|
|
|
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/6/2009 2:44:57 PM
|
|
|
Auben
Posts: 1147
Joined: 4/13/2005
From: Where pines tower and cranberries float
Status: offline
|
Even the most extreme green numbers have the human population leveling off and even decreasing a little in the next 25 years. The problem is truly over-consumption but how difficult is that for people to hear?
What, I shouldn't build a new home or buy one over 1500 sq ft? I shouldn't buy disposable diapers, water bottles, clothing? I don't need more then 1 car and should use bicycles and other transportation? I shouldn't eat strawberries in January? I don't need more then a few pairs of shoes or a few days worth of clothing? I don't need a television, computer, dvd player, gaming system or microwave?
It's much easier to preach negative population then it is to convince people they should decrease their lifestyle.
_____________________________
Tamara
~Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time~
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/6/2009 2:53:38 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 3366
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
I actually don't think those arguments represent the extreme at all. More like mainstream environmentalism/tree-hugging, although most would probably be hesitant to actually say they want increased abortions because they know it sounds sick. Wide-spread use of birth control and sterilization, though, and standardization of the two-child maximum family, whoo-hooo, Utopia, here we come!  The problem is, you can't standardize the two-child family without some level of control.
That hasn't been my experience. Mine have been more like moon mouse's experiences, with open acknowledgment that the countries with the lowest birthrates (industrialized ones) are the countries having the greatest impact on our environment. Birth control is a tool, and frankly, it's an effective one with the right education and availability.
But no, I can't agree that these arguments represent mainstream environmentalism at all.
_____________________________
Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. If you see a crocodile, don't forget to scream.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/6/2009 4:04:13 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano23
Posts: 2082
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sideways
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
I actually don't think those arguments represent the extreme at all. More like mainstream environmentalism/tree-hugging, although most would probably be hesitant to actually say they want increased abortions because they know it sounds sick. Wide-spread use of birth control and sterilization, though, and standardization of the two-child maximum family, whoo-hooo, Utopia, here we come! The problem is, you can't standardize the two-child family without some level of control.
That hasn't been my experience. Mine have been more like moon mouse's experiences, with open acknowledgment that the countries with the lowest birthrates (industrialized ones) are the countries having the greatest impact on our environment. Birth control is a tool, and frankly, it's an effective one with the right education and availability.
But no, I can't agree that these arguments represent mainstream environmentalism at all.
Availability is a big problem; I remember being in class (environmental science) and talking about how people would drop condoms off planes in poor areas where they had absolutely nothing. I'm sure some people in destitute situations don't want to bring children into that situation, but if they are married and have sex, it's possible... if they aren't married, it's possible.  Some areas have issues with rape as well. Some people do want limited family size or feel like they are supposed to stop at a certain point, but don't have birth control available.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/6/2009 4:32:07 PM
|
|
|
moon_mouse
Posts: 435
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
Because even smart, educated people with birth control readily available don't always think "Oh! Two children is the choice for educated, intelligent people. So I'll have two and stop."  It is wrong to make the assumption that educated people *will* have small families because they're so smart and the rest of the world isn't.
Again, you are assuming that people who advocate greater availability of birth control are always drawing a causal relationship from higher levels of education to intelligence to lower family size, and that if they are they must believe the converse is true, that larger family size means stupidity or ignorance. While that attitude exists, it is hardly universal, and an unwarranted misrepresentation of some people's position. Many believe that there is a portion of the population that may wish to limit their family size, but don't have access to contraception, or don't have all the information to use it correctly, or (particularly for women) don't feel they have the options to act counter to the social structure in which they live. It's not that education and wealth change how they feel about proper family size. It just gives them the means to do what they wish.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/6/2009 4:43:21 PM
|
|
|
solo_soprano23
Posts: 2082
Joined: 4/27/2005
From: I'm a Southern girl
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
Availability is a big problem; I remember being in class (environmental science) and talking about how people would drop condoms off planes in poor areas where they had absolutely nothing. I'm sure some people in destitute situations don't want to bring children into that situation, but if they are married and have sex, it's possible... if they aren't married, it's possible.
Key word being "some". It is true for some. But not all. It never was true for all and it never will be. The only way to make it so is coercion.
quote:
Some areas have issues with rape as well.
For which airlifting condom care packages doesn't help. "Please, rapist, at least put on a condom?" The old bandaid on a stab wound solution. Same for abortion. Making them infertile doesn't solve the problem that they are being abused and physically destroyed in many cases. Many rapes occur in a way that wouldn't even lead to pregnancy, and on their own destroy the woman's ability to have children. Women would fare better with readily available weapons of self-defense and the education needed to use them properly.  You never know, they might prefer to simply not be raped, but continue having children by the man they chose to father those children. I'm not sure why the only two choices have to be safety from rape/no babies or rape/too many babies.
I'm not arguing against contraception on a moral basis (in this thread ). Drop on people's heads all the condoms ya want.  I am arguing against the thinking that stopping people from having more children is a solution to the world's problems (environmental or otherwise), and the idea that anybody with brain cells would limit their family size if only contraception were available to them. Both are mainstream in Western culture.
Yeah... I don't see people in this thread saying a majority of people believe this or that. I've not seen anyone say that all families want or should want 1-2 kids either.
I meantioned rapists, not because it has something to do with contraception, but because women get pregnant via rape as well.
I don't see people saying all the stuff you keep bringing up.
_____________________________
For God, For Learning, Forever.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/6/2009 8:19:41 PM
|
|
|
Sideways
Posts: 3366
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
I don't think she was saying only educated people use bc to limit family size... she was saying people need to be educated about the birth control
But even when "educated", not all choose to limit their family to a size that Westerners and/or environmentalists would think appropriate.
Of course not. And most folks don't believe in anything close to coercion. But it will reduce the birth rate, and like we've saying, most environmentalists don't want to force a 2 child family, just give people the tools to choose. That's all we've been saying, not that smart people only have two kids.
Maggie, if you want to believe that environmentalism is about negative population growth, you can, but please don't put that on the rest of us who would like to see humanity taking better care of this planet. I understand that you know some radical environmentalists, but again, every belief system has it's extreme radicals. Most of us know that being good stewards is much more complicated then the number of children born each year.
_____________________________
Row, row, row your boat, gently down the stream. If you see a crocodile, don't forget to scream.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/6/2009 10:45:14 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2927
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: moon_mouse
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
No, education and economic opportunity in what I would call a warehouse society is associated with lower birthrates, and lowered life satisfaction. In a community based social structure children are integrated into the educational process and economy.
I'm not sure I agree with that, because we see a correlation between increased education and economic opportunity and decreased birthrate in non-industrialized nations where a communal lifestyle is still quite common. So, perhaps it's not education and economic opportunity leading to lower birthrates that make women unhappy. Perhaps it's the fact that in an industrialized nation, in order to be able to pursue those if they wish the way our society is structured forces them to make compromises or sacrifices that men don't have to make in the same way or to the same extent. Logically, if we create ways in which women (and men for that matter) can exercise their talents while having a more balanced life, women will be happier and society can still benefit from their skills in arenas other than the home. I'm not sure if that would have a huge effect on birth rates. It would be interesting to look at countries whose major employers that have more "family friendly" policies, and see if there is at least a correlation with higher birthrates. If there is a correlation, we wouldn't be able to say one caused the other, but if there isn't a correlation, we'd be able to say there cannot be a causal link.
Of course, this still doesn't address the article, but it's an interesting side thought.
I am not talking about a communal lifestyle. I am talking about a community, family based society, ie homeschooling, family businesses, possibly community businesses, etc. Just adding "family friendly" policies to an economy that emphasises the schitzophrenia concentrated euphoria and laid back security is like serving cocaine on china plates. It makes that economy look more civilized, but ignores the fact that problem is the foundation on which the economy is built.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/6/2009 11:13:22 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 2927
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: moon_mouse
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
That speaks to my second point about how family life tames the "savage" male.
How, exactly?
Men tend to be more single minded and goal oriented. These are great qualities in times of confusion such as a natural disaster or war, where one needs to make decisions that are seen as inconsiderate in more organized times. Family life forces men to be more considerate and recognize that enjoying the journey is just as important as reaching the goal. After all what good is it to reach a goal, if there is no one there with which to share the moment.
quote:
quote:
Regarding, your second point, that is just jerrimandering secular society in an attempt to "redeem" it. I find such solutions similar to attempting to mend a hole with an ice pick.
Do you mean gerrymandering? Gerrymandering is dividing a political entity to concentrate voting power. I'm not sure how what I suggested does anything like that.
Or perhaps you meant jury rigging, meaning to fix using a temporary or makeshift solution? If so, then the way our society has worked since about 1800 has been the jury rig. After the Industrial Revolution, work was removed from the home, which really created the distinction between SAHM and WOHM that we see today. Flexible work hours, greater work from home opportunities, entrepreneurship, and even home schooling are actually taking the family back closer to the Biblical model.
Sorry about the misspelling. I was too lazy to look it up. The term applies in the sense that one is manipulating a social structure that does not naturally lend itself to a healthy community. Rather than introducing work from home opportunities, entrepreneurship, and even home schooling to an economy that produces products and services encourage independance rather than interdependance. As I said in the post above, I am not a communalist, but a charitable customer oriented capitalist. The fiber of local investment is always healthier than concentrated shots of capital infusion. Population control is best handled by requiring men to be the head of their households and women to look to the need of their families. When a man must constantly deal with unruly children, he often loses interest in creating more and when a woman fails to raise resourceful children, the lack of creature cumforts often minimizes the desire to create more dependants.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/6/2009 11:24:59 PM
|
|
|
lemon_sorbet
Posts: 28
Joined: 11/6/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Auben
Even the most extreme green numbers have the human population leveling off and even decreasing a little in the next 25 years. The problem is truly over-consumption but how difficult is that for people to hear?
What, I shouldn't build a new home or buy one over 1500 sq ft? I shouldn't buy disposable diapers, water bottles, clothing? I don't need more then 1 car and should use bicycles and other transportation? I shouldn't eat strawberries in January? I don't need more then a few pairs of shoes or a few days worth of clothing? I don't need a television, computer, dvd player, gaming system or microwave?
It's much easier to preach negative population then it is to convince people they should decrease their lifestyle.
I completely agree! America, for example, doesn't have an overpopulation problem, but we do consume the lion's share of the earth's resources. We also do a pretty impressive job at polluting the earth as well. I believe it's reasonable to lead simpler lives and live within our means, reconnect with our neighbors, and conserve our resources. Means for harnessing green energy are improving every day.
It's good that living more responsible lifestyles is a concept that is starting to catch on. Environmentalists aren't out there to kill your babies and enforce mandatory sterilization. They're not the crazies out there on the fringe. They are real people who put forth the effort to improve their neighborhoods and world. It's not that complicated, just make reasonable choices about daily living, and encourage your legislators to promote the same.
_____________________________
Q. Why are we violent but not illiterate? A. Because we are taught to read." -David Allan
I'm an ex-christian! :D
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/7/2009 12:40:17 AM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2307
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Fritzpw_Admin
This totally boggles me:
"The "Extreme Green" are perfectly comfortable with encouraging members of the human species to destroy their young, but mortified that human beings would disturb an eagle's nest or a turtle's egg."
So because I have 5 kids I should murder my unborn so as to limit my carbon footprint on the earth? That's not happening!
To many, early-stage fetuses and zygotes and the like aren't considered people, so there's no comparison on that ground. It boggles you because you're approaching the situation from different premises. Their concern for individual species is generally related to maintaining biodiversity, though I'm sure exceptions aren't too hard to find (see: PETA nutcases).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/7/2009 12:49:14 AM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2307
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bluethread
No, education and economic opportunity in what I would call a warehouse society is associated with lower birthrates, and lowered life satisfaction. In a community based social structure children are integrated into the educational process and economy.
A "warehouse society"?
Education and economic opportunity are associated with lowered life satisfaction in what studies, and what population do they study? Life satisfaction is extremely high in northern Europe, and they have both education and economic opportunity.
If a certain population acts a different way, there may be local factors at work. That may mean that the population you're talking about isn't doing something as well as it could be, or ti could be that populations like those in Northern Europe are doing a better job at something than most.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/7/2009 1:31:06 AM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1350
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
Some recent comments by prominent Green advocates suggest that one of the simplest and most effective ways to reduce the global carbon footprint is to reduce the population. As means to that end, they advocate aggressive birth control and abortion. Their argument is simple enough: fewer people put less strain on natural resources, use less energy, and generate less pollution. Wealthy countries, so the thinking goes, are particularly suited to implement this strategy because they have ready access to birth control and legalized abortion.
Getting back to the OP.
I actually don't think those arguments represent the extreme at all. More like mainstream environmentalism/tree-hugging, although most would probably be hesitant to actually say they want increased abortions because they know it sounds sick. Wide-spread use of birth control and sterilization, though, and standardization of the two-child maximum family, whoo-hooo, Utopia, here we come! The problem is, you can't standardize the two-child family without some level of control. Education and wealth is associated with lower birth rates statistically, but even intelligent, well-off people may either choose to have larger families, or be unwilling to get sterilized and have birth control failures. It also assumes that most poor people have more than two children because they're ignorant or stupid, and not because they value having children. Even if birth control were readily available, in many cultures people might indeed choose to limit their family size but still choose an unacceptable (to environmentalists) number like 4-6 children instead of 6-12.
I know lots of large families that are very environmentally friendly  , and yes, we can be Christian and conservative and green-living, but I've never met a serious environmental activist, in person or in writing, who doesn't advocate population control as a means of "saving the earth". They believe in varying levels of stringency, but they all believe it on some level. If not government mandated population control, then government subsidized or government manipulated population control. They look down their noses at large families and start rambling about ignorance and carbon footprints.
Dh says "If they think humanity is a cancer on the earth and think the population needs to be reduced, to be really consistent they should all sterilize themselves and eventually start jumping off bridges. That would be setting a good example, rather than wanting to control other people's fertility." Dh isn't the most PC person in the world, obviously. 
3capps, thanks for being a refreshing voice of reason on this thread. I began reading this, seeing as how Fritz starts good discussions, and was overwhelmed and disheartened by the posts thus far. One thing I can say about rural living, after having grown up in suburbia, is that the majority of folks have lost touch with how this world works and have grown to believe that their urban worldview is the only true perspective,
_____________________________
Never make someone else a priority while you remain an option!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/7/2009 1:37:27 AM
|
|
|
zamdad
Posts: 1350
Joined: 4/8/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huangshan
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
Yeah... I don't see people in this thread saying a majority of people believe this or that. I've not seen anyone say that all families want or should want 1-2 kids either.
But we're talking about environmentalism and the idea that humanity has to stop "breeding" above replacement level. Because that is a commonly used and mainstream idea, even if nobody on crosswalk wants to be associated with it.
How is it "mainstream"?
What media influences your opinion, Huang?
_____________________________
Never make someone else a priority while you remain an option!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/7/2009 11:11:25 AM
|
|
|
essentialsaltes
Posts: 242
Joined: 10/14/2007
From: Inglewood, CA
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: huangshan
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
Yeah... I don't see people in this thread saying a majority of people believe this or that. I've not seen anyone say that all families want or should want 1-2 kids either.
But we're talking about environmentalism and the idea that humanity has to stop "breeding" above replacement level. Because that is a commonly used and mainstream idea, even if nobody on crosswalk wants to be associated with it.
How is it "mainstream"?
I do believe that humanity should aim for zero or negative population growth, and that is probably at least a common, if not necessarily mainstream, environmental belief. However, this does not imply that I believe that all families should want 1-2 kids. As I pointed out, America's birthrate is close to ZPG, even though we have 'Octomom' and the Gosselins. We don't need to pass laws to control population; it's controlling itself in the US on average, despite the wide variety of individual families. Japan, Korea and most European countries have negative growth rates. Again, this is not due to laws or enforcement, but it apparently seems to be a natural consequence of industrialization and the acceptance and availability of birth control.
_____________________________
"My object in all arguments is not to make any preconceived opinion of mine seem right, but merely to discover and establish the truth, whatever the truth may be."
-- HP Lovecraft, letter to Robert E. Howard 7/27-28/34
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Population Control in an Aging Society - 11/7/2009 1:20:26 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2307
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: essentialsaltes
quote:
ORIGINAL: huangshan
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
Yeah... I don't see people in this thread saying a majority of people believe this or that. I've not seen anyone say that all families want or should want 1-2 kids either.
But we're talking about environmentalism and the idea that humanity has to stop "breeding" above replacement level. Because that is a commonly used and mainstream idea, even if nobody on crosswalk wants to be associated with it.
How is it "mainstream"?
I do believe that humanity should aim for zero or negative population growth, and that is probably at least a common, if not necessarily mainstream, environmental belief. However, this does not imply that I believe that all families should want 1-2 kids. As I pointed out, America's birthrate is close to ZPG, even though we have 'Octomom' and the Gosselins. We don't need to pass laws to control population; it's controlling itself in the US on average, despite the wide variety of individual families. Japan, Korea and most European countries have negative growth rates. Again, this is not due to laws or enforcement, but it apparently seems to be a natural consequence of industrialization and the acceptance and availability of birth control.
Fair enough, I believe largely the same thing. Economic development brings population growth down. I see the population explosion as largely self-correcting and mostly a regional political issue where problems like famines and the like are concerned.
< Message edited by huangshan -- 11/7/2009 1:26:57 PM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
