Overpopulation?

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 10:08

Most of us are aware that over-population is a major problem today . The world population of over 6 billion is expected to reach 10.7 billion by 2050. Given the strain on global resources and the environment today, it is clear that an environmental disaster is waiting to happen, as the population time bomb ticks away..

While reproduction, as part of family life, is a fundamental human right, we must also consider that rights come with responsibilities. Do we have a responsibility to future generations?

Should we introduce population control and restrict couples to having, say, no more than 2 children?

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 10:21

Absolutely, the sooner the better.



But, unfortunately, there is no way you can implement controls or even introduce education measures in places with skyrocketing birth rates.

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 10:31

Frightening when you see the figures real time!





http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldClock.php

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 10:40

It certainly is Rob.

simbas



Joined: 16/07/2007
Posts: 5943

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 10:40

My god ROBnJO, it is frightening

Simbas

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 12:19

msge 3



This is truly staggering R&J

ROBnJO


Joined: 30/06/2008
Posts: 1289

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 12:47

What I do find sad is that since I looked at the 'clock' an hour or so ago, another 8 'species' have, on average, become extinct,...



making a total of over 5,500 extinct since 1st Jan.



I wonder how many of those are directly due to man?



Rob

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 13:03

Rob. Or woman maybe?

joseph


Joined: 17/04/2008
Posts: 709

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 13:49

Interesting debate



I think it important, as ever, to be objective when considering all these so called "myths" because so often when challenged that is what they are:myths.



It is happening now re the Climate Debate; Al Gore whenever his thesis is challenged is simply proven to be wrong, certainly questionable, because Al refuses to debate the issue, one on one, with any Scientist who refutes his arguments. (See his total bluster on American TV last week when challenged)As ever it is far too easy to chuck out predictions with pictures of nuclear bombs and devastated landscapes in the background and run away.



There is an agenda driving these people and it is important we research both them and their aims in order to draw informed conclusions.



Try researcing The Population Explosion Myth on Google and you will be inundated with facts and figures



Regards Joseph

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 20:11

msge 9



Hi Joseph



"There is an agenda driving these people and it is important we research both them and their aims in order to draw informed conclusions."



Could you tell us more about the agenda?



I wouldn't expect Al Gore to do very well in a debate on climate change. He is a politician not a climate scientist.



I have read a couple of interesting articles that dispute climate change, one on sun spot activity and the other on space particles.



So who does one believe?



I have been drawn to the work of Lovelock. He has credibility, he has been a scientist now for 70 years, has a PHD in medicine from Harvard, a degree in biphysics, a degree in chemisty, employed by NASA and has invented many scientific instruments. I like the fact that he is an independednt scientist and that he understands reinforcing and balancing feedback loops which seem essential to me if one is going to understand such a complex and dynamic system as the planets climate mechanism

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 20:13

Lovelock does not agree with the IPCC climate conclusions. He believes that their climate models used in predictions are not sophisticated enough and far too linear. He also feels that the IPCC have modified their data in order to keep the politicians happy.



Hopefully Lovelock is wrong, because if he is right, we are in for a very bumpy ride and Cyprus is probably not the best place to live.



I had a look at some sites in regard to ‘population myths’, but I need more convincing that we are not facing a population crises. First world standards of living will not be sustainable for 3 billion people, let alone any more than that, unless we achieve a technical breakthrough in nucleur fusion, zero point energy and food syntheseis etc. I have marvelled at some of the recent technical breakthroughs, but I wonder if the philosopher John Gray is right, that we have a misguided belief in the power of science and technology, that our belief is just an outgrowth of the Christian belief that

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 20:13

we can walk on water. Perhaps we can walk on water, Goswani the renowned quantum physicist would probably not dispute this.

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 20:54

well said ilc very scary though it breaks your heart hen you see what goes on. Billl how can we stop these people having more than 2 kids. Japan and China seem to get it right. In the western world we should do all we can. Nowadays who can afford more than two unless you are a single mum on benefits. we all have a responsibiliy.

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 21:52

Joseph,



It is well known that the climate change is too politicized issue. Unfortunately it even became a "litmus test" for politicians instead of been treated scientifically. On the other hand, most of important questions became politicized, that is the way of the modern world.

Whether you like Al Gore opinion or not, considering all imperfections (a strictly "one-way" view of the relationship between CO2 and temperature contradicts basic physics) of various climate models, today most of scientists agree THERE IS a global warming trend. The only question is what are the main attributors and their mechanism and what can we do.

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 21:54

cont



As for the "overpopulation myth" I accept your advice to have an in-depth research on Google.



Could we meanwhile agree if not on limiting the amount of children we have but at least not encouraging "welfare-babies"? I believe any parent who knowingly bears more children that it is imaginable for him to physically and monetarily take care of can not claim moral right for aid.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 21:58

Magbs msg 2



"But, unfortunately, there is no way you can implement controls or even introduce education measures in places with skyrocketing birth rates. "



There is an effective and perfectly moral means of influencing population growth rates. Namely increasing wealth, relative and absolute. If those in the first world are truely concerned at population growth outside it then they need to look at how their relative worth is at the expense of the rest of the worlds poverty. They would address the inherent inequites as to hows the worlds resources are 'shared' amoungst the worlds populations. This is the only way to address world wide population expansion, yet it is not something the rich west imo really wishes to deal with if it means a reduction in their relative wealth.

joseph


Joined: 17/04/2008
Posts: 709

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 23:09

IloveCy,Erolz, Magb, , all great posts and food for thought.



Re Lovelock, he himself for example blasted the Kyoto treaty saying in 2004 … I quote…”signing Kyoto was like the Left’s attachment to disarmament in 1938… well intentioned but totally misguided”



The following year (2005) The Lord’s report claimed the IPCC is allowing Science to be determined by “political requirements rather than by evidence and we are concerned that there may be political interference in the nomination of scientists to the IPCC”



Dr Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, after reviewing more than 240 scientific articles containing data obtained by teams of researchers found the climate change scare mongering to be both unfactual and dishonest science.



And of course who can forget Paul Ehrlich the father of the overpopulation myth who declared on American television: "I would bet even money that England will not exist in the year 2000"



cont...

joseph


Joined: 17/04/2008
Posts: 709

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 23:16

Lovelock stepped out of line re the likes of Dawkins etc and is probably too repected to have his work shunned and vilified a la say David Bellamy. Remember him, once ever present on our screens who unfortunately disagreed with the agenda. When the opportunity arose he was savaged, sacked from his posts at Royal Society and ditched.

As ever… follow the money… and sure enough answers will come to light and heaven help us if we disagree with this tax gathering, profit making lie.



IloveCyprus… my point is we're not given the truth, or arguments by both sides. We are told “de facto” and this is not how one presents scientific argument. Any Phd student will tell you when presenting his/her thesis for their PhD they are required (orals) to defend their arguments etc before a board of their peers.



The public are presented with “facts” … and those disagreeing are censored at best and vilified at worst. This is simply bad science.



I agree with you, research, research.



Joseph

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 23:29

Interesting thread.There does not need to be some kind of Stalinist edict preventing procreation ! Nature is finding its own way.Fertilty in men has been steadily reducing over the past decade,and the demographic pyramids of certain Western countries make for uncomfortable reading in terms of infertile ageing poulations. Then there is the obvious PC Nazi dogma of teaching young children to be anything other than heterosexual from an early age! That is certain to reduce birth rates!

joseph


Joined: 17/04/2008
Posts: 709

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 23:30

cont...



Excellent points... not much I do not diisagree with there because you ask fair questions re the possibilty of climate change, as opposed to weather changes.

You are not pointing unscientific fingers at Joe public telling him how he has brought about such a possibility and it's mechanism.



Re welfare kids, again little I can disagree with because I think you are asking for education, parental values and moral duties one owes ones children.



Erolz, again there is so much I agree with here because I wonder sometimes in these weighty topics whether it is a question to the third world of do what we say... not what we do. Of interest is a recent report showing population trends in European countries are falling and by 2020 will be neutral before going into a negative decline. Only recently Italy has been calling on its fertile citizens to have more children because of the demogaraphics involved.



It said UK would be same but for immigrant children



Regards Joseph

joseph


Joined: 17/04/2008
Posts: 709

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 23:37

Hi Clarets...



Not wantiung to cross one thread with another but I noticed reading your thoughts earlier re children and sex education you were unhappy with your 12 year old's education re this subject.



Did you notice another post further down saying sex education is now being advanced to 5 year olds. I was horrified. Surely this cannot be true?



I don't suppose ... but are any of the profession medical bodies ever consulted about concerns etc etc?



Regards Joseph

clarets



Joined: 08/01/2009
Posts: 752

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 23:50

Sadly this is true....I have a yougster at junior school,and this type of inappropriate filth is being touted around ! I will keep the children home from such "educational events" until I deem them old enough as their father,to be able to take on board,all there is to know about sexuality.To give children at such a critical developmental stage ,such information is irrelevent and also potentially damaging. A lot of what people describe as perverted behaviour is seeded at such early stages!

joseph


Joined: 17/04/2008
Posts: 709

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 02:29

Erolz re msg 16... you might be interested in the recent disclosure of the 1974 UN Memorandum 200, recently declassified which states:



“the population growth in the “Underdeveloped countries” would lead to a desire for self determination of their economies and the consequent growth in their prosperity would threaten US security and overseas economic interests. Populations must therefore be controlled by the UN using coercive methods (abortion) including the withholding of aid monies but this fact must be withheld from national leaders”



Eric Pianka, world renowned scientist and evolutionist. Lamar University Texas 2006. quote:



“Humans are no better than bacteria, and 90% need to be wiped out by exposure to Ebola or some other deadly virus in order to save the planet”

He stated; disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must die soon if the population crisis is to be solved.

Pianka was given a standing ovation.



Frightening!



Joseph

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 06:44

Joseph msg 23



It would appear that there is some controversy over exactly what Mr Pianka said and meant. More info here



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mims-Pianka_controversy



The other documewnt you refer to is not I think a UN document but actually a US NSC (NAtional Security Council) document.



A full copy of this document can be found here ( I am assuming it is an acurate copy but have no proof)



http://wlym.com/text/NSSM200.htm



Whilst it does make for some pretty 'shocking' reading in places I am unable to find the exact quote in that you give. A 'summary' of this documents contents can be found here



http://www.schillerinstitute.org/food_for_peace/kiss_nssm_jb_1995.html

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 20:40

i am not sure sex education is the job of the schools full stop.

we have two boys and at different ages they asked the usual questions.

we just told them straight the answers at what ever age they were at that time.



regarding welfare babies if the mother goes on having kids the father should be named on the birth certificate, hence he should be made to provide for his part in the offspring. if no name is given, benefits should be unclaimable.

it would go a long way to solving this problem.



today in the daily mail was an article about a family who were unable to work due to health problems which were caused by them being overweight.

they were getting 22k per year, these type people have to be stopped.



after all we are all paying taxes so they can sit on the social and watch tv all day.

what a life!

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 22:40

Hi to all,



Climate change is not the only reason to rethink our approach.



Consider ants. Everything they make and use returns to the cycle of nature. All their materials and even their most deadly "chemical weapons" are fully biodegradable. Although individually we are much larger than ants, collectively their biomass excides ours. Just as there is almost no place of the globe untouched by humane presence there is no place, from deserts to magapolices untouched by some species of ants. Have you ever heard complaints on ants overpopulation? No, because, contrary to humans they are perfectly balanced thank to their eco-effectiveness. And what do we know? To throw things away with some degree of efficiency. But there is no such thing "away". OK, we could improve our efficiency in pollution reduction per amount of products or per capita but it could never counterbalance the growing industrial growth.

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 22:42

Cont.



I believe something must be changed. The best solution, of course, should be based on so called "cradle-to-cradle" approach, that means not at the expense of a decline in overall quality of life. I am not pessimistic about feasibility of such a great change, I am just afraid it could take too much time.

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 22:49

About half year ago I had a chance to attend a lecture on "cradle-to-cradle".

I found it on youtube:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoRjz8iTVoo



I enjoyed it. It is not so dramatic as Al Gore, it just gives possible sollution...and hope.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 21:13

msge 17



Hi Joseph



"IloveCyprus… my point is we're not given the truth, or arguments by both sides. We are told “de facto” and this is not how one presents scientific argument. Any Phd student will tell you when presenting his/her thesis for their PhD they are required (orals) to defend their arguments etc before a board of their peers. "



I agree

joseph


Joined: 17/04/2008
Posts: 709

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 23:31

Hi IloveC...



My problem with unscientific debate (politicians) is they readily grasp a great opportunity to be green and at the same time, eyes like cash registers, lick their lips at the billions to be had in taxes, not to mention social engineering.



Ref Lomburg/Denmark



The fact remains less than 5% of the earths Co2 is man made, the 95% comes mainly via the oceans and volcanic action. Now if they were to argue about disturbing the balance ie equilibrium then THAT would be a basis for discussion. Problem is they cannot explain the mini ice age that scientists agree existed from circe 1300 to 1800 when tempretures dropped dramatically.



Further back again we have evidence that the Romans grew vineyards as far north as Britannia but no mention there of taxing chariots



For me there is too much hypocrisy walking hand in hand with social engineering... as opposed to open debate... and that scares me having seen the results of Messrs Hitler and Stalin.



Regards Joseph

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 12:49

msge 28



Thanks magbs



I really enjoyed the video. It certainly inspires hope. Those new Chinese towns look so amazing.



It is so importnat that products are 'inherently designed', we as humans produce far too much waste. I understand that there are 60 chemicals in our body which are known to be toxic and really should not be there.



Also as Jared Diamond says in his book 'Collapse', too many technological developments create even bigger problems than the problem they were trying to solve i.e cfc gases and now biofuels seems to be creating issues because they are impacting food production.



As you say time in the issue.