Population Control - An inconvenient truth (1 Viewer)

Steve R.

Retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,803
Even if we don't agree on why the climate is changing, is there really any argument that the world is becoming too polluted? Do we want to have a planet for generations that our families can enjoy? Can anyone really doubt that air pollution is a problem just as much as garbage pollution and landfill excess? We are destroying our planet, climate change or no.

What do we do about it?
The inconvenient truth that virtually no one wants to discuss because it is so unpleasant and draconian is population control.

Fortunately, once a certain standard of living is reached, the birthrate tends to drop so there is a form of "natural" population control. The problem is that we are still in the explosive population growth phase. Hence increasing environmental problems. Therefore, there may still be a need to mandate population control depending on demographic projections.

Another thing that is seldom discussed. Our standard of living is based on "waste". It is our ability to "waste" resources that allows us to buy single family homes, large cars, and to buy fast foods where the life expediency of the wrappers used is about five minutes.

What I am getting at, with the above statement is that as population increases your ability to "waste" becomes constrained. For example, whether a piece of land should be preserved for habitat, turned into farmland for food, or transformed into urban development. Whether a marine fishery should be fished or not. Each of these decisions, no matter how small of an impact, will (over time) decrease our standard of living, reduce the quality of life, and result in less freedom due to the necessity of government having to manage society.

Just take (water and air) pollution as a quick example. Pollution tends to be a result of human activity. Pollution to a degree is now being minimized through laws that mandate that cars have anti-pollution devices. These devices while a benefit to the environment and quality of life, do reflect a decrease in the standard of living and greater government control over our lives. Reduce the population and you will have less activity that will contribute to polluting the environment. Nature, with low population, can ameliorate many of man's adverse environmental impacts. Better that Nature be in a position to clean-up the environment, than government mandated programs and technologies.

Reduce population to some sustainable level and many of these draconian environmental decisions will not have to be made. Of course, the environment will still need to be preserved.
 

Galaxiom

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
11,835
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

Reduce population to some sustainable level and many of these draconian environmental decisions will not have to be made.
Hard to get people to volunteer for execution though.;)
 

isladogs

CID Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
12,365
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

Reduce population to some sustainable level and many of these draconian environmental decisions will not have to be made.
In the absence of voluntary mass euthanasia, do enlighten us on how that would be achieved. For example:
1. Genetic screening
2. Age
3. Racial profiling
4. Intelligence tests
5. Religious beliefs
6. Voting history
7. Random selection
8. Material wealth
9. Mass sterilisation
10. Deliberate culling using warfare
11. Deliberate culling by spreading highly contagious diseases

Whichever your preferred method(s) are, how would the decision be made and implemented?

Of course. Silly me!
It's obvious, central government would create new layers of bureaucracy to manage all aspects of the population control.
Yet, I thought you were against central government interference in the lives of individual citizens.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,803
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

Hard to get people to volunteer for execution though.;)
In the absence of voluntary mass euthanasia, do enlighten us on how that would be achieved.
I said nothing about euthanasia or executions. I also stated that when a certain standard of living is achieved, that a form of "natural" birth control takes effect. We are already seeing this in some areas such a Europe and Japan.

Yet, I thought you were against central government interference in the lives of individual citizens.
Yes, I am "against central government interference in the lives of individual citizens". What should be blatantly obvious is that the more people you have in limited space, the more need there is for a central oppressive government to manage the society. Look at the explosion of laws concerned with defining what you can and can't do. (hunting permits, parking permits, fishing permits, burning permits, etc.)

My topical sentence: "The inconvenient truth that virtually no one wants to discuss because it is so unpleasant and draconian is population control." People simply do not want to accept the reality that ever growing population will eat-up ever more resources and increasingly cause negative environmental effects.

Ironically, when it comes to politically correct global warming (AKA climate change) there is almost no dispute of negative anthropogenic effects and anyone questioning that is considered uneducated. So much for holistic problem solving.
 

isladogs

CID Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
12,365
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

I said nothing about euthanasia or executions. I also stated that when a certain standard of living is achieved, that a form of "natural" birth control takes effect. We are already seeing this in some areas such a Europe and Japan.
OK so should that aim be accelerated by a significant redistribution of wealth which would massively benefit the standard of living of the many at the expense of the mega rich? Or should there be free healthcare for all thus increasing the survival rates of children. Both of these could very likely have a positive impact on reducing family size

Yes, I am "against central government interference in the lives of individual citizens". What should be blatantly obvious is that the more people you have in limited space, the more need there is for a central oppressive government to manage the society. Look at the explosion of laws concerned with defining what you can and can't do.

My topical sentence: "The inconvenient truth that virtually no one wants to discuss because it is so unpleasant and draconian is population control." People simply do not want to accept the reality that ever growing population will eat-up ever more resources and increasingly cause negative environmental effects.
I would agree that the rise in population does mean a consequent rise in infrastructure to support it. I also believe that the general population understands the links between population, resources and environmental impact. I don't agree that infrastructure has to equate to a central oppressive government.

Your use of the phrase 'population control' means some method or methods being used to enforce such control. So having raised the issue, I would still like to hear how you would want to see that being achieved in either the short or medium term. What policies do you want to see implemented to help achieve that aim?
 

Steve R.

Retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,803
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

OK so should that aim be accelerated by a significant redistribution of wealth which would massively benefit the standard of living of the many at the expense of the mega rich? Or should there be free healthcare for all thus increasing the survival rates of children. Both of these could very likely have a positive impact on reducing family size
Your statement is not an "OR" situation. Each of these topics can be independently implemented.

Both the redistribution of wealth and free health care would require BIG government as the management tool.

For clarity, I would be opposed to wealth redistribution since it would be constitute a form of government "stealing". (No, I don't consider all taxes to be "stealing" as some proclaim.). Redistribution of wealth also involves significant subjective criteria for determining who has "excessive" wealth and what the application of "fair" means. We all want to be fair, as it is a laudable goal. But fairness is elusive.

In the US, the tax system is progressive so that it can implement fairness. The poor pay little or not taxes, the rich pay more. The problem is that overtime, in the quest to be fair, the tax system has been modified so that no longer really fair. There are too many loopholes and exceptions. The rich have found ways to avoid taxes.

While not an income tax filing issue, Amazon (a very rich company) is getting tax breaks to develop new headquarters. So who is going to carry the tax burden of Amazon's tax breaks? The general population. The rich get tax breaks.

I have NO objection to a government operated health care system funded by tax dollars that provides medical benefits to all people.


I don't agree that infrastructure has to equate to a central oppressive government.
Big government oppression (or how about a less inflammatory word, "management") is not limited to infrastructure. It will be pervasive through all of society. For example, you are interested in wealth redistribution. Effective wealth redistribution will require government to audit everyone. Then their are consumable resources such as fish and forests that have to be managed for sustainability.To feed the billions of people of the world, government will need to supervise the quality of farming, food, and chemicals to be used in the production of food. For the global warming crowd, government will be needed to manage the emission of greenhouse gasses.

PS: There have been efforts underway for example to ban sugary drinks, and to ban plastic straws. Then there is: Pizzas must shrink or lose their toppings under Government anti-obesity plan . Clearly government is incrementally and methodically trying to increase its management of the people.


Your use of the phrase 'population control' means some method or methods being used to enforce such control. So having raised the issue, I would still like to hear how you would want to see that being achieved in either the short or medium term. What policies do you want to see implemented to help achieve that aim?
A very complex issue and one where proposed solutions generate irrational hyperbolic accusations of racism, picking of the poor, etc. Some of these you have already alluded too (such as genetics and religious beliefs). The less controversial approach is to start off with a demographic analysis to determine if the world has peaked with population growth. If not the next steps would be to encourage people to have less children. If that does not work, one needs to move-up to more aggressive means such as a license to have children and so on. A problem with any proposed solution, there will always be objectors. Will people rationally discuss this or will any proposed solutions be immediately shut-down as being too offensive?
 

isladogs

CID Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
12,365
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

@SteveR
Your statement is not an "OR" situation. Each of these topics can be independently implemented.
I didn’t make any statements.
I did ask 2 questions and of course I agree that either or both could be implemented if the political will exists to do so

Both the redistribution of wealth and free health care would require BIG government as the management tool.
Yes, we agree on that point.
I live in the UK where the NHS was created in 1948 specifically to provide health care through taxation that was free for all at the point of use. Although aspects of that have been watered down over the years and it is currently significantly underfunded, the NHS remains one of the few items where there is a broad consensus about its merits and achievement across both the general public and the political divide.

In the US, the tax system is progressive so that it can implement fairness. The poor pay little or not taxes, the rich pay more. The problem is that overtime, in the quest to be fair, the tax system has been modified so that no longer really fair. There are too many loopholes and exceptions. The rich have found ways to avoid taxes.

While not an income tax filing issue, Amazon (a very rich company) is getting tax breaks to develop new headquarters. So who is going to carry the tax burden of Amazon's tax breaks? The general population. The rich get tax breaks.

I have NO objection to a government operated health care system funded by tax dollars that provides medical benefits to all people.
I must admit that I didn't expect you to write the previous sentence above.

However, any tax system where the rich (both individuals & big business) are able to manipulate the system and where inequality is rising rather than falling is not progressive in implementation. In recent years, neither the US nor UK tax systems have reduced inequality.

I am trying to find out how you think certain outcomes that you raised as being important issues can be achieved.
In particular, the issue of population control than you seem keen to promote.

proposed solutions generate irrational hyperbolic accusations of racism, picking of the poor, etc. Some of these you have already alluded too (such as genetics and religious beliefs).
Irrational? Selective ‘depopulation’ has been carried out in various societies usually on ethnic & religious grounds. There are many cases of supposed racial differences being used to justify such actions. Persecution of minority groups remains prevalent in many countries to this day

The less controversial approach is to start off with a demographic analysis to determine if the world has peaked with population growth.
So that means big government employing research groups to model population growth and optimum / maximum size. There are obviously ethical considerations depending on the purpose behind any such studies. How will those conclusions be guaranteed to be objective? Who will decide what actions should follow?

If not the next steps would be to encourage people to have less children.
Already been done e.g. the one child rule for several decades in China. In fact, such systems are more commonly associated with socialist states rather than democracies. One unintended result in China was the age profile in the country was shifted towards the elderly creating problems in financing care.

If that does not work, one needs to move-up to more aggressive means such as a license to have children and so on.
More big government. How would you envisage that being enforced?
What penalties would there be for those that had more than their allotted number of children

A problem with any proposed solution, there will always be objectors. Will people rationally discuss this or will any proposed solutions be immediately shut-down as being too offensive?
I'm certainly not shutting you down. In fact, I've trying to get you to be open about how what you propose can be implemented.
You seem to be very keen on promoting population control but very reluctant to state what your final solution would be.

Are you equally keen on more effective gun control being implemented in the U.S. If not, why not?
 

Steve R.

Retired
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
1,803
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

@SteveRI'm certainly not shutting you down. In fact, I've trying to get you to be open about how what you propose can be implemented. You seem to be very keen on promoting population control but very reluctant to state what your final solution would be.
In places such as Europe and Japan, there would be no need. The population is already declining. Even in the US, those who are born in the US are not reproducing at a rate that would contribute to population growth. So that leaves (more or less) the third world as the focus of population control. So one approach would be birth control, either through pills or sterilization, with financial incentives for having a small family.

So instead of me, being the only one to respond to questions. How would you deal with the population issue? Especially in regards to the third world.

This is significant as a person's standard of living is dependent of the energy they use which translates into heat. What that means is that raising the standard of living of those in the third world to the first world will generate large amounts of heat contributing to global warming, even with greater technological advances.

@SteveRAre you equally keen on more effective gun control being implemented in the U.S. If not, why not?
The right to own a gun is a right guaranteed in the US by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Of course, there is a legitimate debate as to what type of guns should be allowed. There is also a legitimated debate concerning who (based on mental health) should be allowed to own a gun. However, many who claim to discuss "gun control" actually mean the abolition of gun ownership. I am opposed to that.

PS: Should you want to continue, maybe this should be moved to a new thread since this thread is supposed to be on Antarctica ice.
 

isladogs

CID Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
12,365
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

I will reply later.
I agree this debate should be moved to its own thread which I will do.
Shall I call it 'Population Control - an inconvenient truth' as that was your starting point?
 
Last edited:

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,257
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

Just adding one minor point:

In SteveR's defense, his reference to 'Progressive Taxation' isn't about progressive vs liberal vs conservative. Progressive Taxation specifically refers to a taxation setup where taxes as a portion of income progressively increase as income increases.

As a result, in the US anyway, progressive taxation both is and is not progressive all at the same time.
 

isladogs

CID Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
12,365
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

Yup - I'm well aware of that. My reply was
However, any tax system where the rich (both individuals & big business) are able to manipulate the system and where inequality is rising rather than falling is not progressive in implementation. In recent years, neither the US nor UK tax systems have reduced inequality.
 

Frothingslosh

Premier Pale Stale Ale
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
3,257
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

Fair enough.
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
15,699
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

But then again, leave it to the government to screw up even its own money-generating rules.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,170
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

The right to own a gun is a right guaranteed in the US by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Of course, there is a legitimate debate as to what type of guns should be allowed.
It's really quite simple. Guns are designed to kill. Many Americans own guns, so therefore many Americans like to kill living things and watch them die in agony as they draw their last breath.
It doesn't matter to Americans whether they kill animals or humans as long as they kill something, they think it (wrongly) makes them look macho.
The type of gun doesn't matter, they all kill and Americans love it and love killing things.
Of course you get the dopey ones like some on these forums who say they own guns "for defence purposes", what absolute rubbish that is, if someone accidentally puts a foot over their precious white picket fence they will get their head blown off by a latent gun owning killer.
You buy a car to transport you from a to b, that's what they're made for, not just to keep it and never use it, you buy guns to kill that's what they're made for.
If Americans can't kill, what would they do? Probably cause more problems in the world than they do now.

Col
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
15,699
Re: NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

Feeling a bit frisky again, Col?

you get the dopey ones like some on these forums who say they own guns "for defence purposes", what absolute rubbish that is
Rubbish is what the dustman poured into your head, Colin. I personally know a man, Bob T, who was approached by a man with a gun in his driveway. The man turned away from Bob because he was giving orders to Bob's wife and pointing the gun that way. In that moment when the assailant was distracted, Bob (who has a concealed carry permit) drew and fired two or three shots. The armed assailant failed to survive the encounter.

YES, the USA can be violent. But this is the point your side NEVER GETS... the citizens who are law-abiding go through proper channels to get their guns. The ones who do not care about the legalities of what they do will not be getting their guns through a normally registered dealer. They ALREADY are not obeying the law. What's one more broken law to those types? Nothing, that's what!

Bob carried a gun for defense purposes and used it for defense purposes. The cops took the report and decided there was no offense that required an arrest. They took away the deceased perpetrator and his gun, wished Bob and his wife a good evening, and went on about their business.

Bob was ALREADY at gunpoint when he took is actions. And for YOU to call that "rubbish" shows that as usual, you are looking to engender a discussion that is off the main topic of the thread. We've already had a gun-rights thread here. Col, I try to be fair, and you know I have tried to explain things to you in a kinder, gentler way that some people have used on you. But this is just typical of you attempting to be divisive. Give it up. And that "dopey" comment falls on deaf ears here. As you should know, I am neither bashful nor dopey. I'm Doc. But YOU are the one living in the fairy tale if you can't understand the reality we face.

By the way, have any of the UK immigrants brought in weapons? (That you know of?) Enjoy THAT environment when you can't even shoot back when someone shoots up the place for the sheer joy of it.
 

isladogs

CID Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 14, 2017
Messages
12,365
I've moved 15 posts to this separate thread as they are largely unrelated to the original thread about ice in the Antarctic.
 

ColinEssex

Old registered user
Joined
Feb 22, 2002
Messages
8,170
Doc, in the UK, there is a farmer who had a shotgun legally. He disturbed a burglar at his farmhouse and shot him. The burglar subsequently died and the farmer was found guilty of manslaughter and was jailed for 3 years, he got out on parole.

If your friend blasted the brains out of his intruder, why didn't he get found guilty of murder or manslaughter?

That's what I'm saying, guns kill - most Americans own a gun - so most Americans must like or want to kill, especially if you can squirm out of it by making up some cock-and-bull story about some so called intruder and get away with murder- literally.
There appears to be no penalty for killing someone in the USA if you can invent a believable excuse and say the rifles, sub-machine guns and AK-47's are for defence only. Defence against who? Some invading country?

Oh, I have no idea what immigrants legal or otherwise bring into the country. I care nothing for their problems, the same as I care nothing for the so called scroungers who call themselves homeless, I have enough problems to deal with.

Col
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
15,699
why didn't he get found guilty of murder or manslaughter?
Because in the USA, we have this little idea that in the specific case that Bob encountered, "self-defense" is a valid legal defense against the charge of assault or homicide. It converts the event to a "justifiable assault or homicide" - which is not prosecuted.

Perhaps that is the difference between UK and USA trials. In the USA, there's hardly a jury you could find that would have found Bob guilty of even a misdemeanor. They would have uniformly found him not guilty of manslaughter.

They would have used reason thusly: By initiating an armed robbery, the perpetrator entered into an action that was, or should have been known to be, risky. His actions could reasonably have been predicted to result in serious or fatal violence to another party AND could have been predicted to invite a response from the victim.

In essence, this perpetrator's unwise action led to what is called a "misadventure" that resulted in his death. And the blame lies entirely with the perpetrator, not the person acting in self-defense. (AND Bob was also protecting his wife because the perp had the gun trained on her at the time.) Yet ANOTHER loophole in the law.

That's what I'm saying, guns kill - most Americans own a gun - so most Americans must like or want to kill, especially if you can squirm out of it by making up some cock-and-bull story about some so called intruder and get away with murder- literally.
The only bull here is the one who filled your head with bull poop. There was no cock-and-bull story here, Col. The perp didn't go anywhere and his gun was still on the scene. Bob and his wife told the same story to the police when questioned. They had no doubts about Bob's feeling of imminent danger for him and his wife.

The "squirming" here is YOU - who doesn't understand that from time immemorial, Man has resolved violent attacks with violence because it is the only language that the punks and thugs understand. Sweet-talking them while they have a gun and you don't? TOTAL stupidity. The trick is that you have to get to them when they are NOT in the middle of a criminal act. In that case, you MIGHT have a shot at negotiating or using some kind of logic. But when the perp has his gun in his hand, the time for negotiation has long since left the room.

We have immigrant gangs here, Col, like La Vida Mala and the MS 13 group. Take over whole neighborhoods. (Sound like any of your immigrants?) They have guns and will kill just for "turf supremacy." The Mexican Drug cartels do the same sort of thing in Mexico. Somali pirates, who had been suppressed for a while, are coming back with better guns. And you want to roll over and play dead? Fine with me, until you have the bad luck to be accosted by some punk who doesn't want to leave witnesses.

Col, I try to be fair to you, but your intransigent refusal to understand that there IS another side to this story is very frustrating. So as far as guns go, BUZZ OFF until you learn to understand American English. And don't expect me to use the Queen's English.
 

The_Doc_Man

Happy Retired Curmudgeon
Joined
Feb 28, 2001
Messages
15,699
As to the main theme of this thread, I will draw an analogy in nature.

When a forest becomes overly clogged with underbrush, nature often resolves the clogging by having a brush fire start from spontaneous combustion or from lightning striking something flammable. Until Man started the concept of forestry management, nature took care of itself.

When the great herds of bison became too numerous, the predators had more food and thus also became more numerous. The numerous predators took down more bison and thus prevented overgrazing in the following season, thus allowing the prairies to regrow.

Therefore, I have a simple solution.
< tongue in cheek > Do away with the United Nations. Let the warmongering nations of the world impose large-scale population control like we used to do it before we tried to become "civilized."
< /tongue in cheek >
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom