Forums | MacLife

radarman wrote:

We might as well just throw in the towel on western civilization if this ever becomes popular. Those who favor it will quickly be outnumbered by those who don't give a damn, or are actively bent on destroying it. The only way this could work would be to go "Big Brother", and enforce it on everyone - including those in the third world. Otherwise, it's another sick joke at our expense.

I'm sorry but I think you have forgotten the other thread. There is nothing good or worth preserving about western civilization since it's just as horrible and barbaric as those who actively seek to destroy it.

radarman wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/green/chi-children-global-warming-080827,0,5019949.story

LONDON — There are plenty of ways to cut your carbon footprint, whether it's driving less or buying an energy-efficient refrigerator. But the British Medical Journal, in an editorial last month, urged a more controversial one: having fewer children.

With 60 million people already living in one of the most densely populated countries in the world, the journal said, British couples should aim to have no more than two children as part of their contribution to worldwide efforts to reduce carbon emissions, stem climate change and ease demands on the world's resources.

Limiting family size is "the simplest and biggest contribution anyone can make to leaving a habitable planet for our grandchildren," the editorial's authors said.

Hmm, I guess they didn't bother to check the average birth rates in Europe...

The appeal to have fewer children sounds a bit odd in Europe, where one of the biggest worries these days is plunging birthrates. German women today bear an average of 1.3 children, fewer than women in China, where the one-child policy is fast weakening. Even British women are giving birth to just 1.9 children on average, a level below that needed to produce a stable population.

This sounds like a good idea, but in actuality is so stupid as to be laughable. Most of the problems Europe is facing involving immigration is because the natives aren't having enough kids. Israel is facing the same problem - Jewish families are waiting until they are in their late 20's or 30's to have kids, and then only 1 or 2.

The extremist populations, on the other hand, have no such restraint.

We might as well just throw in the towel on western civilization if this ever becomes popular. Those who favor it will quickly be outnumbered by those who don't give a damn, or are actively bent on destroying it. The only way this could work would be to go "Big Brother", and enforce it on everyone - including those in the third world. Otherwise, it's another sick joke at our expense.

What a fascinating collection of assumptions and misconceptions.

everlong205 wrote:

if population control is a good thing, then maybe we should look at natural disasters as blessings in disguise. "earthquake kills 10,000" sounds bad. But if you view it as a blow against global warming then its, in fact a net positive. "malaria kills hundreds of thousands in Africa!" Way to go nature.

Of course, we could also look at wars from this light too. Then, the bigger the war and the more casualties, the greater the impact on global warming. Then those who commit the largest genocides are in fact the best environmentalists.

You're insane.

radarman wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/green/chi-children-global-warming-080827,0,5019949.story

LONDON — There are plenty of ways to cut your carbon footprint, whether it's driving less or buying an energy-efficient refrigerator. But the British Medical Journal, in an editorial last month, urged a more controversial one: having fewer children.

With 60 million people already living in one of the most densely populated countries in the world, the journal said, British couples should aim to have no more than two children as part of their contribution to worldwide efforts to reduce carbon emissions, stem climate change and ease demands on the world's resources.

Limiting family size is "the simplest and biggest contribution anyone can make to leaving a habitable planet for our grandchildren," the editorial's authors said.

Hmm, I guess they didn't bother to check the average birth rates in Europe...

The appeal to have fewer children sounds a bit odd in Europe, where one of the biggest worries these days is plunging birthrates. German women today bear an average of 1.3 children, fewer than women in China, where the one-child policy is fast weakening. Even British women are giving birth to just 1.9 children on average, a level below that needed to produce a stable population.

This sounds like a good idea, but in actuality is so stupid as to be laughable. Most of the problems Europe is facing involving immigration is because the natives aren't having enough kids. Israel is facing the same problem - Jewish families are waiting until they are in their late 20's or 30's to have kids, and then only 1 or 2.

The extremist populations, on the other hand, have no such restraint.

We might as well just throw in the towel on western civilization if this ever becomes popular. Those who favor it will quickly be outnumbered by those who don't give a damn, or are actively bent on destroying it. The only way this could work would be to go "Big Brother", and enforce it on everyone - including those in the third world. Otherwise, it's another sick joke at our expense.

Your point fails because the article is talking about British birthrates, and how it affects the population density of that particular island.

OK, let's take this to the 'logical' extreme. Killing large numbers of africans is not going to have much effect on the greenhouse effect. In fact, greenhouse emissions from the genocide might well dwarf any savings--think burning villages, pillaging rain forests for timber, etc. But killing Americans might well have a measurable effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

jerwin wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

if population control is a good thing, then maybe we should look at natural disasters as blessings in disguise. "earthquake kills 10,000" sounds bad. But if you view it as a blow against global warming then its, in fact a net positive. "malaria kills hundreds of thousands in Africa!" Way to go nature.

Of course, we could also look at wars from this light too. Then, the bigger the war and the more casualties, the greater the impact on global warming. Then those who commit the largest genocides are in fact the best environmentalists.

You're insane.

Hey, I shoudln't have to add a smiley for you to know that I was being sarcastic. But I'm not the one advocating population control to deal with global warming.

Seems to me those suggesting it should off themselves first as a test case.

also, the debate about global warming usually boils down to the best ways to deal with climate change. We have to get off of oil and fossil fuel soon or the world as we know it will end (and I feel fine). That's a pretty drastic measure if you ask me. But lets weigh the various solutions from a utilitarian standpoint, and you have to admit, genocide looks pretty darn good as a way to fight global warming. Certainly better than getting off of fossil fuel. How long would that take? People would still need energy while transitioning to the alternative and populations would still be growing (and they would still be driving and consuming). Whereas, a genocide removes a million or so who wont be consuming and draining our precious resources because they'll be dead. Plagues and natural disasters could work too.
Dead people have much smaller carbon footprints than those who use solar power or drive priuses.

Last edited by everlong205 (2008-08-28 6:54 pm)

Not suggesting it myself but just pointing out a target that if someone was actually serious would have an effect.

Controlling birthrates has always been preferable to population removal (unless, as it seems at times, you are a Conservative Bible thumper).

Zero population growth is a good thing, you dumbasses. Its just not something which the ends justify the means, such that only reasonable and moral measures should be taken.

Chickenhawk wrote:

Zero population growth is a good thing, you dumbasses. Its just not something which the ends justify the means, such that only reasonable and moral measures should be taken.

Now you're being unreasonable and immoral.

What kind of population control? The bullet kind? The nuclear kind? Or the garden variety disease and famine kind?

when nature gets tired of us smurfing it all up, the population will be controlled.
until then, enjoy the swirling ride in the toilet.

This world population and society has never been stagnant, society will adjust and end up better off because of it.

I look forward to a bunch of half asians walking around...
http://images.google.com/images?client= … lf%20asian

Last edited by mo' ron (2008-08-30 11:35 am)