CNN entertains mandatory population control

Intellectuals and the Media
1

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/…global-warming/

Mandatory population control to fight global warming?

FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:

While world leaders talk about combating climate change in Copenhagen - some say population control is the only way to really fight it.

The Chinese instituted a policy limiting the number of children each family can have 30-years ago. And they claim that since then, it has prevented 400-million births - and saved carbon emissions to the tune of 18-million tons a year.

And it’s not just the Chinese. There’s a piece in the Canadian newspaper The Financial Post which suggests: “The real inconvenient truth” is that humans are overpopulating the world.

It suggests that every nation should adopt China’s one-child policy; because if we don’t control the earth’s population, we will eventually destroy or run out of everything - from other species to vegetation, resources, the atmosphere, oceans and water supply - and that’s whether the globe overheats or not.

One study shows that if from now on, every woman gave birth to only one child - the world’s population would drop from 6.5 billion now… to 5.5 billion in 2050. If we do nothing - the population could soar to an unsustainable nine-billion in that same time.

[…]

Needless to say there are lots of people who disagree with population control - like fundamentalist leaders who oppose birth control or politicians from emerging economies.

Here’s my question to you: Should mandatory population control be a part of the fight against global warming?

Of course, only “fundamentalists” and people who oppose birth control are against the omnipotent government controling the population. It definitely doesn’t have anything to do with the principle that people have a right to control their own lives and bodies.

Thus far, out of 37 comments I am the only person to answer with “No.”

This “unsustainable population” or “overpopulation” seems to be a popular belief. What do you think its metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical roots are and why is this such a commonly held premise that humans are going to deplete all of “our resources” and kill ourselves out of stupidity unless the government is given the power to control us?

One guy actually states that humans, like H1N1, are a virus, and if we don’t start reducing the population “Mother Nature” will vaccinate all of us. Another guy states: Why has it taken so long for the issue of the human infestation to be brought up? Absolutely mandatory population control should be undertaken at the global level, as well as a replacement of the United Nations with a global governing council combined with the world court elected by a majority of nations to help implement a saner, more earth friendly age.

This can’t be serious??

2

People picture the Earth as a bus, with only a limited number of seats (someone used that analogy on me recently). They cannot imagine the possibility that a second level could be added to the bus, or that new technology would render the bus obsolete altogether, allowing for more people to be transported than was possible before. Their minds are open to govt.-backed murder of innocents, but not open to innovation.

3

I wish these people would ‘practice what the preached’; why stop at not reproducing, when you could appease Mother Nature by committing suicide? Then the problem would solve itself. :lol:

4

“One study shows that if from now on, every woman gave birth to only one child - the world’s population would drop from 6.5 billion now… to 5.5 billion in 2050. If we do nothing - the population could soar to an unsustainable nine-billion in that same time.”

“unsustainable” … yeah … Now, without capitalism this is true, but with capitalism, absolutely no problem.

Remember, leftists are not using science. Global warming is an established hoax on a massive scale. It’s a religion. Also remember that Paul Ehrlich predicted that the population of the U.S. would be unsustainable in the 1980s (a 1960s prediction), and there would be mass starvation. He was widely touted by the left.

They don’t use science. They don’t care about science. They just use its prestige to gain power, and they’ve taken over many “science” magazines and organizations in the process.

At this point I really think we have to tell these people to SHUT UP. It really is well beyond the pale that we take them seriously about anything. They’ve earned the right to be ignored.

A leftist here, a leftist there, wild-eyed fear mongering every where!

5

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/12/…global-warming/

The Financial Post which suggests: “The real inconvenient truth” is that humans are overpopulating the world.

The real “inconvenient truth” is that parasites and hypocrites are overpopulating the world and destroying civilization.

Remember parasites & hypocrites are lazy or they’d be principled.

We return you to your regularly scheduled soma…

6

Their minds are open to govt.-backed murder of innocents, but not open to innovation.

They are not “open to it”. Deep down, it’s exactly what they want as long as the innocents being murdered are groups they don’t like.

They see government as essentially a huge gun with rival tribes competing to control it.

When you have a huge gun pointed at everybody’s head, why bother with syllogisms?

7

We don’t have too many, we have too few people on this earth.

8

We don’t have too many, we have too few people on this earth.

Agreed. Imagine a world where everyone could potentially have a personal, exclusive doctor, personal tutor for their children, personal tech support, hell, even a family geneticist whose only job is to examine a single family’s genetic makeup to look for potential issues. That can only happen with more people.

Now compare that to what environmentalists are aiming us toward - how many people on the planet? One billion? Less? Forget about genetics, or computers for that matter. There won’t be any need for that in such a world. All of the highly specialized fields will become non-existent. Whether or not we maintain our knowledge of present technology in text books, our society will be forced to degrade. It’s just not possible to maintain advanced technology and infrastructure without the people to do the necessary work and thought.

9

“One study shows that if from now on, every woman gave birth to only one child - the world’s population would drop from 6.5 billion now… to 5.5 billion in 2050. If we do nothing - the population could soar to an unsustainable nine-billion in that same time.”

“unsustainable” … yeah … Now, without capitalism this is true, but with capitalism, absolutely no problem.

It’s less than no problem: the more people, the more wealth! I would go so far as to say that real capitalism is inherently dependent on a growing population and ever-lengthening life spans (this creates more work force and more specialized professionals). Capitalism delivers just that, too.

10

I wish these people would ‘practice what the preached’; why stop at not reproducing, when you could appease Mother Nature by committing suicide? Then the problem would solve itself. :stuck_out_tongue:

Some do. Not nearly enough though…

http://www.vhemt.org/

11

Just for accuracy’s sake, I’m going to add that I know vhemt doesn’t actively encourage individuals committing suicide (if they did, there wouldn’t be anybody left to run the website, now would there?), just sort of the human species killing itself off by not having anymore kids to replace people dying off from natural causes. Still basically the same gross view of humanity, but I figure in case anybody ever mentions them in some argument elsewhere it’s good to have the details correct.

12

I mentioned this to a group of people, the phenomenon of ‘population control’ nutters popping up in all the global-warming internet debates (newspaper comment sections mainly). One person replied ‘it’s based on facts though’ to which I mentioned something about these supposedly overpopulated countries needing to catch up with Western farming practices to feed more people

i’m not an expert on this issue, but his reply was

“I wouldn’t say Western farming was necessarily any better than 3rd world countries”

“Why not?”

“Their agriculture employs more people.”

i mean what can you say to that?

13

I mentioned this to a group of people, the phenomenon of ‘population control’ nutters popping up in all the global-warming internet debates (newspaper comment sections mainly). One person replied ‘it’s based on facts though’ to which I mentioned something about these supposedly overpopulated countries needing to catch up with Western farming practices to feed more people

i’m not an expert on this issue, but his reply was

“I wouldn’t say Western farming was necessarily any better than 3rd world countries”

“Why not?”

“Their agriculture employs more people.”

i mean what can you say to that?

Wow.

14

I mentioned this to a group of people, the phenomenon of ‘population control’ nutters popping up in all the global-warming internet debates (newspaper comment sections mainly). One person replied ‘it’s based on facts though’ to which I mentioned something about these supposedly overpopulated countries needing to catch up with Western farming practices to feed more people

i’m not an expert on this issue, but his reply was

“I wouldn’t say Western farming was necessarily any better than 3rd world countries”

“Why not?”

“Their agriculture employs more people.”

i mean what can you say to that?

You should have told him there was a name for that… Subsistence Farming, something that the evil west did away with during the industrial revolution. :dough:

15

“Their agriculture employs more people.”

i mean what can you say to that?

Simple: Our agriculture feeds more people, and at a lower price to the consumer, leaving more money left over for other pursuits.

So, more of the population can do other things than just… scrape by. Like, say, maybe pursue a specialized career in… anything.

I run into so many people who think like this, who can’t be bothered to rub a couple brain cells together and spark some thought. Their argument might as well be, “who needs doctors and plumbing and technology when everyone can be a farmer?! Yay!!!” :dough:

16

Crowded conditions and resource shortages will improve as we become less dense.

Amen to that.

I used to be the kind of person who would say such things. The humans are destroying the world, we deserve to be wiped out. Our white ancestors treated black people badly, us white people deserve to be punished to make it even. Etc, etc.

For some reason, it’s just… easier to blame yourself than to defend yourself. It doesn’t take as much courage, willpower, or assertiveness. And there’s something else seductive about it… When you hear stuff like that, you think to yourself, implicitly, “Wow, that’s an unusual way of thinking. A new way of thinking. The open-minded thing to do would be to accept this strange way of thinking.”

I don’t quite understand it myself, so I’m having a hard time putting it into words.

Anyway, I’d probably bitch out the person who tries to force me to refrain from reproducing. Or at least angrily yell at them. Gotta love how they use the magic words, “to fight global [insert impending catastrophe here]”. I can almost feel the multitudes immediately accepting the idea as soon as they hear those magic words. Forget tearing my hair out, I want to tear their hair out.