Children 'bad for planet'

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Having children is basically veiwed as a sin against his religion of the enviroment. WE can’t say we didn’t see this coming. The second I heard that human breathing accounted for the largest percentage of CO2, I turned to a friend and said, “You watch, the eco-freaks will now say we need fewer poeple in order to save the planet…wanna bet they’re not going to volunteer THEIR lives?” Gnostics…at least they are consistent. It just shows that environmentalists and forced abortions are bosom buddies.
 
The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions
Click to expand...
This seems to suggest that there is a link between wealth and environmental degredation. I wonder if you took the per capita CO2 emissions of those below the poverty line compared to those well above it, just in the U.S. how the numbers would shake out.

It would seem that poor people drive smaller cars, take fewer trans-atlantic flights, and commute shorter distances than do rich people.

It would seem then that a child born to wealth would be worse than several children born to poverty.

Of course, if a couple makes some sacrifices and drops down to one income, they could effectively reduce their green-house emissions while having more babies.

That would require that a couple value children more than material wealth…
 
Black_Jaque said:
This seems to suggest that there is a link between wealth and environmental degredation. I wonder if you took the per capita CO2 emissions of those below the poverty line compared to those well above it, just in the U.S. how the numbers would shake out.

It would seem that poor people drive smaller cars, take fewer trans-atlantic flights, and commute shorter distances than do rich people.

It would seem then that a child born to wealth would be worse than several children born to poverty.

Of course, if a couple makes some sacrifices and drops down to one income, they could effectively reduce their green-house emissions while having more babies.

That would require that a couple value children more than material wealth…
Click to expand...
This environmental nonsense is getting ‘loonier’ by the minute.

Depopulate the planet in order to save it??? Save it for what for heaven’s sake??? For dolphins and whales and sea urchins and orangutans!!!

What is the purpose of planet earth if it isn’t for human beings, just another spinning ‘ball in space’. Absurd. This professor and others like him are an affront to humanity. I grew up in a family of 5 kids and I am personally insulted by this man’s twisted view of the value and sanctity of my children AND the contribution they will all make in time to benefit other human beings. Sad and twisted minds like his see people as ‘the problem’. The plain fact is that people are the solution! It’s not about more mouths to feed BUT more hands to do God’s work!
 
I found the abstract of this paper, if anyone has access to that article, you should comment!

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2007.03.004

“The Decline of the World’s IQ” by Richard Lynn and John Harvey

Quote:
Dysgenic fertility means that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and number of children. Its presence during the last century has been demonstrated in several countries. We show here that there is dysgenic fertility in the world population quantified by a correlation of − 0.73 between IQ and fertility across nations. It is estimated that the effect of this has been a decline in the world’s genotypic IQ of 0.86 IQ points for the years 1950–2000. A further decline of 1.28 IQ points in the world’s genotypic IQ is projected for the years 2000–2050. In the period 1950–2000 this decline has been compensated for by a rise in phenotypic intelligence known as the Flynn Effect, but recent studies in four economically developed countries have found that this has now ceased or gone into reverse. It seems probable that this “negative Flynn Effect” will spread to economically developing countries and the whole world will move into a period of declining genotypic and phenotypic intelligence. It is possible that “the new eugenics” of biotechnology may evolve to counteract dysgenic fertility.

So it seems the world’s population will not only increase, but intelligence would decrease.
 
What is the purpose of planet earth if it isn’t for human beings, just another spinning ‘ball in space’. Absurd. This professor and others like him are an affront to humanity. I grew up in a family of 5 kids and I am personally insulted by this man’s twisted view of the value and sanctity of my children AND the contribution they will all make in time to benefit other human beings. Sad and twisted minds like his see people as ‘the problem’. The plain fact is that people are the solution! It’s not about more mouths to feed BUT more hands to do God’s work!
Click to expand...
I agree totally. I suspect this warped environmental ethic is the cause of the Teen Angst that we see. We are unwittingly telling our children that they are bad for the planet, bad for Mom and Dad’s sanity, and just not worthwhile. No wonder they are so rebellious and flip out mowing down their schoolmates with Uzis.
 
Be very wary of the link of IQ and natality. It can make some very evil things appear “good”.

But the truth is: What would you expect to happen when a society begins aborting all it’s Down-syndrome babies? Of course the average IQ goes up. And a society that doesn’t practice abortion will have a diluted IQ.

But Jared Diamond found in his studies of civilizations that more advanced societies have lower average IQs. This is because the weaker members have a better survivability in a civilized society. He misses the fact that this is the very essence of civilization! Civilization is NOT the presence of skyscrapers, flush toilets, and paved streets. Civilization is a society where the strong protect the weak, and the weak contribute in anyway they can. The skyscrapers, flush toilets, and paved streets are just the fruits of civilization.
 
Black_Jaque said:
Be very wary of the link of IQ and natality. It can make some very evil things appear “good”.

But the truth is: What would you expect to happen when a society begins aborting all it’s Down-syndrome babies? Of course the average IQ goes up. And a society that doesn’t practice abortion will have a diluted IQ.

But Jared Diamond found in his studies of civilizations that more advanced societies have lower average IQs. This is because the weaker members have a better survivability in a civilized society. He misses the fact that this is the very essence of civilization! Civilization is NOT the presence of skyscrapers, flush toilets, and paved streets. Civilization is a society where the strong protect the weak, and the weak contribute in anyway they can. The skyscrapers, flush toilets, and paved streets are just the fruits of civilization.
Click to expand...
No, I think the racial disparities of intelligence are explained by Darwinian processes. An online version of this argument that is expressed with remarkable concinnity is found here: geocities.com/race_articles/lynn_race_evol.html . A discussion on civilization is found here: geocities.com/race_articles/lynn_race_diff.html .

I am reading *Race Differences in Intelligence *and I can say that Richard Lynn has succeeded in supporting his assertions.

I thought Richard Lynn was an ogre, but his ideas could help humanity. Some may think of him as a “Fearless Champion of Truth!” (although that article was sarcastic)
 
Black_Jaque said:
This seems to suggest that there is a link between wealth and environmental degredation. I wonder if you took the per capita CO2 emissions of those below the poverty line compared to those well above it, just in the U.S. how the numbers would shake out.

It would seem that poor people drive smaller cars, take fewer trans-atlantic flights, and commute shorter distances than do rich people.

It would seem then that a child born to wealth would be worse than several children born to poverty.

Of course, if a couple makes some sacrifices and drops down to one income, they could effectively reduce their green-house emissions while having more babies.

That would require that a couple value children more than material wealth…
Click to expand...
Right on! 👍

You hit the nail on the head. I love it that people claim large families are bad for the environment, but yet, how many large families do you see getting loads of brand new clothes and shoes 2 or 3 times a year, as you’ll see with smaller, more affluent families? Driving new, large cars? Taking vacations? Driving through the Starbucks drive-thru every morning while hauling off to their 60 minute commute?

The lack of insight and sense of entitlement of these people is ridiculous, they were once babies too, or do they think they were “deigned” into this world by heavenly decree? I suppose they wouldn’t want to go back in time to volunteer to help the planet by being aborted or having their mom be sterilized, forcibly at times in other parts of the world thanks to the UN.

I assume, but maybe they are that crazy. The scary thing is they have a lot of control over all our lives.
 
Black_Jaque said:
I agree totally. I suspect this warped environmental ethic is the cause of the Teen Angst that we see. We are unwittingly telling our children that they are bad for the planet, bad for Mom and Dad’s sanity, and just not worthwhile. No wonder they are so rebellious and flip out mowing down their schoolmates with Uzis.
Click to expand...
The Palestinian god Moloch had pretty much the same idea about children. Modern Palestinians do too. I think this guy expresses the mainstream of most environmentalists and the left in general. In my generation (I’m 29) its “whacko” to be having kids at my age or younger. To have half a dozen kids at my age is what is considered nutty (my grandparents ended up having 12).
We are on the verge of a period where the earth will be losing almost 1 billion people with no replacements over the next 100 years. The most advanced societies including China and India are poised to run negative growth by 2065. Even the US must absorb millions of illegals just to keep the 2.1 fertility rate. Europe will see its native population halved every generation, ditto for Japan, Russia, if current trends continue.

Economically, this will be a disaster. In the future, when people read articles and studies like these, they will wonder what type of dope we were on. Children, lots of children are and will be our most precious commodity.
 
Jennifer123 said:
Right on! 👍

You hit the nail on the head. I love it that people claim large families are bad for the environment, but yet, how many large families do you see getting loads of brand new clothes and shoes 2 or 3 times a year, as you’ll see with smaller, more affluent families? Driving new, large cars? Taking vacations? Driving through the Starbucks drive-thru every morning while hauling off to their 60 minute commute?

The lack of insight and sense of entitlement of these people is ridiculous, they were once babies too, or do they think they were “deigned” into this world by heavenly decree? I suppose they wouldn’t want to go back in time to volunteer to help the planet by being aborted or having their mom be sterilized, forcibly at times in other parts of the world thanks to the UN.

I assume, but maybe they are that crazy. The scary thing is they have a lot of control over all our lives.
Click to expand...
Actually this thinking is “mainstream” within liberalism. The essence of the fight regarding “greenhouse” gases, including CO2, and the global warming blame game is to scare people into giving up what otherwise should be cherished rights. Thus, the recent Supreme Court decision is textbook liberalism…a power play using the Courts. The result of this type of regulatory mandate looking ten years ahead is to permit government to, among other things, regulate the size of families. You’re starting to see the arguments being made now…remember that’s how the euthanasia movement began.
 
http://www.gravatar.com/avatar.php?...loscan.com/images/blank.gif&rating=PG&size=28 The high priest of the new religion, “Environmentalism” has spoken. Now the sheeple must obey. I wonder who will be around to pay for Social Security and Medicare for these left-wing lunatics?

Have large families while you still can, cause it might illegal in the future to do so. We haven’t seen anything yet. Some people say the AntiChrist is afoot, but I tend to be more of an optimist.
 
Sometimes I wonder why the Governments favor gay unions. They can’t have children naturally - certainly not a large family. That could explain why we will we be following China with a one child policy if things continue the way they are.
 
The anti-child folks often refer to us as “breeders”. Some of us mistakenly take this for an insult. Not me, I’m rather proud of it! Here’s why:

Any rancher who raises beef cattle has two categories: “Breeders” and…ah…ulp!..“beef”. I’d rather be a breeder.👍
 
Black_Jaque said:
Huh? What does that mean? Where is the other thread?
Click to expand...
If I understand correctly, there is only one thread now, this one. Two threads on the same topic were merged into one.

Mudgie-in-training and freelance sparkle/coffee grinds sprinkler
 
quote=Black Jaque;2192053]This seems to suggest that there is a link between wealth and environmental degredation. I wonder if you took the per capita CO2 emissions of those below the poverty line compared to those well above it, just in the U.S. how the numbers would shake out.

It would seem that poor people drive smaller cars, take fewer trans-atlantic flights, and commute shorter distances than do rich people.

It would seem then that a child born to wealth would be worse than several children born to poverty.

Of course, if a couple makes some sacrifices and drops down to one income, they could effectively reduce their green-house emissions while having more babies.

That would require that a couple value children more than material wealth…:hmmm:I think you’ve got something there…Naaa, children can’t be worth more than, say. a car, can they???
 
This is nothing new for Europe. I had a friend who came from a big family (7 kids). When she was little, her family lived near her dad’s base in Germany. People would actually make rude statements like “how selfish to have so many” when her mom shepherded the brood around.

This was 25+ years ago! And they wonder why their governments are all bankrupt.
 
Black_Jaque said:
The anti-child folks often refer to us as “breeders”. Some of us mistakenly take this for an insult. Not me, I’m rather proud of it! Here’s why:

Any rancher who raises beef cattle has two categories: “Breeders” and…ah…ulp!..“beef”. I’d rather be a breeder.👍
Click to expand...
If you really want to call use “beef,” go crazy. (I do hope that’s not a veiled proposition that we childless folk be eaten!)

Seriously, though, begetting and being eaten pretty much covers the usefulness of cattle (okay, there’s milking). One likes to think of human beings as having a bit more than that to contribute. I reject any use of the rude appellation “breeders,” but suspect it might have originated on the lips of some childless person who got tired of catching flak from child-friendly peers, and began to feel as if a human being’s worth is encapsulated in the ability to crank out offspring. That’s something of a cattlelike way to regard the human condition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top