5 will survive into adulthood and of those 4 or 5, hopefully 1 or 2 of them will look after the parents in their old age.  There are no pensions or social welfare in those countries for them to rely on.  So reality for them is that they need to have lots of children to ensure they are looked after in their old age.

The difference is that when they immigrate to Western countries, the mentality that they must continually produce children doesn't change and in the West, large families are more of a hindrance, unless you're independently wealthy.  But we solve that problem by making child-bearing a very lucrative pastime.  More lucrative than learning the language, learning a new trade or skill or adapting to Canadian life.

Which brings me to the second point:

16 minutes ago, taxme said:

I would prefer to see the West start giving the people in the third world that have too many children crates of birth control pills.

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has stuck their nose into these countries and instructed them in the Catholic belief that birth control pills are from the Devil and you go to hell for using them and family planning is sinful.  The Church (and other fundie groups, I'm sure) wont' let them have birth control pills.  Add in the fact that in many of these countries, women's rights are non-existent and women are basically just chattel kept for breeding purposes.

[taxme]

45 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I disagree but only because of 2 things - there is only so much we can do for them.  A lot of people in 3rd world countries have the amount of children they do because they are hoping that if they have 6 or 8 kids, maybe 4 or 5 will survive into adulthood and of those 4 or 5, hopefully 1 or 2 of them will look after the parents in their old age.  There are no pensions or social welfare in those countries for them to rely on.  So reality for them is that they need to have lots of children to ensure they are looked after in their old age.

The difference is that when they immigrate to Western countries, the mentality that they must continually produce children doesn't change and in the West, large families are more of a hindrance, unless you're independently wealthy.  But we solve that problem by making child-bearing a very lucrative pastime.  More lucrative than learning the language, learning a new trade or skill or adapting to Canadian life.

Which brings me to the second point:

Unfortunately, the Catholic Church has stuck their nose into these countries and instructed them in the Catholic belief that birth control pills are from the Devil and you go to hell for using them and family planning is sinful.  The Church (and other fundie groups, I'm sure) wont' let them have birth control pills.  Add in the fact that in many of these countries, women's rights are non-existent and women are basically just chattel kept for breeding purposes.

I disagree. I am not the worlds keeper and I am fed up trying to help people that refuse to do anything to get out of their miserable poverty and situation. If the government or church is their problem well then they should try and get off their butts and rebel. Stop trying to make the Western taxpayer's pay for their problems and for them to have more children. We in the West are constantly keeping them on welfare assistance thanks in part to foreign aid programs. the UN is of no help. The UN is totally useless. Do these people in some of those 3rd world countries have any brains at all? They know what their problem is but yet they just keep it going. They refuse to do anything about it all. Enough already. Smarten up. 

 

[turningrite]

23 hours ago, taxme said:

Allowing millions of third world immigrants to immigrate to Western countries every year is doing more harm than good to those countries.

Interestingly, the Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki says much the same thing. He notes that immigration to the West often scoops the best and brightest from the developing world, which hardly helps those living in poor countries. It's also been pointed out that every migrant from the developing world to the West contributes to climate change as Western countries tend to have cooler climates and more energy-dependent lifestyles, thus generating substantially higher per capita GHG emissions. The "progressive" view on immigration somehow seems to ignore such factors. Go figure.

[cannuck]

The big problem is sub-Sahran Africa. Not only is it their cultural propensity to procreate, it is a place with such disfunctional government(s) that people simply do what they think they need to do to get by.  Of course, the do-gooders of the West will flock to their aid and reward them for having more children, thus validating the whole notion of having more children.

For most of the world, prosperity is definitely the best way to bring population under control, but take a look at Nigeria and you can see that the tribalism and corruption mean that even given massive petro wealth, NONE of it gets down to the people - it all gets gobbled up by the criminals who run the country, the state, the town, the business, the family, etc.   It will take decades and generations for them to catch up to the rest of the world in having some kind of functional rule of law, social equity, programmes, etc. so the ONLY thing left is some kind of global encouragement for sterilization until such an unlikely thing as them getting their collective shit together takes place.

[eyeball]

On 10/19/2018 at 11:51 AM, turningrite said:

The "progressive" view on immigration somehow seems to ignore such factors. Go figure.

No, it probably just realizes a discussion involving the environment is even less of a starter in today's world.  You seem to be unaware of just how far off the table you've been able to push things.  The spring on the gas pedal is broken and there's only one position, full speed ahead.

Immigrants know better than us what's coming behind them.

[taxme]

On 10/19/2018 at 11:51 AM, turningrite said:

Interestingly, the Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki says much the same thing. He notes that immigration to the West often scoops the best and brightest from the developing world, which hardly helps those living in poor countries. It's also been pointed out that every migrant from the developing world to the West contributes to climate change as Western countries tend to have cooler climates and more energy-dependent lifestyles, thus generating substantially higher per capita GHG emissions. The "progressive" view on immigration somehow seems to ignore such factors. Go figure.

Western countries appear to be scooping up more people from poverty stricken countries who have no skills at all to offer any Western countries. Probably 99% of them only know how to operate laundry or restaurant businesses or wash floors. No skills needed for that. As a matter of fact there are more of those so called skilled immigrants on hand outs from the taxpayer's in Western countries than are working. Now Trudeau wants to raise the amount of new 3rd world immigrants to 350.000 every year into Canada and the majority of them will no doubt be coming from poor countries. The citizen's living in all the Western countries of the world really need to wake up to the fact that massive 3rd world immigration is nothing more than a big farce which is being dumped on by the globalist elite who could careless about the world. Money and profits is what it is all about. With them it is always about the money and dam the consequences to the citizen's of those countries. It is said that Trudeau wants to get a seat on some council in the non United Nations and flooding Canada with millions of 3rd world poor appears to be the way to do it. Go figure is right. 

[turningrite]

On 11/10/2018 at 10:25 AM, eyeball said:

No, it probably just realizes a discussion involving the environment is even less of a starter in today's world. 

Immigrants know better than us what's coming behind them.

You do realize that you're digging yourself a bigger hole here, right? The climate change issue, which we in the West seem intent on twisting ourselves into pretzels to address, doesn't seem to resonate among those in poorer countries. For every step forward taken in the West, two steps backward seem to be taken in the developing world. My point, though, is that self-styled progressives in the West want to have it both ways on issues like immigration and the environment. They fail to recognize the negative impacts of immigration on climate change while touting it, contrary in many cases to available evidence, as a cure-all to resolve problems that exist within Western economies and societies. Meanwhile, they insist that we in the West aren't doing enough to address climate change.

Edited November 12, 2018 by turningrite

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

You do realize that you're digging yourself a bigger hole here, right? 

I realize you think so but then I don't have much faith in your capacity to think. The climate change issue resonates even less in the West, especially amongst your ilk.

Edited November 12, 2018 by eyeball

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

I realize you think so but then I don't have much faith in your capacity to think. The climate change issue resonates even less in the West, especially amongst your ilk.

'Argumentum ad hominem' (see definition below), man. You just lost the argument even though you likely don't realize it.

Online definition - Wikipedia: "Fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Edited November 12, 2018 by turningrite

[eyeball]

21 hours ago, turningrite said:

'Argumentum ad hominem' (see definition below), 

 

What? You demonstrate what it means all the time.

[turningrite]

21 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What? You demonstrate what it means all the time.

You're digging your own hole even deeper. As such, I won't further respond to you as you apparently have nothing constructive to contribute to this debate.

Edited November 13, 2018 by turningrite

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, turningrite said:

You're digging your own hole even deeper. As such, I won't further respond to you as you apparently have nothing constructive to contribute to this debate.

You can run away but you'll be back. I'm certainly not going anywhere.

Just so you know, everything you've raised as an issue has been discussed ad nauseam around here and it'll take a lot more imagination than you've brought to the forum to get my attention. In the meantime, don't slip on the peanut shells.

[taxme]

On 10/19/2018 at 11:51 AM, turningrite said:

Interestingly, the Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki says much the same thing. He notes that immigration to the West often scoops the best and brightest from the developing world, which hardly helps those living in poor countries. It's also been pointed out that every migrant from the developing world to the West contributes to climate change as Western countries tend to have cooler climates and more energy-dependent lifestyles, thus generating substantially higher per capita GHG emissions. The "progressive" view on immigration somehow seems to ignore such factors. Go figure.

If anyone should be whining and crying about immigration it should be the environmental movement and animal rights people. The more immigrants a country brings in by the hundreds of thousands every year, like Canada does, the more damage will be done to the environment and infrastructure. It's so easy peasy to figure out? But they have no problem going after one of their own fellow Canadian citizen's who wants to cut down a some trees to make their property bigger, and these fools will try to do anything to stop them from being cut down. Yet millions of trees are cut down to make way for my new immigrants. Go figure.