Overpopulation topic for Liberalsaved

  • Thread starter Thread starter MonicaC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think the issue is living space, as much as space that is needed to create the food to sustain people on. Much as this also has to do with transportation of food product which can be an issue of the is a corrupt government or restrictive government control on food production to the point of limited food supply rather then addressing the food safety aspect to protect humans from harmful pesticides or mad cow disease.

There is plenty of land in China, but the problem really is transportation of food and government control of the market.

For those who believe there is a food shortage please check the next time you buy a bottle of apple juice, it actually says “Product of China” on many of them or “Apples from China”, I’ve also seen on frozen “Atlantic” fish to also be a product of China. It’s cheaper to use Chinese labor in the middle of the Atlantic I guess.

Farming has become incredibly efficient over this past century. I guess we would have to look acre for acre how much food can be produced compare to 200 years ago or even 2000 years ago. As mentioned before we waste a lot of decent farming land to manicured lawns and unneeded living quarters.
 
Rosalinda said:
Has anyone read the excellent paper, “The Inherent Racism of Population Control” by Paul Jalsevac? You can read it as an Adobe pdf document here. Fare warning this is a 58 page report.🤓

lifesite.net/waronfamily/Population_Control/Inherentracism.pdf#search=%22Racism%20Population%20Control%20site%3Awww.lifesite.net%22
Click to expand...
Yes-
In all my conversations with people who think there are “too many people” it’s funny they never seem to explain exactly who gets to reproduce and who shouldn’t. They always seem to be fine with their own families…
I just had this conversation with a friend this past weekend. Ultimately my friend’s belief regardless of argument presented is that the amount of people either exponentially increase or decrease the world’s problems. Less humans equal less disease, less poverty, less pollution etc.
Less people also mean more spoiled children (generally and in the 3rd world), more egotistical adults, whose ultimate desire for self-gratification will actually contribute more towards the problems they seek to solve through pop control IMHO.
 
rayne89 said:
Many population control activists are strongly in favor of sterilization of women in Third World countries.

Eugenics laws began all the way back in the 19th century, in order to prevent the birth of “inferior” children-- meaning those produced by criminals, blacks, “imbeciles”, and immigrants. Mentally handicapped and autistic women have also been routinely sterilized.

In 1973, Essence Magazine published an expose of forced sterilization practices in the rural South, where racist physicians felt they were performing a service by sterilizing black women without telling them.
You may want to check this link
http://againsttheirwill.journalnow.com/

The United Nations Population Fund in its association with the National Population Council of Mexico supports involuntary sterilization and coercive family planning in Mexico. According to Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission “Public health servants have imposed methods of family planning on the native population without their consent and without informing them of the risks.”

Planned Parenthood the leader in promoting “a women’s right to choose” has been linked to forced sterilization. Frederick Jaffe, who was the head of research at Planned Parenthood, proposed “compulsory sterilization for those who have already had two children” in a memo entitled “Examples of Proposed Measures to Reduce U.S. Fertility.” Alan Guttmacher himself, who was the president of Planned Parenthood for over a decade, stated, “Each country will have to decide its own form of coercion, determining when and how it should be employed.”

Population control groups have a very ugly history of how they want to save the world’s resources from the cancer called the human race.
Click to expand...
People keep equating groups I am barely familiar with to everyone who beleives over-population to be harmful. I am beginning to find it amusing.
 
Trelow said:
We’ll be fine. Don’t worry about it.
Click to expand...
I have my spirituality and faiths just the same as you have yours. But if it’s all the same to you, I’ll continue to give some of my thought to the safety and comfort and knowledge of the human race while it’s still on Earth.
 
philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/14628688.htm

newamerica.net/publications/policy/the_population_implosion

I understand the concerns of those who see fewer children as the solution for poverty and suffering. I just think we need to think it through. Phillip Longman, a liberal expert on population who is quoted in the first article above and authored the second, explains that if a family has fewer children, resources can in fact be freed up within the family economy during the childhood years. But as that family ages (as all populations do), there are less people to produce and earn and work. This points up another point (besides human life being intrinsically good) which birth-control advocates always miss: people are PRODUCERS, not just consumers.

This is why Russia and Japan and Germany are already getting diarrhea thinking how they’re going to pay their retirees in a few decades. There are just not enough young people coming up to finance retirement. Old people cost a lot more than children to keep alive. They need health care and all sorts of things whereas children’s food and education are comparitively less resource-intensive.

It is the same situation in the 3rd world. People age. Old people need young people to take care of them. There need to be enough.

Human progress is predicated upon population increase in many ways. It has always been this way. Those who think birth-control is good for the human race are I believe just objectively mistaken.
 
A friend of mine who works with homeless families in the area has often commented to me that most of them have no brothers or sisters to go to when they get in crisis.

I would really like to see some numbers on the effect of lack of extended family for families in crisis.

I know my friend who has an autistic son is confident that his eight siblings will be there for him when his parents are gone.
 
Liberalsaved said:
I have my spirituality and faiths just the same as you have yours. But if it’s all the same to you, I’ll continue to give some of my thought to the safety and comfort and knowledge of the human race while it’s still on Earth.
Click to expand...
I vote for colonizing the Moon.

👍
 
Overpopulation is a myth and even if it were true, it’d be no excuse for murdering a human being.
 
To clarify for renee1258 (post #40), when I wrote “there is not enough land to sustain the current population much less the other members of God’s creation” I was not concerned simply with housing space. Sustainability includes, among other things, a place to live, enough food to eat, enough area to ‘have your own territory’. Remove any of the things required to sustain a living being and they start to show signs of stress. Remove too many and it can lead to sickness and death. This has been proven to be true even with plants. (No, I don’t have access to the specific study data at this time. However, all one has to do is walk in a forest that has been badly stripped of its trees, rather than sustainably logged, to see the effect. I have access to both situations – the difference is remarkable.)

God provided a natural balance in His creation. Animals breathe air, trees clean the air of toxins, well-cared for land provides water filtration … the balance is wonderfully endless!

Just a clarification of my usage of the term sustainability.
Go with Love, Go with God!
 
Holly3278 said:
Overpopulation is a myth and even if it were true, it’d be no excuse for murdering a human being.
Click to expand...
A: No, it most definitely is not.

B: Don’t beleive everything the OP tells you, in this case.
 
Liberalsaved said:
People keep equating groups I am barely familiar with to everyone who beleives over-population to be harmful. I am beginning to find it amusing.
Click to expand...
You’re not familiar with the United Nations or Planned Parenthood? I guess you need to study this subject a little further then.
 
rayne89 said:
You’re not familiar with the United Nations or Planned Parenthood? I guess you need to study this subject a little further then.
Click to expand...
If I wanted to say I agree with PP, I’d have said it. Instead, other people who’ve had the gift of seeing inside my mind have said it for me.
 
wabrams said:
Yes it is. You’ve been given evidence that there is no overpopulation. I have yet to see you produce a credible source to discount it.

Why, b/c it legitably goes against what you believe?
Click to expand...
A: I’ve yet to see the other crowd produce a credible source, outside of noting spaces we could cram everyone into if we want no elbrow room.

B: No, because the sport of putting words in someone’s mouth, asserting they actually beleive those words, then disppearing when called on it gets very tiresome.
 
Liberalsaved said:
A: I’ve yet to see the other crowd produce a credible source, outside of noting spaces we could cram everyone into if we want no elbrow room.
Click to expand...
Looks like solid figures that shoot down your vague theories and sources you quote.
Liberalsaved said:
B: No, because the sport of putting words in someone’s mouth, asserting they actually beleive those words, then disppearing when called on it gets very tiresome.
Click to expand...
If that was an olympic sport you would get the gold!
 
Originally Posted by Liberalsaved
A: No, it [overpopulation] most definitely is not [a myth].
Click to expand...
Well i don’t guess i will convince you if you have your mind made up, but …

what did you think of the articles I linked to in post #45? Since the source is a liberal demographics expert, doesn’t that carry any weight with you that under-population is actually more of a concern?
 
urban-hermit said:
Well i don’t guess i will convince you if you have your mind made up, but …

what did you think of the articles I linked to in post #45? Since the source is a liberal demographics expert, doesn’t that carry any weight with you that under-population is actually more of a concern?
Click to expand...
Not really. Because I’ve seen the effects of too many people with not enough space up close and personal. I’m making my judgements based on what I can evidence with my two eyes. At any rate, it’s a large issue, and isn’t simply too many people in too little space.

I read your links, and while his research seems, on paper (or screen) credible, it just isn’t bourne out by the reality of day-to-day life in many places. I’m sure it’s true for some places, but not all. Not nearly all.

On the surface, over-population is too many people versus not enough space. But if you dare to suggest that maybe the space taken up by yet another super-mall or yet another new sports venue would be better used serving the destitute, you’re a communist or you don’t care about the economy or a hundred other foul-sounding things.

And of course (fair warning: if you get offended easily, you’d better stop reading right here), it’s absurd to suggest personal responsibility, to the effect that maybe whatever you beleive is out there has a plan for Earth, but that it doesn’t mean you can chalk everything up to the will of God and just ignore it and do nothing. To me, that’s the last resort of the lazy and uncaring. I make the personal choice not to divulge personal details of what I beleive. But if God put us here, it wasn’t just to sit around and wait for Him to intervene. What would be the point of that?
No, we’re here, no matter what you beleive, with a responsibility to take care of the world. We can’t rely on God or any other leader for absolutely everything. By denying that these things are problems, by saying that every child is planned and sacred (note to certain people: nowhere in here am I advocating abortion) and that we should not encourage people to adopt or have fewer children, or rather an amount of children they can support, and point to God as a reason, is irresponsible. We, right now, have a responsibility to this world. If God was going to handle everything, he, she or it would not have given us free will.
 
I think the libs are just scared because they are getting out-bred. 😃
 
Yeah, sure, God gave us free will, and what a wonderful gift it is.
He also gave us commands-you know- like love your neighbour, don’t commit adultery etc. And do you know, that he loves us so much, that he will allow us to choose our free will over His. He will not force us to love him, for that is not true love, for how can we truly love someone if we have no other choice.
And right at the beginning of the Bible, God says “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it”, and he hasn’t yet told us to stop.
He didn’t say, lets have children until we become suitably “enlightened”, and then we can decide for ourselves. He told us to. We can ignore him on this, just like we can choose to commit adultery, or kill someone, once we have decided that such rules are outdated, and we have reached a “new understanding”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top