Lets have a global "one child" policy

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If I remember correctly half of the medical expenses during a lifetime is typically used during the last three months of life.

The VA's is in for some hellish bills then.

[Tyrannical]

The World doesn't have an over population problem, but certain areas of the World are severely over populated. Those areas are a disease / starvation time bomb waiting to happen, as there seems no end to their population increase and they have no drive to stop it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Soylent Green. Just sayin'.

Psst....

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

It's people.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But not voters, apparently.

[MiM]

If I remember correctly half of the medical expenses during a lifetime is typically used during the last three months of life.

The VA's is in for some hellish bills then.

Since when have you been typical?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If I remember correctly half of the medical expenses during a lifetime is typically used during the last three months of life.

The VA's is in for some hellish bills then.

Since when have you been typical?

Uh, up to age 1?

[sandinista]

Why do you think people are really serious about saving the planet?

Best point on the thread. No one is serious about "saving the planet". That term is nonsense at any rate since the planet will be around long after humans. The planet has been through far worse than anything measly humans can do to it. Saving animals and plants, OK, the planet? The planet will shake us off like a bunch of fleas. As for saving animals and plants, no one gives a shit. The global "we" are short sighted, only care about our own lifetimes and are far more concerned with consuming and making profits than saving some fish, rainforests, endangered animals, or even ourselves. People may talk the big talk about "saving the planet" but it's nothing more than another consumer fad. Green this green that, recycle this, organic that. The consumer machine itself is the problem, that problem will not be solved by recycling your cans and paper or buying an organic banana.

[mistermack]

Why do you think people are really serious about saving the planet?

Best point on the thread. No one is serious about "saving the planet". That term is nonsense at any rate since the planet will be around long after humans. The planet has been through far worse than anything measly humans can do to it. Saving animals and plants, OK, the planet? The planet will shake us off like a bunch of fleas. As for saving animals and plants, no one gives a shit. The global "we" are short sighted, only care about our own lifetimes and are far more concerned with consuming and making profits than saving some fish, rainforests, endangered animals, or even ourselves. People may talk the big talk about "saving the planet" but it's nothing more than another consumer fad. Green this green that, recycle this, organic that. The consumer machine itself is the problem, that problem will not be solved by recycling your cans and paper or buying an organic banana.

Of course I'm not talking about saving the rocks.
Personally, I'm talking about the scandal of extinction. Extinctions of whole habitats.
I'm highly dubious about global warming, but the avalanche of extinctions just can't be denied.

We are wiping out species at an incredible rate, and that is a true crime against nature, to me.
If the human population can be cut, the rate of extinctions could be halted, because we wouldn't need to destroy habitats.
In many countries, the way that population rise is halted is by education of women, and in many cases just by a culture change. In Brazil, it seems to have been hugely affected by soap operas, of all things.
The conventional attitudes were turned on their heads, by story lines in popular soaps.
Not an expensive way to get the message across.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But where's the motivation to do that.

[hadespussercats]

Why do you think people are really serious about saving the planet?

Best point on the thread. No one is serious about "saving the planet". That term is nonsense at any rate since the planet will be around long after humans. The planet has been through far worse than anything measly humans can do to it. Saving animals and plants, OK, the planet? The planet will shake us off like a bunch of fleas. As for saving animals and plants, no one gives a shit. The global "we" are short sighted, only care about our own lifetimes and are far more concerned with consuming and making profits than saving some fish, rainforests, endangered animals, or even ourselves. People may talk the big talk about "saving the planet" but it's nothing more than another consumer fad. Green this green that, recycle this, organic that. The consumer machine itself is the problem, that problem will not be solved by recycling your cans and paper or buying an organic banana.

Of course I'm not talking about saving the rocks.
Personally, I'm talking about the scandal of extinction. Extinctions of whole habitats.
I'm highly dubious about global warming, but the avalanche of extinctions just can't be denied.

We are wiping out species at an incredible rate, and that is a true crime against nature, to me.
If the human population can be cut, the rate of extinctions could be halted, because we wouldn't need to destroy habitats.
In many countries, the way that population rise is halted is by education of women, and in many cases just by a culture change. In Brazil, it seems to have been hugely affected by soap operas, of all things.
The conventional attitudes were turned on their heads, by story lines in popular soaps.
Not an expensive way to get the message across.

What I've learned from soap operas is that there is no crisis that can excuse hair without volume.

[sandinista]

Of course I'm not talking about saving the rocks.
Personally, I'm talking about the scandal of extinction. Extinctions of whole habitats.
I'm highly dubious about global warming, but the avalanche of extinctions just can't be denied.

No, can't be denied, but, as I pointed out, no one cares. They simply don't. Animals that are going extinct are still being hunted. The sea is being emptied. On the one hand you have global capitalism and consumerism, on the other, saving habitats. The vast majority of people are more interested in the first. Half of those interested in the second are only interested so far as their own personal comfort isn't effected. Unless there is some vast social change (ie...ceasing the profit motive and the ideology of endless "growth") the ecosystem as we know it is going down the tubes and no one cares.

[nellikin]

I care - especially if my hair is without volume

[MrJonno]

Right now, people obviously don't take the threat to the planet seriously, or they would be willing to give up having big families. So it's time for the law to take over, and remove ALL incentives to breed more than one child. ie, remove all state benefits over and above the amount for one. As a start.

Why not remove the state benefits for the first child as well? It's simpler and you're more likely to average just one child that way.

Populations in the 1st world are stable or falling, and I don't think you will find there are any state benefits in the 3rd world.

Population isnt the big factor a 1st world pet dog uses more energy and resources than someone from the 3rd world
A single American will use more energy than an entire 3rd world village

Population growth is directly related to poverty, rich people (or those who want to be rich) don't have many if any children (average age of a first time mother in the UK is now 30

[mistermack]

Of course I'm not talking about saving the rocks.
Personally, I'm talking about the scandal of extinction. Extinctions of whole habitats.
I'm highly dubious about global warming, but the avalanche of extinctions just can't be denied.

No, can't be denied, but, as I pointed out, no one cares. They simply don't. Animals that are going extinct are still being hunted. The sea is being emptied. On the one hand you have global capitalism and consumerism, on the other, saving habitats. The vast majority of people are more interested in the first. Half of those interested in the second are only interested so far as their own personal comfort isn't effected. Unless there is some vast social change (ie...ceasing the profit motive and the ideology of endless "growth") the ecosystem as we know it is going down the tubes and no one cares.

I agree. You will never change people, so the only option I see is to change the NUMBER of people.
Not that I think it will happen. It's happening in some places, even places that you wouldn't expect, like Brazil.
If the Catholic Church could be further discredited, that would help a lot. It's no good assassinating the Pope, they just elect another one.

The other thing I would do is to restrict immigration from overpopulated countries. If they have all the babies, they should feed them.
If times were different, and the world wasn't so overpopulated, I would have more regard for humans. But the way I see it, there are six billion of us. We are in no danger of extinction. So I don't care that much.
NATURAL extinctions are one thing, but what's happening now is ludicrous.

[mistermack]

Populations in the 1st world are stable or falling, and I don't think you will find there are any state benefits in the 3rd world.

Population isnt the big factor a 1st world pet dog uses more energy and resources than someone from the 3rd world
A single American will use more energy than an entire 3rd world village

Population growth is directly related to poverty, rich people (or those who want to be rich) don't have many if any children (average age of a first time mother in the UK is now 30

The thing is though, that third world countries, like China used to be, are bringing billions from the third world into the first.
And they all want cars and electricity and cheap convenient food like we do.
So huge third-world populations are a time-bomb, waiting to go off.