Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?

[Kerdy]

more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc

People do have access to contraception.  They purchase it from the Pharmacy. 

Oh, you meant free. 

[Ortho_cat]

So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"... 

Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.

creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.

[Ortho_cat]

more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc

People do have access to contraception.  They purchase it from the Pharmacy. 

Oh, you meant free. 

I'm not talking about in America. Watch the video...

[Ortho_cat]

here is a decent video which presents a well rounded approach to overpopulation and its effects:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN06tLRE4WE&feature=related

[stanley123]

So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

This would be interesting if the European countries strictly limit the birth rate to 2 or 3 , while at the same time the Muslim countries such as Niger, with 95% Muslim population, continue to have 6, 7 or 8 children per married woman.

[Kerdy]

So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"... 

Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.

creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.

It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.

[Ortho_cat]

So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

This would be interesting if the European countries strictly limit the birth rate to 2 or 3 , while at the same time the Muslim countries such as Niger, with 95% Muslim population, continue to have 6, 7 or 8 children per married woman.

I agree.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"... 

The UN also came to the same conclusion that it is likely that the world population will plateau and actually fall into decline around 2100..



stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Ortho_cat]

So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"... 

Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.

creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.

It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

[Kerdy]

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

So is everyone else. 

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.

[Ortho_cat]

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

So is everyone else. 

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.

have you read a book about evolution? if so, which one?

[Kerdy]

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

So is everyone else.  

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.

have you read a book about evolution? if so, which one?

"a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years."

[William]

Ortho_cat, why does your axe need grinding?

[Ortho_cat]

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

So is everyone else.  

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.

fair enough. but if you are interested in investigating the subject, then I would suggest you read at least 3 of the following books:

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Books-Evolution-Published-Decade/lm/R6SZF692OH56G

write down a list of all the observations (evidence) mentioned in the book (it will be in the hundreds). Then come up with a theory that better explains ALL of these phenomena better than the ToE already does.

[Ortho_cat]

Ortho_cat, why does your axe need grinding?

not sure. i just wanted to start a thread to see how people suggest solving the problem of overpopulation, and i find out that most people here deny that it is happening as we speak...right before our very eyes  

[ZealousZeal]

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

So is everyone else. 

In my opinion, if you looked at the facts, you wouldn't believe in evolution or intelligent design, but that is a tired debate I don't feel like getting into for another 5-10 years.  I gets old proving people wrong with the simplest of questions.

If you can prove the ToE wrong with the simplest of questions, please do PM it to me. I'd dearly love to go down in history books for such a breakthrough, not to mention the fame and prestige that would be mine in the present. Think of the talk shows!

[vamrat]

Limiting family sizes below replacement levels will only work if coupled with mandatory euthanasia for those incapable of taking care of themselves - i.e. the elderly, the disabled (both mentally and physically), and the work adverse.  It is too heavy a burden for society to bear to take care of those beyond those that they have the capacity to do so.  By too heavy I don't mean "inconvenient" I mean straight up impossible.  Having a ballerina bench press 250 impossible.

As a Christian I cannot support euthanasia of this sort and so I cannot support limiting family sizes across the board.

I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).

[Ortho_cat]

so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

[vamrat]

so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing? 

[Shanghaiski]

You have sex.  You have a child.  I'm the taxpayer.  Your child takes money from me at the point of a gun via the IRS.  I'm paying for you to have sex. 

Better than giving the child a miserable childhood because his parents could not afford to feed him or give him schooling. And then in the future, due to lack of education, resorts to crime and goes to prison. Then you'll have to pay even more money to keep him in prison. Do you want that? Or, even worse, the child's parents kill him or abandon him because they cannot afford a child, and then you have blood on your hands because you were too greedy to help him. Education is a right; at least for children. All children should be entitled to education regardless of their economic status and/or how stupid their parents are.

Or maybe, like many other examples, he turns out to be inventive and save people from some other crap.

Who is being denied education in America? (Or indoctrination.)

[Shanghaiski]

So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"... 

No such thing as science without an agenda. Scientists are people. People who need people to fund their research. They're the luckiest people in the world.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Not even necessarily birth control, just education and development.  Birth control is like an artificial band-aid in developing countries to bridge to development gap, but in all actuality, lifestyle and demographics can have a more formative role than access and proportionate use of contraception.  In other words, we can be entirely (stereotypically) Catholic about life, and still reduce population numbers

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Shanghaiski]

more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc

People do have access to contraception.  They purchase it from the Pharmacy. 

Oh, you meant free. 

There are plenty of schools that hand out free condoms to children. Some even provide lessons on how to use them.

[Shanghaiski]

So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"... 

Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.

creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.

It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

Facts. LOL. Facts require interpretation, which always presents a bias. Hence the existence of various competing "facts."

[stanley123]

I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization...

Who will decide when parents are incapable of supporting their children? Would it be Kathleen Sebelius,  Hillary Clinton, Madeline Alldark or Elena Kagan ? My siblings and I were brought up in a situation where we were well below the poverty line, with four children to one small bedroom. Every night we would all get together in prayer before a small shrine we set up in honor of the  Mother of God.  And in the end, we made it just fine. I would have hated to have some ignorant government functionary come by and demand that  my mother had to get an abortion after 2 children, or else.  That would amount to killing off some of my siblings.
And not only that, but if you are going to make limiting family size dependent on the financial status of the parents, this rewards crooks who made millions  through illegal alcohol trafficking during prohibition, or mafia people who made millions on illegal enterprises, while penalising the honest, hard working, sweating, laborer who is trying to make ends meet on a meager income which puts him below the poverty level.

[Ortho_cat]

so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing? 

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes

[Ortho_cat]

So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  

Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.

creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.

It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

Facts. LOL. Facts require interpretation, which always presents a bias. Hence the existence of various competing "facts."

yes that's right. all this technology that you are using right now and take for granted on a daily basis, which is explained by theories and based on observation of physical properties and our understanding of such is all just relative and biased...developed by scientists with "agendas"   Strange we don't see all these alternative "theories" to the theory of gravity, relativity, and electromagnetism if there are all these competing facts out there. Theories are used because they work and they best explain observations about the world around us.  It's as simple as that.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing?  

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes

You are looking it at completely backwards, from the generally condescending perspective of Western governments and NGO think-tanks.  The reality is that population is a BLESSING for the developing world, not a hindrance.  Much of the developing world have a majority population of youth and young adults, that means they have bright potential for the future.  Population is a benefit, not a hindrance.  These are potentially booming and bustling populations, not cesspools of decaying life.  The Devil wants us to believe life is a burden, most people know and understand differently. Is it a mere coincidence that poor communities have and personally value larger families, where as more affluent communities tend to spurn children as burdensome?  Poor people are rooted in life, rich people are rooted in fantasy.  Reality trumps fantasy or ideology.  That being said, the future of the world is quite bright and optimistic precisely because developing nations are continuing to grow, and yes thrive!  Poverty is a myth.  Yes, people are really poor, true, but how we in the developed world tend to demean and degrade the lives of poor people simply because they don't demographically fit into our own contemporary life-styles is embarrassingly naive.  Poor people are often MORE happy than rich people.  Large families often do better in the long-run than smaller ones, and a growing population of young people is the promise of a better future, where as declining numbers and increasing ratios of elderly populations is the sure since of stagnation and inevitable decline

Overpopulation is again, a myth, and one which is often veiled in classism and racism too..

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Shanghaiski]

So what would you all think if all other nations starting adopting a 3 children limit for families, enforced by mandatory sterilization? Do you think US should follow such an initiative? If not, how do we prevent rapid population growth?

Over population is a myth. In fact, we better get going in the USA and crank out far more babies. Russia is even worse off. They are considering giving huge tax breaks for having larger families.

Here is the best site on the internet to learn more: www.pop.org

Are you denying that the world's population is growing at an exponential rate, or asserting that the world can hold an unlimited amount of people on it?

Yes indeed I am.. Population is not growing exponentially. In fact, it is slowing down and will peak in 25 years and then we will lose population.

It's a math thing

Here is a really good video that will explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iodJ0OOdgRg

Oh I have no doubt that there will be a massive reduction in population eventually after countries hit the "breaking point". My concern is that it will be conducted by destructive means such as genocide and infanticide (rampant abortion) and war over resources/territory. I'd rather we get population under control by preventional means rather than other methods.

There is no guarantee that it will level off after 25 years. That is pure speculation.  There are too many factors at play to say such a thing with any certitude.

You need newer data. The overpopulation craze was a coupled decades ago.

There was a book wrrtten in 1968 called "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrich. Most of the current fears stem from the craze it produced. Most, if not all of his formulations and predictions turned out to be wrong.

The head of the Population Resarch Institute, Dr. Steven Mosher worked with Ehrlich and is now trying to undo the harm that book did. www.pop.org

pop.org is a right wing foundation with a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion policies. Not saying it's bad (their agenda), but it is a biased information source. I prefer science without agendas. Reminds me of "creation science"...  

Very few things these days don’t have some sort of agenda.  The science system has been just as infiltrated as the education system.  It’s virtually impossible to find something without one.  Regardless of the agenda, if the information is accurate and not skewed, I don’t care where it comes from.

By Creation Science, I assume you mean Intelligent Design, which is just as valid a theory as evolution, if we are intellectually honest.  However, I subscribe to neither.  I am a Creationist.

creation science, intelligent design, whatever you want to call it has gone through many different iterations of names. It is a vacuous empty theory with no evidence to support it. It merely asserts that the ToE is not true or reliable, and presents no evidence to support it's own assertion. It is nothing but an empty shell of a hypothesis. To say that this has the same validity of the ToE is to say that the "theory of intelligent falling" (a theory that I just made up which has no evidence to support it) is just as valid as the theory of gravity.

It all depends on your point of view and, dare I say, agenda.

i'm just looking at the facts man...that's all.

Facts. LOL. Facts require interpretation, which always presents a bias. Hence the existence of various competing "facts."

yes that's right. all this technology that you are using right now and take for granted on a daily basis, which is explained by theories and based on observation of physical properties and our understanding of such is all just relative and biased...developed by scientists with "agendas"   Strange we don't see all these alternative "theories" to the theory of gravity, relativity, and electromagnetism if there are all these competing facts out there. Theories are used because they work and they best explain observations about the world around us.  It's as simple as that.

You're note even looking at my point.

[Shanghaiski]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing?  

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes

You are looking it at completely backwards, from the generally condescending perspective of Western governments and NGO think-tanks.  The reality is that population is a BLESSING for the developing world, not a hindrance.  Much of the developing world have a majority population of youth and young adults, that means they have bright potential for the future.  Population is a benefit, not a hindrance.  These are potentially booming and bustling populations, not cesspools of decaying life.  The Devil wants us to believe life is a burden, most people know and understand differently. Is it a mere coincidence that poor communities have and personally value larger families, where as more affluent communities tend to spurn children as burdensome?  Poor people are rooted in life, rich people are rooted in fantasy.  Reality trumps fantasy or ideology.  That being said, the future of the world is quite bright and optimistic precisely because developing nations are continuing to grow, and yes thrive!  Poverty is a myth.  Yes, people are really poor, true, but how we in the developed world tend to demean and degrade the lives of poor people simply because they don't demographically fit into our own contemporary life-styles is embarrassingly naive.  Poor people are often MORE happy than rich people.  Large families often do better in the long-run than smaller ones, and a growing population of young people is the promise of a better future, where as declining numbers and increasing ratios of elderly populations is the sure since of stagnation and inevitable decline

Overpopulation is again, a myth, and one which is often veiled in classism and racism too..

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Agreed.

[vamrat]

I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization...

Who will decide when parents are incapable of supporting their children? Would it be Kathleen Sebelius,  Hillary Clinton, Madeline Alldark or Elena Kagan ? My siblings and I were brought up in a situation where we were well below the poverty line, with four children to one small bedroom. Every night we would all get together in prayer before a small shrine we set up in honor of the  Mother of God.  And in the end, we made it just fine. I would have hated to have some ignorant government functionary come by and demand that  my mother had to get an abortion after 2 children, or else.  That would amount to killing off some of my siblings.
And not only that, but if you are going to make limiting family size dependent on the financial status of the parents, this rewards crooks who made millions  through illegal alcohol trafficking during prohibition, or mafia people who made millions on illegal enterprises, while penalising the honest, hard working, sweating, laborer who is trying to make ends meet on a meager income which puts him below the poverty level.

Nice way to quote out of context.  I said nothing about abortion.  I said "mandatory sterilization after maximum size has been reached".  The definition for where this size would lay is up for debate, supposing such a policy were enacted, though if it the decision were mine I would consider maximum size to be where the family can support the children without permanent government assistance.  People have no right to breed more children and then refuse to take care of them.  I believe that some people fall on hard times.  I have stated in numerous places that I believe in a safety net but not a safety hammock.  If your parents were working class yet still managed to take care of you and your siblings, then I don't see what the problem is.  If neither of them were working and requiring the state to support them and their children while simultaneously continuing to breed...well, sorry, but that is wrong.  I don't care how people support themselves, so long as they do.  I believe that we should do our Christian duty and help people who have fallen on hard times, because God knows it could happen to any of us at any time, but at the same time everyone should do everything in their power to not squander the talents and blessings that God gave them and do their best to support themselves.

[vamrat]

so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing? 

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes

Agreed.  But what about in industrialized societies where people can support themselves?  These people will get old someday and if they choose not to self replicate it will fall on the backs of the dwindling numbers of the future generation to support them.

[vamrat]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

so far it seems that education and access to birth control does a pretty good job of population control. Studies show that the more educated a society is as a whole the less children they tend to have.

Is that a good thing?  

in poor countries where their populations are expected to at least double within the next 50 years and people struggle with basic needs already, yes

You are looking it at completely backwards, from the generally condescending perspective of Western governments and NGO think-tanks.  The reality is that population is a BLESSING for the developing world, not a hindrance.  Much of the developing world have a majority population of youth and young adults, that means they have bright potential for the future.  Population is a benefit, not a hindrance.  These are potentially booming and bustling populations, not cesspools of decaying life.  The Devil wants us to believe life is a burden, most people know and understand differently. Is it a mere coincidence that poor communities have and personally value larger families, where as more affluent communities tend to spurn children as burdensome?  Poor people are rooted in life, rich people are rooted in fantasy.  Reality trumps fantasy or ideology.  That being said, the future of the world is quite bright and optimistic precisely because developing nations are continuing to grow, and yes thrive!  Poverty is a myth.  Yes, people are really poor, true, but how we in the developed world tend to demean and degrade the lives of poor people simply because they don't demographically fit into our own contemporary life-styles is embarrassingly naive.  Poor people are often MORE happy than rich people.  Large families often do better in the long-run than smaller ones, and a growing population of young people is the promise of a better future, where as declining numbers and increasing ratios of elderly populations is the sure since of stagnation and inevitable decline

Overpopulation is again, a myth, and one which is often veiled in classism and racism too..

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Large populations of young adults without future prospects make excellent soldiers/guerrillas.  Beyond that, they are a benefit only if the society has the means to provide them work, education, and a future.  Without those, they are a ticking timebomb.

[stanley123]

I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization...

Who will decide when parents are incapable of supporting their children? Would it be Kathleen Sebelius,  Hillary Clinton, Madeline Alldark or Elena Kagan ? My siblings and I were brought up in a situation where we were well below the poverty line, with four children to one small bedroom. Every night we would all get together in prayer before a small shrine we set up in honor of the  Mother of God.  And in the end, we made it just fine. I would have hated to have some ignorant government functionary come by and demand that  my mother had to get an abortion after 2 children, or else.  That would amount to killing off some of my siblings.
And not only that, but if you are going to make limiting family size dependent on the financial status of the parents, this rewards crooks who made millions  through illegal alcohol trafficking during prohibition, or mafia people who made millions on illegal enterprises, while penalising the honest, hard working, sweating, laborer who is trying to make ends meet on a meager income which puts him below the poverty level.

Nice way to quote out of context.  I said nothing about abortion.  I said "mandatory sterilization after maximum size has been reached".  The definition for where this size would lay is up for debate, supposing such a policy were enacted, though if it the decision were mine I would consider maximum size to be where the family can support the children without permanent government assistance.  People have no right to breed more children and then refuse to take care of them.  I believe that some people fall on hard times.  I have stated in numerous places that I believe in a safety net but not a safety hammock.  If your parents were working class yet still managed to take care of you and your siblings, then I don't see what the problem is.  If neither of them were working and requiring the state to support them and their children while simultaneously continuing to breed...well, sorry, but that is wrong.  I don't care how people support themselves, so long as they do.  I believe that we should do our Christian duty and help people who have fallen on hard times, because God knows it could happen to any of us at any time, but at the same time everyone should do everything in their power to not squander the talents and blessings that God gave them and do their best to support themselves.

We never took one cent from the government, but lived with what we had. I would object in having some stupid government low level functionary invade our house and demand that my mother undergo sterilization. I realise that you are not advocating this, but government functionaries often exceed their authority and some are known to act with a certain arrogance. Some years down the line a court of law might decide that the government functionary acted illegally, but it would be too late to reverse the harm that the sterilization had done. 

[vamrat]

I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization...

Who will decide when parents are incapable of supporting their children? Would it be Kathleen Sebelius,  Hillary Clinton, Madeline Alldark or Elena Kagan ? My siblings and I were brought up in a situation where we were well below the poverty line, with four children to one small bedroom. Every night we would all get together in prayer before a small shrine we set up in honor of the  Mother of God.  And in the end, we made it just fine. I would have hated to have some ignorant government functionary come by and demand that  my mother had to get an abortion after 2 children, or else.  That would amount to killing off some of my siblings.
And not only that, but if you are going to make limiting family size dependent on the financial status of the parents, this rewards crooks who made millions  through illegal alcohol trafficking during prohibition, or mafia people who made millions on illegal enterprises, while penalising the honest, hard working, sweating, laborer who is trying to make ends meet on a meager income which puts him below the poverty level.

Nice way to quote out of context.  I said nothing about abortion.  I said "mandatory sterilization after maximum size has been reached".  The definition for where this size would lay is up for debate, supposing such a policy were enacted, though if it the decision were mine I would consider maximum size to be where the family can support the children without permanent government assistance.  People have no right to breed more children and then refuse to take care of them.  I believe that some people fall on hard times.  I have stated in numerous places that I believe in a safety net but not a safety hammock.  If your parents were working class yet still managed to take care of you and your siblings, then I don't see what the problem is.  If neither of them were working and requiring the state to support them and their children while simultaneously continuing to breed...well, sorry, but that is wrong.  I don't care how people support themselves, so long as they do.  I believe that we should do our Christian duty and help people who have fallen on hard times, because God knows it could happen to any of us at any time, but at the same time everyone should do everything in their power to not squander the talents and blessings that God gave them and do their best to support themselves.

We never took one cent from the government, but lived with what we had. I would object in having some stupid government low level functionary invade our house and demand that my mother undergo sterilization. I realise that you are not advocating this, but government functionaries often exceed their authority and some are known to act with a certain arrogance. Some years down the line a court of law might decide that the government functionary acted illegally, but it would be too late to reverse the harm that the sterilization had done. 

I see your point about government functionaries.

I was kind of just brainstorming with this because the other option is to stop giving out handouts to people who refuse to work, something that would not have affected people like your parents.  The problem is, the bleeding hearts want us to throw money at the problem with no real solutions offered.  I was just trying to find a compromise, the sort that would have made King Solomon smile...

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I am getting appalled at the vilifying and demonizing (blame the victim) of government assistance to the poor.  The Church doesn't snub her nose at accepting BILLIONS of dollars of government assistance to feed the poor, for hospitals, for education, run by the Church, why do folks here on the forum continually demonize public assistance? We pay taxes just like Christ asked us too, why should we then demonize the good things the government does with it like feeding the poor or carrying for the sick?  Sure, everyone seems to wave the flag about going on a US crusade against the Muslims, but heaven forbid Uncle Sam give a poor child a bite to eat without the forum demonizing the child as a bum and the government as having some kind of nefarious agenda.

How can we reconcile this with Matthew 25 and Galatians 2:8-10 exactly?

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[vamrat]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I am getting appalled at the vilifying and demonizing (blame the victim) of government assistance to the poor.  The Church doesn't snub her nose at accepting BILLIONS of dollars of government assistance to feed the poor, for hospitals, for education, run by the Church, why do folks here on the forum continually demonize public assistance? We pay taxes just like Christ asked us too, why should we then demonize the good things the government does with it like feeding the poor or carrying for the sick?  Sure, everyone seems to wave the flag about going on a US crusade against the Muslims, but heaven forbid Uncle Sam give a poor child a bite to eat without the forum demonizing the child as a bum and the government as having some kind of nefarious agenda.

How can we reconcile this with Matthew 25 and Galatians 2:8-10 exactly?

stay blessed,
habte selassie

For starts, the reasoning behind the .govs feeding the poor is less one of morality but rather of weaponizing the masses (demagoguery) or at best it's Machiavellian in keeping them entertained and fed enough that they won't disrupt the social order.  Like I said in my last response to you in this thread - young poor people with no future are a powder keg.

I for one do not like sitting on a powder keg.  I would rather see them have a future and become part of what makes a nation strong.  To do this they need to do some of the work themselves.  They need to be motivated.

Keep in mind also that we do not have true poor like you would have found in Christ's time, except possibly the hobos.  We do not have poor to the level they have in third world countries.  The lower classes in the US live in a very comfortable species of poverty, one that comes complete with automobiles (albeit, often antiquated ones), cell phones, fashionable clothing, et cetera.  There are some dirt poor people, but they are not the majority.  They are usually rural.  Many of them would probably prefer to better their lot, and many of them do not receive the assistance they need.  Most of it goes to a growing class of "professional poor".  These are the ones I feel antagonistic towards.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Poverty is complex.  Too think that people should be as starkly poor as folks were living in Auschwitz to deserve assistance or charity is deplorable.  Christ didn't ask us to define the level of merit for charity, simply to give when asked by those in need if we have it to give.  The US certainly has plenty to give.  By the way, I agree completely that over dependence on government assistance is a problem, for example, on  macro-level it is crippling Ethiopian development, and yet, at a localised level, we can't negate the value of public assistance in putting food, education, and healthcare in the hands of those in need.  There is a myth in the American economy, one of so-called meritocracy, and it is as prevalent and unsubstantiated as these myths of overpopulation we read on this thread

Lord have His Mercy!!

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[vamrat]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Poverty is complex.  Too think that people should be as starkly poor as folks were living in Auschwitz to deserve assistance or charity is deplorable.  Christ didn't ask us to define the level of merit for charity, simply to give when asked by those in need if we have it to give.  The US certainly has plenty to give.  By the way, I agree completely that over dependence on government assistance is a problem, for example, on  macro-level it is crippling Ethiopian development, and yet, at a localised level, we can't negate the value of public assistance in putting food, education, and healthcare in the hands of those in need.  There is a myth in the American economy, one of so-called meritocracy, and it is as prevalent and unsubstantiated as these myths of overpopulation we read on this thread

Lord have His Mercy!!

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Poverty is complex.  As you might have noticed I divided the poor into four distinct groups (and more might exist) - working poor, rural poor, hobos, and "professional poor".  For every malady you often need a different cure.  Christ told us to visit the sick but He never told us how to do it.  If someone has Ebola and your only solution is to amputate his leg...well, you're not going anywhere.  Some cases of poverty, especially temporary poverty, can be dealt with by a quick influx of cash.  In other cases, like the rural poor, they may have lived that way traditionally (like hillbillies) and might be better off if they are just left alone.  The working poor need to be given education so they can become more skilled - from there they will do the work.  The professional poor need to have their crutch taken away.  They need to be motivated.  You can keep throwing cash at them all day...but what have you accomplished!  This is their biological niche!

Christ told us to help the poor.  Look at the paralytic.  First, Christ asked if He wanted to be healed.  The poor must want to be helped before we can help them.  Then Christ made the man work...on the Sabbath even.  He told him to take up his bed and walk.  What we have been doing for the last generation has accomplished nothing.  I say we stop thinking outside of the box and think a little bit more in the Book.

[ZealousZeal]

I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).

I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.

[orthonorm]

Surplus labor. Well functioning capitalism, especially the capitalism of our day requires quite a bit of it.

Already had to give this simple lecture today to some privileged guy psychologizing a group and making them responsible for the role they fill made necessary by the system we all partake of.

Gotta have the unemployed. In fact, we make sure of it. (Anyone remember the hay day of the Clinton years and having to keep the dropping unemployment rate in check?)

The new and interesting development of global capital is the unemployable class.

A beautiful world.  

[orthonorm]

I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).

I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.

No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  

I posted a modest proposal on this before. It was in jest. And it would work.

[ZealousZeal]

I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).

I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.

No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  

I hesitated to use the word "autonomy", but in the end I couldn't think of a better one. I don't believe we are absolutely autonomous either, yet mandated sterilization makes me twitchy. It seems such a gross violation of what autonomy we do/should have. A line better left uncrossed, I think.

[orthonorm]

I could get behind limiting family sizes on those incapable of supporting them through means of mandatory sterilization once maximum size has been reached (which might possibly be below replacement levels).

I couldn't. I am really uncomfortable with the government mandating something like sterilization which interferes so totally with someone's autonomy, no matter how poor their decisions. Even with my pet causes (if you will) like vaccination- despite how much I want to be behind mandated vaxes, I just can't.

No one is autonomous in the absolute sense, at least if you are including something like "agency" along with autonomy. There is always a way to short circuit anyone's "beliefs" or "protests", which rarely have much to do with autonomy or agency to begin with. The belief in absolute subjectivity I thought gladly went the way of the of whatever dinosaur walked with Adam.  

I hesitated to use the word "autonomy", but in the end I couldn't think of a better one. I don't believe we are absolutely autonomous either, yet mandated sterilization makes me twitchy. It seems such a gross violation of what autonomy we do/should have. A line better left uncrossed, I think.

I'll save my joke about what liberal is for the politics forum or something.

[Kerdy]

more on pop.org and their agenda.

step one when investigating whether a claim is accurate is to check your sources and see if they present a clear bias or reason for bias. the PRI has a clear agenda of promoting anti-abortion and anti-contraceptive policies. Unfortunately they don't realize that by providing people with adequate access to contraception, they are effectively preventing millions of abortions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDBsKalN3uc

People do have access to contraception.  They purchase it from the Pharmacy. 

Oh, you meant free. 

There are plenty of schools that hand out free condoms to children. Some even provide lessons on how to use them.

I know.  It's despicable.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Non-Religious Topics (Moderator: Pravoslavbob) > Topic: Maximum family sizes...good idea or bad?