The Population Bomb.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Linusthe2nd
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For the benefit of all those who think that “population” “issues” justify birth control and abortion, … that people are a burden, not a gift from God … take a look at this short video and come on back and let’s discuss:

youtube.com/watch_popup?v=9xwCG0Ey2Mg
 
As for birth control I will always think its fundamentally wrong and irresponsible to bring any children into the world that you cannot financially or physically support. Practice self control if nothing else.

For every video about a wonderful person on this earth there is another for a horrible one. Its all relative to who you associate with. Some people are just terrible. 🤷
 
As for birth control I will always think its fundamentally wrong and irresponsible to bring any children into the world that you cannot financially or physically support. Practice self control if nothing else.
I agree that it is irresponsible to bring children into the world without the means and will to care for them. However, I think killing them would be worse. I’m all for dissuading people who have no interest in having children from having sex. As the old saying goes, “If you don’t want to go to Minneapolis, what are you doing on the train?”
 
I can’t believe fellow CAF members actually believe in this myth …
 
I can’t believe fellow CAF members actually believe in this myth …
I know statistics have a lot of power to convince but it’s kinda hard when you’re surrounded by actual, physical proof to the seemingly contrary.

I’m in one of those countries where contraception is being pushed. There is no question of my own opposition but I really, really, reeaheeheeheeeeeally would like some simpler alternatives to argue with… at least a better outline on where to point all the fingers. (Not the best idea, but the best start when you’re suddenly presented by sights of street children and loitering squatters. sighs)
 
I know statistics have a lot of power to convince but it’s kinda hard when you’re surrounded by actual, physical proof to the seemingly contrary.

I’m in one of those countries where contraception is being pushed. There is no question of my own opposition but I really, really, reeaheeheeheeeeeally would like some simpler alternatives to argue with… at least a better outline on where to point all the fingers. (Not the best idea, but the best start when you’re suddenly presented by sights of street children and loitering squatters. sighs)
Whenever I see people use the urban poor as a justification for contraception, I am insulted by it. The condescension by the supporters of contraception is quite disgusting since they regard the urban poor as unfit to breed.
 
Whenever I see people use the urban poor as a justification for contraception, I am insulted by it. The condescension by the supporters of contraception is quite disgusting since they regard the urban poor as unfit to breed.
That only works a little bit more effectively than stats but the fact is, are the poor being responsible? There’s not exactly a lot of proof that men below the poverty line have done much to change their image of wife-beating, drunken, rooster-fight gamblers.

I wanna see them in a better light, I really do… but when you’re being ripped off or lied to by the conductor of a slow PUV… ugh. :mad:
 
That only works a little bit more effectively than stats but the fact is, are the poor being responsible? There’s not exactly a lot of proof that men below the poverty line have done much to change their image of wife-beating, drunken, rooster-fight gamblers.

I wanna see them in a better light, I really do… but when you’re being ripped off or lied to by the conductor of a slow PUV… ugh. :mad:
So what you’re saying is that they should improve their image so that would not be seen as targets by the eugenicists?
 
So what you’re saying is that they should improve their image so that would not be seen as targets by the eugenicists?
Obviously! Developed countries do not make themselves if its citizens are in fact the very lazy and self-pitying sort of crowd they are being depicted to be.

Stereotyping’s bad but they always have a basis at some point.
 
Obviously! Developed countries do not make themselves if its citizens are in fact the very lazy and self-pitying sort of crowd they are being depicted to be.

Stereotyping’s bad but they always have a basis at some point.
Point taken.
We however, have a problem. Here in Manila, we have the media establishment applying Marxist ideology and using the stereotypes of the urban poor to perpetuate the stereotype as well as promoting the Marxist ideology.
How then, can we take out the immense establishment known as the Philippine mainstream media?
 
How then, can we take out the immense establishment known as the Philippine mainstream media?
It’ll take out itself once people stop being lazy and start buying things of higher quality (better yet, create things of higher quality).
 
It’ll take out itself once people stop being lazy and start buying things of higher quality (better yet, create things of higher quality).
So what you’re saying is that we should encourage people to create things of better quality?
Elaborate your answers.
 
Unfortunately, many text books are written to indoctrinate with a political ideology rather than instruct with facts.
This goes for people supporting both sides. However, what disturbs me personally, is when people simply blow off facts that are presented before them.
I suppose you use this paper for all your support for Catholicism also.
Instead of paying US farmers to not produce crops, we could be sending excess food to sub-Saharan Africa. Why would your text book conclude there are too many people? Just the opposite. We need more people to distribute food more evenly.
Interesting you pick a country with a with a surplus, notably a country that could be self sufficient with regard to resources, and one that has a high ratio of various naturally occurring resources per person. Also, you choose the country with what has the de facto world currency and prints money out of thin air. Why are you choosing the exception rather than the rule?

Why not choose a resource rich country with a much higher population, say, China or India, and use them as an example? After all, countries such as the U.S. and Australia will eventually become like them as their populations increase to those levels.
 
There is a huge difference in agricultural productivity between countries that enjoy political and economic freedom versus those that have tyrannical governments [socialism and outright dictatorships].

The types of economic systems make a radical difference.

We are making a major error when we lump all countries together.

People in countries that “have a surplus” simply work harder … hard work and the ability to keep some of what you make … is all the difference.

IN ADDITION, according to an article in the Catholic Answers blog of March 20, 2013 by Jimmy Akin, about 44 million babies are killed by abortion each year. So the potential for intellectual and scientific gain is being destroyed in huge numbers. Abortion almost exceeds all other causes of death combined … 56 million versus 44 million.

catholic.com/blog/jimmy-akin/straight-talk-about-abortion

With people getting educated and more people to share the work, the potential for gain is unlimited.

Instead, we have a few pseudo-intellectuals with no imagination and no talent deciding that there is no hope.
 
There is a huge difference in agricultural productivity between countries that enjoy political and economic freedom versus those that have tyrannical governments [socialism and outright dictatorships].

The types of economic systems make a radical difference.

We are making a major error when we lump all countries together.
Actually, I don’t. I am only interested in the population and the resources available to the population.
People in countries that “have a surplus” simply work harder … hard work and the ability to keep some of what you make … is all the difference.
So are you saying that if the people in Nauru work as hard as those in the U.S., they will suddenly become self sufficient and wealthy? Or should I say wealthy again, because they were amongst the wealthiest on a per capita basis until there major resource dried up.
IN ADDITION, according to an article in the Catholic Answers blog of March 20, 2013 by Jimmy Akin, about 44 million babies are killed by abortion each year. So the potential for intellectual and scientific gain is being destroyed in huge numbers. Abortion almost exceeds all other causes of death combined … 56 million versus 44 million.
This has nothing to do with the argument. It’s an extremist position that is pushing an agenda. Once again, both sides do it. And that’s the opinion of a pro-life Catholic.
With people getting educated and more people to share the work, the potential for gain is unlimited.
Instead, we have a few pseudo-intellectuals with no imagination and no talent deciding that there is no hope.
Unfortunately, there are too many self-(pseudo)proclaimed intellectuals on both sides that do great damage to the rest of us.
 
“Resources available” vary dramatically depending on who is using them.

Sand can be used for making pretty piles on the seashore, or can be used in making concrete, or can be used in making glass, or can be used in making computer chips.

It depends.

It matters where you are born and where you live:

alfin2100.blogspot.com/2013/01/a-place-where-it-is-better-to-be-born.html

With economic and political and religious freedom, people prosper … and the prospects for economic growth are unlimited.

Under conditions of tyranny, hope is lost.

Look for books such as “Liberty and Tyranny” … and books by authors such as Thomas Sowell, Mark R. Levin, Walter E. Williams, Milton Friedman, and going back to Bastiat.

The POINT is that so-called “command economies” fail … all the time.

Free market economics works every time it is tried.

By the way, there is a Walter E. Williams and a Walter J. Williams … and both are conservative economists … and both have Web sites worth viewing. Walter E. Williams claims to be “black by popular demand”.
 
Sand can be used for making pretty piles on the seashore, or can be used in making concrete, or can be used in making glass, or can be used in making computer chips.
With the appropriate energy resources, whose EROEI are trending downward.
 
As demonstrated in a previous post, the whole concept of EROEI is invalid.
That’s like saying the whole concept of addition or subtraction is invalid. EROEI is simply “energy returned on energy invested.” It’s basic economics. If you invest a dollar and are guaranteed to get back two dollars you invest; if you are guaranteed to only get back half of your investment you don’t invest.

You are conflating basic economic concepts with various theories based upon them, hence the reason you are not making any sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top