I mean, you kinda advocated eugenics to start…so yeah. At least, I can’t find another way to “select for intellect,” as you stated.
As usual in points like this one I can only conclude that you fell for the misinformation coming from a lot of the climate change deniers propaganda. You should know that it also does include, perversely I may add, the willful omission that climate change activists also do point at family planning (indeed, having less kids) as part of the whole effort.
What is worse is that climate change deniers also have not only fallen for anti environmental conspiracy theories but also (even more perversely considering the OPs concern) they usually do fall for anti-family planing positions **thanks to also misguided conservative ideologies. **
There is an elephant in the room all right, and generally speaking **Republicans **do fall not only for climate change denial, but also to deny that contraception should be a part of family planning and/or population control.
My parents had four kids, so I guess we’re on the OP’s shit list. I apologize for the profligate use of resources, but I’ll most likely be dead in ten years or so, so there’s that.
[Quote=John Mace]
All we need is an efficient way to turn babies into fuel. Kill birds with one stone!
[/quote]
Or food. I know it sounds gross, so call it some innocuous name, like, oh, Soylent. Better yet, Soylent Green, 'cause it’s like, environmentally friendly.
You are confusing Republicans with the Pope. Republicans are generally anti-abortion wrt family planning and population control, but generally not anti-contraception.
It’s rather convenient / self-serving to see the problem as overpopulation; that way no matter how big your CO2 footprint is, and other resources your lifestyle requires, you’re still better than 2 or more people, because, hey, they are more people.
(By the same token of course humans in the past could have wished death and or destruction on the OP, since he’s one of billions of people. What was he thinking, being born into such a huge population?)
More seriously, no I don’t think overpopulation is the issue per se. World population will stabilize as regions such as Africa go through the same demographic transition we’ve been through in the West.
The problem is that the Western way of life is not sustainable, not without technological leaps, for that many people. But hey let’s do nothing and blame others for wanting a life like ours, eh?
There were more examples on the link, mind you, I do know about their anti abortion; but several Republicans are also against contraception. And as I pointed, many are also climate change deniers. Anthony Watts is BTW a registered republican and as one of the main climate change deniers out there his position carries a lot of weight among the anti science community.
That would not surprise me, which is why I said “generally”. Republicans ofter restrict foreign aid to ensure that monies don’t go to funding abortion. Contraception? Not so much. With the caveat that some (maybe even many) Republicans get confused about the so-called morning after pill, thinking it causes abortion.
I don’t think the United States is having a population problem … our birth/death rate of increase is right in line with the rich European States … the growth we do experience is due to immigration.
It’s all fine and dandy to say we should educate the girls … but first we need to build an education system where birth rates are high … South and Southeast Asia for example … where there really isn’t access to even basic education …
I’m also pretty sure the anti-birth control attitudes we find throughout the world as far less political ideologies and more religious … Catholics really do prohibit condoms and abortion … Hindus believe in reincarnation … these are cultural elements thousands of years old … geez, it’s the entire Catholic Church, world-wide, not just “a few decrepit Catholic archbishops” …
In some cases, these high birth rates are necessary … it’s only been in the past 100 years or so that we’ve ended the appalling rate of childhood death, child-bearing deaths and death from rampant disease … and this is only mitigated in the affluent countries, where population growth is effectively flat …
I think we’ll find it far easier to eliminate carbon pollution than it will be to control population growth … just a matter of deciding which battle we want to fight …
You maybe could if you adopted some of the kids from the more overpopulated areas. That would help even things out.
Many of the Republicans I know think that most non-barrier contraception methods cause abortions. The theory is apparently that the pill and IUDs don’t always prevent ovulation (which is true for IUDs?), but (also) prevent implantation.
If you are a ‘life begins at conception’ person, preventing implantation is causing abortion.
Most Republicans I know don’t think that. So where does that leave us?
And rants are always viewed as plain truth by True Believers. Welcome to the internet.
I honestly cannot remember the last time I heard someone use the phrase “college try”.
The payoff comes several decades in the future, when the two-child family ends up with a dozen carbon-spewing descendants, and the child-free couple is longer spewing any carbon (because they have died of old age). The grand total of carbon emitted by the child-free couple is less than the family tree of the two-child family, even if the child-free couple drives Veyrons and lives in a 4000-square-foot five-bedroom home heated to 76 degrees in a Yukon winter.
[quote=“watchwolf49, post:20, topic:774198”]
My point is that the “half as many people = half the environmental impact” relies on the childless couple living at the same standard as the two child family … which is unusual … people with twice the money in hand will live at a higher standard of living … thus have a higher “footprint” on the environment …/QUOTE]
That’s true to an extent. An externality of not having children is indeed a higher standard of living for many, and we do enjoy extra perks, and environmental blights, like a weekend lake house in the mountains we bought from what we saved from not having children’s education costs, for example. But my point was that the water, energy and food we conserve by not having children, who then themselves have children, times how ever many times going forward, is by the fact that our assault on the environment stops with us and doesn’t keep multiplying.
But why are we lumping together descendents forevermore as one entity, except for it being something self-serving where childless couples can live whatever lifestyle they want and claim to be virtuous?
Perhaps if you had had children your great-great-granddaughter would have been the scientist that worked out a great way to sequester carbon? Therefore it’s your fault the world’s screwed in 200 years.
That’s as much sense as it makes to offset my carbon footprint with the children I haven’t had.
Giving a nuclear arsenal to a man-child ought to fix things, then.
It’s not about how many people you can squeeze into a phone booth. It’s the fact that most of the non-replenishable water is already sucked up, something like 90% of the fish are gone out of the oceans, many of the remaining strangled with plastic, and so many other species are disappearing, etcetera.
And I understand how reality and beauty are what one beholds when s/he is first old enough to contemplate. But the difference between what the planet looks like now versus in the fifties and early sixties, when I came of age to appreciate things, like Route 66 being two-lane and sometimes devoid of traffic as I trundled in A VW bug across a beautiful, boundless country in search of primal adventure, is huge.
True. Man in the 60s, one could look over over LA and see nothing but majestica rolling banks of smog and now, just stupid blue sky.