Overpopulation

[Kenneth R.]

Go see how many children the average athiest who has sex before marriage has. Then go see how many children the average Christian who waits til marriage has. There's your answer.

false. sorry.

kmik: just because richer countries have less children does not mean they aren't contributing to this problem, or in some cases, more of an issue than the poorer countries. see my post above. its not numbers, its longevity.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

false. sorry.

Why even bother to reply if you have nothing better to defend your argument with then this?

 

[kmik]

There are more reasons why they have lots of kids in the third world. Obviously they prefer males over females. That's because males can work harder and be more economically effective, of course, but religion and other social issues that don't play a big role in the west also have a part in that. So if you need 3 boys you'll most likely need to have at least 4-5 kids in total for that. Secondly, because of diseases and stuff many kids die even before they are able to work, so they'll have to have a 'backup' kid (as horrible as it sounds). And that's a magic circle, because someone who is born to a poor family with many kids has no chance to succeed at all. He'll, too, be poor and have many children, and so it continues...

In the west there is no problem of overpopulation at all (in fact I believe that in some European countries the population growth is negative, discounting immigrants) - it's mostly about over consumption.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Why even bother to reply if you have nothing better to defend your argument with then this?

your argument was such a blatant lie that in my distaste i replied thus.

show me where such proof exists for such a stupid argument...

 

[the alumnus]

There are more reasons why they have lots of kids in the third world. Obviously they prefer males over females. That's because males can work harder and be more economically effective, of course, but religion and other social issues that don't play a big role in the west also have a part in that. So if you need 3 boys you'll most likely need to have at least 4-5 kids in total for that. Secondly, because of diseases and stuff many kids die even before they are able to work, so they'll have to have a 'backup' kid (as horrible as it sounds). And that's a magic circle, because someone who is born to a poor family with many kids has no chance to succeed at all. He'll, too, be poor and have many children, and so it continues...

In the west there is no problem of overpopulation at all (in fact I believe that in some European countries the population growth is negative, discounting immigrants) - it's mostly about over consumption.

one of the reasons that overpopulation is a problem in developing countries is that diseases the caused large infant mortality rates have largely vanished in most of the world. yet people are still having the same number of children that they had when infant mortality rates are high. thus you are left with "population explosion".

most western countries have very low or negative population growth. germany, spain, and italy, russia, as well as japan (not western but included anyway) have negative population growth. the US and britain have very low population growth.

 

[Kenneth R.]

true, however people tend to live longer in those countries and that contributes to the "problem"

 

[crimsonfloyd]

your argument was such a blatant lie that in my distaste i replied thus.

show me where such proof exists for such a stupid argument...

Well its pretty hard to find an offical document that charts such issues, but it is pretty much right in front of our faces. The average American family has around 1.5 children. Keeping that in mind go into a strongly catholic or baptist or mormon or orthadox jewish nieghborhood and check out the number of children in the nieghborgood. Or better yet go to a church and see if most the memebers have more then two kids ... most the time they will. Furthermore most religions openly advocate reproduction and the increase of human population. Its in the Bible, I'm pretty sure its in the Koran as well. Its definitley in the Morman book- whatever that piece of garbage is called. I can look up the actual lines in the Bible if you'd like- but lets be honest- we both know they're there.

 

[NeverIsForever]

Its definitley in the Morman book- whatever that piece of garbage is called.

The Book of Mormon, isn't it? Yeah, I stopped taking Mormonism as a religion seriously once I read the story behind how they came by their beliefs/teachings/etc. Under the Banner of Heaven is a very interesting book and I'd recommend it to anyone curious...

 

[kmik]

true, however people tend to live longer in those countries and that contributes to the "problem"

Yes, of course. The problem is that modern medicine does not improve your quality of life but only makes them longer, and that only gets worse and worse. The rate of over people who are over the age of 65 and do not contribute to the economy to those who are younger continues to increase in the west. Obviously that makes economy unstable but then again, technology decreases the need in manpower for economy to work properly.

The main problem is that resources are very limited and although the number of people in the west remains just about the same they still consume more and more. The only ways to solve it is to colonize other planets and to hope for the death of 90% of the human race.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Its in the Bible, I'm pretty sure its in the Koran as well. Its definitley in the Morman book- whatever that piece of garbage is called. I can look up the actual lines in the Bible if you'd like- but lets be honest- we both know they're there.

ok.... so the bible says reproduce so you don't go extinct. but that's common sense...

my disagreement is when you compared christianity which says: yes, reproduce so you don't put your species on the endangered list, but be responsible about your actions and accountable for all you do, act wisely and accordingly.. to atheism, and somehow (with no proof or evidence) drew the conclusion that you so proclaimed atheists have less children and implied they are somehow "above" this issue. how so?

 

[Kenneth R.]

Yes, of course. The problem is that modern medicine does not improve your quality of life but only makes them longer...The only ways to solve it is to colonize other planets

agree.-- and improve modern medicine

and to hope for the death of 90% of the human race.

disagree.

 

[infoterror]

If the lowest 90% of the human race went away, the remainder would:

1. Be 120 IQ or higher
2. Not destroy the environment
3. Have plenty of room to grow

How can anyone be against that? Smarter, better humans and no ecocide. <3!

 

[Kenneth R.]

at the cost of genocide? who are you to decide who lives and who does not?

 

[infoterror]

at the cost of genocide? who are you to decide who lives and who does not?

What kind of philosophy is "who are you to decide"? If it's the right action, it should be done.

This ego-comparison crap is for kiddies and idiots. To which category do you belong?

 

[The Devil's Steed]

ok.... so the bible says reproduce so you don't go extinct. but that's common sense...

my disagreement is when you compared christianity which says: yes, reproduce so you don't put your species on the endangered list, but be responsible about your actions and accountable for all you do, act wisely and accordingly.. to atheism, and somehow (with no proof or evidence) drew the conclusion that you so proclaimed atheists have less children and implied they are somehow "above" this issue. how so?

While the whole of Christianity may not encourage having a large amount of kids Catholicism does, and I'd hazard a guess that that's the primary sect he had in mind when he made in the comment.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i would stress the difference between catholicism and true christianity from my point of view having experienced both. they are not to be regarded in such a manner that one would pass judgment on christianity based on catholicism, which i believe deviates from it greatly.

 

[Kenneth R.]

What kind of philosophy is "who are you to decide"? If it's the right action, it should be done.

This ego-comparison crap is for kiddies and idiots. To which category do you belong?

"right action" in whose agenda, infoterror?
you ask how can one be against the destruction of 9 out of 10 of one's own kind, i say: easily! life is not to be thrown away, nor taken away. humanity is not to be its own executioner. again i ask, who are you to judge the right of others to live or die? that judgment is God's alone, and if in your perspective you don't believe in him, then it is no ones.

 

[vile_ator]

Im a little late in here, but want to get back to the initial topic. I think the key to seeing why any society or government wants immigration is money. Follow the money. More consumers = more money into the economies, and peoples pockets. So youre always going to run into that reality if you want to curb immagration.

Secondly the idea of restricting childbirth to more intelligent people is a great answer but wont be implimented. A society filled with citizens all of 120 IQ is a people that cannot be herded. Keep em dumb and you stay in power from the politician's point of view.

There is an amazing book called "Why civilizations self destruct" by Elmer Pendall that explains how all great civilizations are formed by people that have been weeded out through natural selection and are the best of the best. But in time societies pamper the lesser fit and eventually the lesser overtake the more intelligent and the civilizations collapse. He also talks about the societies pressuring lower intelligent people to have less kids and promoting the more creative and smarter types and encouraging them to have more.

Wont happen. Human nature says that there must be a hierarchyal structure within a popuation and you cant have everyone be at the top. There must be echelons. And human nature dictates that our 'base emotions' will always get the best of us. Power, greed, money, etc will always drive us to keep our fellow man down.

Its nice to work towards an ideal situation because some things can be done to tame the beast(reptile brain) within us. Look at our Democracy compared to what has existed in the past. But no great and profound changes can be made untill real evolutionary progress is made in mankind. Give it 100,000 and get back to me!

Cheers,

Colin

 

[crimsonfloyd]

ok.... so the bible says reproduce so you don't go extinct. but that's common sense...

my disagreement is when you compared christianity which says: yes, reproduce so you don't put your species on the endangered list, but be responsible about your actions and accountable for all you do, act wisely and accordingly.. to atheism, and somehow (with no proof or evidence) drew the conclusion that you so proclaimed atheists have less children and implied they are somehow "above" this issue. how so?

First off, the Bible does not just say to reproduce to keep the human race from dying out. It says to reproduce enough to cover as much land as possible. I can't remember the exact wording or where in the Bible this is said unfortunatley, but it basically has to do with humans inheriting the Earth, taming everything else and all that other garbage. Second of all I NEVER said anything that implied that athiests were above the issue of overpopulation, I just stated that Christians, Muslims and Jews tend to have a lot of kids... more then the average athiest, which, if you stopped staying in denial, you would clearly be able to see. Like I said go to any Church and ask a good number of the members of the community how many kids they have. Take that number and compare it to the average for that community. Or that country. Heres another little expiriment you can do. From now on every time you meet a parent with four or more kids ask about their religious beliefs. As far as athiests go, its important that they don't have too many children either, and considering they still have the same natural desire to reproduce that religious people do the issue remains for them as well. However because athiests rarley have issues with birthcontrol, and have issues with abortion much less often then religious, they are less likely to have children. Oh and one more expiriment you may find interesting. Use the search engine of your choice and look for the top websites against the concept of overpopulation. Hmmmm... notice who most of them are run by? Yup...

 

[The Devil's Steed]

"right action" in whose agenda, infoterror?
you ask how can one be against the destruction of 9 out of 10 of one's own kind, i say: easily! life is not to be thrown away, nor taken away. humanity is not to be its own executioner. again i ask, who are you to judge the right of others to live or die? that judgment is God's alone, and if in your perspective you don't believe in him, then it is no ones.

So not following your religious belief systems means we should believe that NO ONE has the right to choose who dies or who doesn't? If a God that has the right to judge doesn't exist, then the burden falls on the people to do this themselves.