A Global One Child Policy?

[Makalakumu]

It's right up there with silver unitards and flying cars.

I could handle a silver unitard and I could support a world government that would move us more toward Star Trek, but these guys don't seem interested in that. It's the kind of thinking above that will stagnate our species and lock us onto this planet forever.

 

[xJOHNx]

I have literally never heard anybody link ecology with extreme right wing control.:lol: At first I thought I had misread this. Didn't you mean left wing control? None of these guys sound like conservatives to me.

There is.
No, I didn't mean left wing control.

The control, or the way they want to control reminds me alot of the rise of fascism. And that's what it going to be. A fascist regime under the banner of ecology and saving the planet. Sure you have left wing control, but that's in my opinion just a fragment of fascism dropped under a different name. It doesn't fully comply with the given defenition of fascism. But it bloody well looks like it. Not that my opinion matters anyway.

And yes, ecology and right wing parties can go hand in hand. Just an example of my own country:
http://www.groenrechts.be/

 

[SensibleManiac]

"Anyone who thinks there are too many people in the world is perfectly free to step up and take one for the team. Otherwise... my body, my choice."

Although killing ourselves isn't the solution, population control is a very important issue, how to go about it? I have no clue.

I don't know where to begin.

Overpopulation IS a serious issue that is happening and will become an eventual problem.
As for the means that nature applies to correct that, that is exactly the problem, that nature will find a way and we won't be able to deal with the repercussions.
A pandemic, ( the true kind not h1N1 propaganda.) natural disaster, potentially causing a nuclear holocaust...
All these are possibilities we should work to avoid.
As to how to accomplish this, I have no idea.
How to implement a one child policy? I'll admit it's very unrealistic and wreaks of fascism.
After one child is born what do they do then, sterilize the couple?
Like somone also brought up what about third world nations?

I know one thing, the future IS now and there are definite changes that need to be made.
Abundant energy cheap and clean is an immediate possibility, as well as taking part in the symbiotic nature of our world. That is working in conjunction with nature as opposed to against it.
Ultimately we need to rid the world of politics, fear, superstition, and use logic to implement true sustainability.

Despite all this I believe it can be done. Call me a humanist and a dreamer but I believe we have it in us to survive along with nature.

 

[Archangel M]

I'm sure that you would be able to have more than one child...at a substantial Tax penalty of course.

 

[girlbug2]

Although killing ourselves isn't the solution, population control is a very important issue, how to go about it? I have no clue.

I don't know where to begin.

Overpopulation IS a serious issue that is happening and will become an eventual problem.
As for the means that nature applies to correct that, that is exactly the problem, that nature will find a way and we won't be able to deal with the repercussions.
A pandemic, ( the true kind not h1N1 propaganda.) natural disaster, potentially causing a nuclear holocaust...
All these are possibilities we should work to avoid.
As to how to accomplish this, I have no idea.
How to implement a one child policy? I'll admit it's very unrealistic and wreaks of fascism.
After one child is born what do they do then, sterilize the couple?
Like somone also brought up what about third world nations?

I know one thing, the future IS now and there are definite changes that need to be made.
Abundant energy cheap and clean is an immediate possibility, as well as taking part in the symbiotic nature of our world. That is working in conjunction with nature as opposed to against it.
Ultimately we need to rid the world of politics, fear, superstition, and use logic to implement true sustainability.

Despite all this I believe it can be done. Call me a humanist and a dreamer but I believe we have it in us to survive along with nature.

I agree with you completely, except for your last paragraph. Your own sentence above in bold is the reason. Politics, fear and superstition -- those things are an inextricable part of human nature and have always been our downfall. The only way to eliminate them is to change us into something other than human.

My faith in the existence of a higher power and intellect is what keeps me from despair over the future of the planet and humanity.

 

[Marginal]

I could handle a silver unitard and I could support a world government that would move us more toward Star Trek, but these guys don't seem interested in that. It's the kind of thinking above that will stagnate our species and lock us onto this planet forever.

I don't think such a policy is likely. It's not feasible.

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't think such a policy is likely. It's not feasible.

Something like that would have to be phased in over time. The point is that it is being discussed. You know, here's a movie that you can watch that details the ties these people these these words have to eugenics.

 

[David43515]

That's exactly how I feel about the world.

I'm able to have kids, but I'll adopt anyway. Would be crazy for me not to do so.

@ Archangel: this has nothing to do with communism. Or any other idea of the red side.
It's about control, extreme right-wing control. Under the banner of ecology.
Makes my friends and me who actually go out and pick up trash in the forests, vomit.

Extreme control, Yes. Right wing? No. All these comments are coming from the left.

 

[CoryKS]

Extreme control, Yes. Right wing? No. All these comments are coming from the left.

It's a neat little right/left context shifting thing they do so that the answer comes out the way they want it. Yes, fascism is right-wing if you're talking about European politics where socialism is pretty much a given. It's not right-wing in an American sense.

 

[Makalakumu]

It's a neat little right/left context shifting thing they do so that the answer comes out the way they want it. Yes, fascism is right-wing if you're talking about European politics where socialism is pretty much a given. It's not right-wing in an American sense.

I think we pretty much have the same thing over here, except that there is a Libertarian undercurrent in both the Left and the Right that's been slowly stripped out of both parties. We are seeing a bi-partisan counterculture forming that is based on freedom and liberty. More and more people are waking up on both sides.

 

[blindsage]

In terms of the population debate, Thomas Malthus and his followers have yet to be proved correct in over 200 years. Overpopulation is a problem in peoples minds because it's an easy concept to grasp, not because it's true. People associate a number of problems with overpopulation as if overpopulation itself is the problem, when in reality the lack of technological use, resource allocation, group behavioral change and political will are at the roots of almost all of them. The world population is still on the rise, but the rate of increase has declined steadily for decades, and is projected to level off nearly completely in the next 50 years. We absolutely have the resources and capacity to deal with the current and projected future population, we just don't.

 

[Archangel M]

In terms of the population debate, Thomas Malthus and his followers have yet to be proved correct in over 200 years. Overpopulation is a problem in peoples minds because it's an easy concept to grasp, not because it's true. People associate a number of problems with overpopulation as if overpopulation itself is the problem, when in reality the lack of technological use, resource allocation, group behavioral change and political will are at the roots of almost all of them. The world population is still on the rise, but the rate of increase has declined steadily for decades, and is projected to level off nearly completely in the next 50 years. We absolutely have the resources and capacity to deal with the current and projected future population, we just don't.

QFT: I am of the opinion that the end of mankind is not going to be an "apocalypse" as much as it's going to be a "dwindling". As resources become scarcer, there will just be fewer of us.

 

[Marginal]

Something like that would have to be phased in over time. The point is that it is being discussed.

Lots of things are discussed. It doesn't mean they can or will be implemented.

 

[Makalakumu]

Lots of things are discussed. It doesn't mean they can or will be implemented.

True enough. However, when things of this nature are discussed, people who pay attention and take political action are going to influence the system to make sure they DON'T happen. Sitting back and assuming they won't because it's crazy isn't going to help. History is full of crazy things I'm sure lots of people said would never happen.

 

[SensibleManiac]

I agree with you completely, except for your last paragraph. Your own sentence above in bold is the reason. Politics, fear and superstition -- those things are an inextricable part of human nature and have always been our downfall. The only way to eliminate them is to change us into something other than human.

My faith in the existence of a higher power and intellect is what keeps me from despair over the future of the planet and humanity.

By humanism I believe we have it in us to find a way and do it.

If you believe in a higher power then surely that power must have put the ability to survive in harmony in place.
I guess it boils down to what you believe harmony is as well as what you believe that higher power is.
Maybe where we differ is that I don't believe politics, fear and superstition are an inextricable part of humanity.

Maybe we learn them and can be rid of them if we really wanted to?