Ted Turner urges global one-child policy to save planet

[Newsjock]

Source: The Globe and Mail

Climate change and population control can make for a politically explosive mix, as media mogul Ted Turner demonstrated Sunday when he urged world leaders to institute a global one-child policy to save the Earth’s environment.

Mr. Turner spoke at a luncheon where economist Brian O’Neill from the U.S.’s National Center for Atmospheric Research unveiled his study on the impact of demographic trends on future greenhouse gas emission, a little-discussed subject given its political sensitivity.

... Mr. Turner – a long-time advocate of population control – said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce.

“If we’re going to be here (as a species) 5,000 years from now, we’re not going to do it with seven billion people,” Mr. Turner said.

Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ted-turner-urges-global-one-child-policy-to-save-planet/article1825977/

[EmilyKent]

1. Why does he say things like this?

He knows it isn't going to happen.

[loudsue]

13. It's a good way to get people thinking about it, and creating an emotional reaction of some kind.

There has to be SOMETHING that makes people understand we have to quit producing so many people.

[saigon68]

33. Good luck with this idea with this Criminal

[kestrel91316]

52. Oh, it's going to happen - at least the population reduction part.

The only question is HOW it's going to come about - by a gradual voluntary decrease in our numbers, or a sudden involuntary decrease.

[defendandprotect]

100. Exactly ... capitalism has only thrived because of exploitation of nature ....and

natural resources --

but Mother Nature will be playing the final cards --

that's been happening already --

We have capitalism's exploitation to thank for Global Warming and this threat

to the planet and humanity!

[social_critic]

59. And it isn't practical because one child policy reduces worker ratios

To retirees. The alternative is for older folk to stop eating. I think a more reasonable alternative is a 2.05 child policy coupled to a quality retirement system - which isn't about to happen either.

[ProudDad]

70. Expand your mind...

Relocalized steady state economies...

Sustainable societies that sit lightly on the Earth...

Get your mind out of the vampire capitalist rut...

[CTyankee]

98. The alternative for us is already "with us." They are our illegal immigrants.

In effect, we "steal" other countries children when their citizens come here illegally and have their children here.

Populations can be increased by conquest/enslavement, immigration or pro natalist policies (which can be benign or malevolent). At this point immigration is prolly our best bet...

[defendandprotect]

101. A smaller new generation would be a positive ... for survival of the planet and

humanity -- what cost the planet and nature?

[defendandprotect]

99. Since the 1960's...when was the last time you heard anyone discuss overpopulation?????

And you're objecting to its being mentioned now???

[HEyHEY]

2. Maybe ted turner should run a proper news station, that could also help save the world.

[cbdo2007]

3. He's got 5 children from 3 different wives...

Ted, please kindly go fuck yourself.

"Mr. Turner – a long-time advocate of population control" - haha hahaha hahahahahaha

Not that I don't agree that people should be responsible about bringing children into the world, but I hate these "I can do one thing but you should do another" people more than anything.

[Demeter]

22. Thanks, I HAD Wondered

If I were his kids, I'd be wondering about the will just now...

[Dappleganger]

27. My feelings exactly.

Rich white guy with a bunch of kids telling other people how to live their lives.

Go fuck yourself, Ted.

[Union Scribe]

39. Great post. Thanks for that info.

[gmoney]

48. Well, he really regrets 4 of them...

[Safetykitten]

74. Yes, maybe start at one wife policy.

[U4ikLefty]

137. They wouldn't like that in Utah.

:hide:

[defendandprotect]

102. Presume this is also advice for his children... Oops! think there are probably already....

many grandchildren?

Actually, it is good advice -- even if Ted and the Turners didn't take it!!

[2Design]

4. rw will never let this happen - they are pumping out as many kids as they can

to get a majority

[glinda]

6. They feel they are entitled (with their religious beliefs) and see no consequences for any one else.

[Ginto]

42. Eazy-E is rumored to have fathered 70 children.

He must've been very religious. :).

[flvegan]

5. What was on the menu at this luncheon?

Oops...not supposed to mention that, am I?

[struggle4progress]

9. +

It's an entirely hypocritical + from me, but I can't dispute the logic of your remark

[Maat]

7. Dear Ted ...

This retired social worker thinks that YOU are a big HYPOCRITE! I guess it was okay for YOU to have five kids; but, apparently, other people shouldn't be able to determine the size of their families.

I, personally, didn't have any children the typical way - I adopted; BUT, that was MY choice.

Teddy, you don't have any credibility with me.

Signed,

Maat
(Probably a useless eater in your eyes, Teddy)

[timo]

8. typical elitist ass munch

do as I say not as I do!!!!!

[2QT2BSTR8]

10. Well my gay husband and I do not plan on having ANY kids....

So I guess that means we are taken care of....

[rug]

30. Maybe we can set up some type of carbon credits with straight couples who want more kids.

Win - win.

[lepus]

64. Keep trying.

I sure things will work out for you.

Sorry couldn't resist.

[Romulox]

11. Ted Turner is to population control as Al Gore is to global warming.

A "do as I say, not as I do" hypocrite. :shrug:

[kestrel91316]

54. I suppose you are one of the "Gore should live in a mud hut" crowd.......

[social_critic]

60. Gore should live in a 2000 sq ft home w/o heated swimming pool

I think the guy has a point, it's important for leaders who push good causes to walk the talk. It's like Bush saying he was a "compassionate conservative" then going to eat ice cream cake while New Orleans was flooding. It doesn't go over well.

[rhett o rick]

12. You gotta love the assholes that "have the answer". Just stop having babies.

There, wow, that's all it takes.

Just exactly what is his plan to carry this out? Idiot.

[Lorien]

15. The best way; give more women in developing countries a good education

the more educated people are the few children they have. The same could work here as well. Otherwise, Idiocrasy won't just be a bit of comedic fiction, and we will be completely out of resources within 40 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste

[XemaSab]

28. So much word

The population in the first world has leveled off, and is even slightly in decline. Most women in the third world don't want to have 8 kids, but they have no way of planning their families. If we educate women and provide health care and family planning, the population of the third world will be MUCH better off, and the planet will be better off too.

As a feminist, I support the rights of women to have no kids or 20 kids, as long as it's the woman's choice.

(I will be deeply surprised if the people in my generation don't continue what the boomers did and only have one or two in most families. I have one friend who has three kids, and everyone else I know has none or one.)

[WizardLeft62]

14. Totally Disagree with Ted Turner's Attitude Here

I understand what Ted Turner is saying but disagree with him.

Too often the elites have a condescending view of people who have children. The British had a Malthusian view of the Irish during the famine years. The British used the overpopulation thesis of Malthus to blame the famine on the Irish despite the Peel Commission Report highlighting the likelihood of this occurrence only a few years before. In fact, Ireland had been prone to famines prior to the Great Famine in 1846-48.

In short, I totally disagree with Ted Turner on this one because too many times in history this overpopulation thesis has been used to justify awful things that happened to yes people who died much too soon, and often because of the elites holding the wealth at the expense of others.

This overpopulation thesis has been used all too often to justify evil actions of one sort or another, such as the Irish Famine.

[Lorien]

16. The mother of all famines will arrive very soon

population growth will be halted if we don't curb ourselves voluntarily: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jul/07/research.waste

[ehrnst]

17. Pretty much the same view as the RW as far as women are concerned

Women's bodies are simply not their own, due to their capacity to bear children.

[ehrnst]

18. It has been shown that birth rate drops when women are educated and have more rights.

Not the other way around....

[Duppers]

19. +1000

[Duppers]

20. why is this issue so offensive to most here?

Couldn't Turner be like some ex-smokers, ex-rethugs, ex-any-thingers here? Grown wiser with age, as most of us should.

The planet is smothering. If you oppose his point, deal with that and offer alternative solutions, and not some ad hominem attacks like a bunch of freepers.

[Duppers]

21. Any comments on another DU thread?

Please read here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=260643

[Xenotime]

47. Thank you. I was beginning to worry there there was nobody here who care for the earth.

[ProudDad]

71. +1000

[NashVegas]

75. No One Wants to Be the Asshole and Say It Out Loud

It's so much easier to point a finger at someone who has the resources to get through pretty much anything. Most of us know we won't have a seat on the lifeboat.

[24601]

82. It's offensive because it doesn't trump "my body, my choice".

Pro choice means choosing either way, period! Otherwise it's just as oppressive.

[Maat]

129. +1 (n/t)

[20score]

89. Logical as always Duppers! Couldn't agree with you more.

[Matilda]

23. I think it will happen.

Because politicians are, and will continue to be, too weak to take the
right action now, the world will suddenly realise further down the track
that things have gone too far, and the planet will be in danger. Then
there will be knee-jerk reactions all round, and drastic measures will
have to be taken to save the planet. They will include limiting the
number of children people can have.

Ted Turner may be a bit of a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean he's wrong
on this one.

[Duppers]

31. exactly, Matilda.

Exactly....except that the world is in danger now. Most just don't see it.

[ehrnst]

80. Educate women - don't lock down their bodies. That creates a slave master mentality. (nt)

[Yo_Mama]

24. Well, let me put it this way

First, many countries in the developed world already have stable to declining populations, especially when you correct for immigration. So they don't need a one-child policy.

And second, China imposed a one-child policy and is one of the most polluted countries on earth. They are no example to anyone. This is a glib analysis.

Oh, and the point about poor people selling their right to have one child? That's so asshats like Turner can knock up all the women they want.

When people talk about elitist liberals, it's people like this that they are discussing. This is social Darwinism at gunpoint, and the vision of the future fools like this advance is vile.

[XemaSab]

29. For serious

:thumbsup:

[Duppers]

32. put any spin on it you like

The fact is that China KNEW that they had a problem and that pollution would be worse IF they did NOT curb their population.

It's a cart & horse thing and you've got the facts backward.

[madrchsod]

25. it is a disaster in china and it will be for the world

better education and living conditions will be the solution.

[Duppers]

34. Pollution is a disaster in China. The one-child policy...

The one-child policy is understood, not liked so much, but understood. Their govt. makes exceptions but only if the parents are only children themselves, then the parents are allowed two children. The goal is zero population growth.

I landed in Beijing a 2:30pm one sunny afternoon this Oct. and one could barely see the landing lights as our plane touched down. Visibility must have been only 200--300 hundred yds.

It's not only the factory/the coal burning/the vehicle pollution causing the immediate problems for them but it's also global warming causing the Gobi Desert to enlarge and the resulting sand storms which are playing havoc in Beijing.

I found the article describing their desperate situation:

Beijing's Desert Storm

"The desert is sweeping into China's valleys, choking rivers and consuming precious farm land. Beijing has responded with massive tree-planting campaigns, but the Great Green Walls may not be able to buffer the sand, which could cover the capital in a few years"
more here: http://www.gluckman.com/ChinaDesert.html


THESE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S AT STAKE. We Americans are still delusional.

[aquart]

26. Doesn't matter. Global warming will do the reducing.

[social_critic]

63. Why? Global warming won't fix the problem

If we keep going this way, sea level will go up about 50 to 60 feet. It may reduce population a bit, but it won't really solve the long term problem. We would just reproduce back up again to make sure the environment collapses later.

[NickB79]

68. Global warming will reduce the planet's carrying capacity by a few billion

It's not so simple as "oh, the oceans will just rise, we'll move, and repopulate."

The oceans rise, the farmlands die, the forests burn, the fish die, and global resource wars kick in. At that point, billions die and civilization crumbles. Without sufficient resources, humanity is kicked back to a medieval state of existence and we can never repopulate to current levels because the environment is so degraded, most of the fossil fuels have been burned up, and we've lost most of the technology and knowledge that allowed us to reach this point in the first place.

[social_critic]

76. I doubt it's going to be that bad

Farmlands will open in higher latitudes. I don't see support for "fish will die". Resource wars will take place with or without global warming. If billions die, I doubt it will be from global warming. I would not expect it to work the way you think.

[NickB79]

105. Farmland is dependent on far more than just latitude

For example, look at Canada. Beyond the current plains areas already farmed, there only exist mostly conifer forests, tundra and the Shield regions in the east. All of these areas have thin, rocky soil incompatible with farming, so there is really not much land available in North America to expand agriculture as the climate warms. The same is true of Europe and Asia: land currently under conifer forests and tundra has poor soil because it's been too cold to build organic matter like in warmer climates. Perhaps if the land were allowed to lie fallow for the next 10,000 years as it warms, sufficient organic matter would be built up, but we don't really have 10,000 years now, do we?

Beyond that, it is not a simple matter of uprooting entire farming communities and moving them hundreds of miles north. Farmers have much invested in the land they currently own; moving to match the climate is problematic from a logistical point of view even if such land were available.

As far as the fish dying, I strongly suggest you look up ocean acidification to get an idea of what increased CO2 has been doing to the base of the ocean's food chain. Already, we've run out of new grounds to fish, despite a skyrocketing demand for more seafood: http://news.mongabay.com/2010/1205-morgan_overfishing.html.

""The era of great expansion has come to an end, and maintaining the current supply of wild fish sustainably is not possible," says co-author and National Geographic Ocean Fellow Enric Sala. "The sooner we come to grips with it—similar to how society has recognized the effects of climate change—the sooner we can stop the downward spiral by creating stricter fisheries regulations and more marine research.""

Between global warming and a peaking of fossil fuel supplies, global food supplies will become very problematic indeed. Russia lost a large amount of wheat production this year, and Australia's wheat production has been hammered pretty much every year for the past decade. US corn harvests were lower than expected due to warmer-than-normal weather, and massive floods wiped out much of Pakistan's farmland production as well. These are only going to get progressively worse as the climate warms.

[soryang]

35. Isn't he one of the largest landowners in the world?

Doesn't he own 14 million acres?

[Duppers]

36. and that is relevant how?

It's doesn't negate the message.

His land would be more valuable IF the population increased, would it not??

[xor]

37. one-child policies don't have to mean forced abortions or anything like that

It could easily be tax credits or something for NOT having more than a single child. I would say they could tax having children, but that hurts the children more than anything.

[Bill McBlueState]

45. yup

At the very least, the per-child tax credit could start to diminish for each kid after X, where X is some low-ish number.

Currently, there's a $1000 credit for each child. It wouldn't be crazy at all to make it $1000 for the first, $1000 for the second, $500 for the third, sloping down to 0 for the seventh and subsequent. Just send the message that giant families tend to be a drain on our resources.

[AngryAmish]

55. Punish the wrong people for having extra children (wrong=poor)

That, my friend, is eugenics.

[LiberalFighter]

38. On a global scale? How does he figure that can be accomplished?

Churches that encourage large families aren't going to discourage it. It is not helping that economic conditions are getting worse.

[sarcasmo]

40. New World Order idiot. Easier for the elite to control the masses when there are less of us.

[Evoman]

97. No, the more of us, the easier it gets.

When we are competing for jobs, resources, and space, it's easier to control us because we willingly settle for less.

[Ginto]

41. Which one of his five children is he going to unhave? nt

[gmoney]

50. Ted is 72... I'm guessing his youngest kid is probably at least 30 years old

30 years ago, things were bad, but they have become a helluva lot worse since then. Ted's waking up to the problems of overpopulation, but I don't think that makes him some huge hypocrite. Someone else compared it to a lifelong smoker who is now an anti-smoking advocate. Maybe he'll also decide to start promoting vegetarianism and offer more vegetarian options in his steakhouses, too, to promote sustainability.

If the fertility rate dropped, and populations declined, especially among communities where poverty is already rampant, we might have a chance of reaching sustainability. It's better for these children to never be conceived, than to be born and die of disease or malnutrition during their first few years of life. As it stands now, future generations are going to see a continued decline in standard of living, and "Soylent Green" will become science fact, not science fiction.

Cultures where a set of parents strives to have a large brood of children so the kids can care for them in their old age are a Ponzi scheme that's doomed to collapse. Even if we take everything away from the wealthy people, it's not unlimited, and I don't think it would stretch far enough to alleviate poverty in the long-term. Substantially fewer mouths to feed will go a long way to solving the problem.

[NickB79]

43. 20 years from now, the same people attacking Turner's position here

Will watch as the polar ice caps melt away, farmland is destroyed by extreme climate swings, cities are flooded, rain forests burn, and hundreds of millions of people around the world face starvation.

And, as the fucking hypocrites they are, will scream "Why didn't anyone DO anything to stop this?!?!"

Pathetic :puke:

[Ginto]

44. It's easy to say once you've had your five kids. The policy is ineffective.

Would be much more effective to just engage in routine population culling.

[NickB79]

46. Well, I'm saying it as well and I have just one kid

Pointing out that Turner has 5 kids doesn't change the fact that what he's saying is the truth. If an ex-smoker said "Smoking is bad for you", would you call him a hypocrite, say he's full of crap and light up?

The policy may be found ineffective after it is tried, but since only one country (China) has ever tried it, you have no grounds for your claim.

The alternative, as some have already pointed out, is to let Nature do the population control for us. And if you think that's ok, just remember that global populations are already 20%+ beyond global carrying capacity by some estimates. That means we need to get the planet's population down to 5-6 billion or destroy the ecosystem entirely.

What would be preferable: a planned descent in numbers, or a massive crash brought on by starvation, pollution and resource wars?

[Ginto]

56. Other alternative.

Random lottery to see who is culled. A large preserve is setup and the rich elites get to hunt those selected in the lottery.

[Devil_Fish]

136. Kinda like the Iraq war.......

[GliderGuider]

58. I love the ex-smoker analogy!

Yes, if we don't do something urgent, matters are about to be taken out of our hands. Mother Nature doesn't negotiate, and she plays for keeps.

Here are some of my thoughts on population:

• The world's population has left the regime of exponential growth. We are now in a regime of linear growth, adding a constant 77 million people per year to the planet.
  
• That's a new Germany or Egypt every year.
  
• The world left the exponential growth pattern in about 1980.
  
• Co-incidentally(?) that's right about when the Green Revolution ran out of steam.
  
• The connection between food supply and population is usually inverted in the public mind. Food supply drives population levels, not the other way around. This helps explain the reduction in population growth rates since 1980.
  
• Wars - even nuclear wars - are not an effective means of population control. In order to reduce the world population to 1 billion by 2080 we would need to kill 100 million extra people a year. That's the equivalent of having 10 global wars the size of WWII going simultaneously for the whole time. It's not going to happen.
  
• Humanity is not strong enough to kill itself off, and we do not have the insight or foresight as a species to limit our numbers.
  
• The real population-reducers are food supply limits and disease.
  
• The rainfall changes associated with global warming make it entirely likely that the global food supply is near its all-time peak.
  
• The possible breakdown of the social fabric associated with excessive social complexity, too much infrastructure efficiency (which is the same as too little resilience) and the energy limits implied by Peak Oil will make the spread of large-scale diseases more likely and less controllable.
  
• Having fewer children is not only an unpopular idea, but even if it was accepted would IMO be unlikely to help because the time frame is too short.

Welcome to the future.

[cbdo2007]

84. Has he admitted that 4 of his kids were a mistake and he wishes he had never had them?

That's the only way the smoker analogy is relevant.

It's one thing to say, "learn from my mistakes" and it's another to say, "I did this, but you should do this".

[Devil_Fish]

135. population culling. You meen like Iraq and Afganistan?

[Duppers]

51. +1000

nt

[ehrnst]

79. Again...it's not simply the rate of birth, it's the rate of consumption per capita..

Americans consume many times more per person than a third world citizen - who may have more kids.

[NickB79]

107. But the Third World nations are industrializing rapidly

Rates of consumption per capita are rising at a rapid rate in Africa, India, China, etc. They are attempting to emulate the US, and that is entirely unsustainable.

What we need is for global population control AND a realization that countries like the US have an excessive rate of consumption that should not be emulated. As such, the US has to cut their consumption rates dramatically as an example to other nations. In order to do that, we most likely have to abandon our uber-capitalist, destroy-the-planet-for-a-profit economic system. There's not much, if any, chance of that happening, but it's the only thing that can save most of the global ecosystem.

[20score]

90. How true!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

49. while i dont think it should be law. its really not a bad idea/suggestion

[Duppers]

53. agreed. nt.

cheers.

[social_critic]

61. it's a lousy idea, folks. It doesn't allow for enough people at work

Do the math. Say everybody has one child for 30 years. What do you think happens to the worker to retiree ratio? There would be too many old people, and nobody to take care of them. This solution is no solution.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

62. If you consider only the future of America, sure

If you consider the world, not so much

[NickB79]

67. What it implies is that we need to completely rethink our economic system

Extend your "math" out a few hundred years. If we have to keep increasing in number every generation to maintain a 2% annual growth rate, and support the retired population (who is also living longer thanks to medical advances) at what point do we overpopulate this planet and strip it like locusts on a wheat field?

Our entire concept of economic growth is based on infinite growth, while we live on a planet with finite resources. Short of an amazing push into space, and the emigration of a large portion of Earth's population to offworld colonies, we can't keep operating as we do now for much longer. Either we address the problems now, or we let Nature address them for us. And you do not want Nature addressing them if at all possible, because she's a merciless bitch.

[ProudDad]

73. Mom Nature bats last...

:hi:

[ProudDad]

72. Facile, old paradigm "economics"

the kind of nonsense that got us here...

Expand your mind!

[Ginto]

77. Odd response from someone with your screen name.

Shouldn't you be "AshamedDad" or "MistakeDad?" Shouldn't you have tried to reduce the population?

[ProudDad]

86. I did.

I've had 2 wives and ONLY ONE child...

What have you done to help?

[Ginto]

87. Shouldn't you have had 2 wives and 0 children?

I'm so far at 0 wives and 0 children.

[LanternWaste]

112. 1 child is considered to be a net population loss.

1 child is considered to be a net population loss.

So it would appear that your implication that a particular poster falls short simply falls flat. :shrug:

[Ginto]

131. Seems like if you were really devoted to the cause, you'd have zero children

and have a net loss of 2. Also, that assumes he's still married and his partner hasn't had 3. Maybe he should have suggested she be sterilized after the one.

[LanternWaste]

111. Your protestations appear to beg the question

Your protestations appear to beg the question, "what then is an effective, relevant, and efficient solution to the impending and critical world problem of population growth?"

[ehrnst]

81. He's not talking voluntary, education based family planning. He's talking legislating women's bodies

not mens.

Whenever you take away consent from women and childbearing, it backfires.

Childbearing reduces naturally when you give women a greater role in the community and more education.

And while we have a lower birth rate than third world countries, we have a much, much, much higher rate of consumption per capita.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

83. I agree with all your points

[XemaSab]

118. I know how we could make this work

In a country where the average is two children per family, we can neuter half the men.

In a country where the average is ten children per family, we can neuter ninety percent of the men.

There. That's solved. :P

[totodeinhere]

57. I agree with Ted. It's a good idea as long as it is applied equally everywhere.

The biggest obstacle to this policy would be superstitious religious beliefs. Hopefully, some day people will wake up and realize that religion is a fairytale, and the only way we are going to save ourselves and our planet is to take matters in our own hands rather than depending upon some sort of mythical deity to do it for us.

[Turborama]

65. Or, there's always the Logan's Run option

Not sure how well it would go down, though.

[Ter]

66. Ted and his Bilderberger friends want to reduce the world's population to 500 million

Only the "important" would be allowed to live under their rules. They are pure evil.

[Maat]

130. +1 (n/t)

[ProudDad]

69. One or LESS

we have to get below 2 billion persons by the end of the next century in order for the Earth to have a chance at sustaining large air-breathing mammals...

[Ginto]

78. Or move a couple of billion to another planet.

Sure we'll have that wrapped up.

[The Straight Story]

85. Her body, your choice (nt)

[20score]

88. Good. I wish more people would wake up to the fact that over-population is our most pressing issue.

It needs to be addressed four decades ago.

[Maat]

91. It may need to be addressed BUT ...

the government (or Ted) won't be telling any American citizen how many children they can have, or that they have to agree to sterilization to get benefits. It's unconstitutional, and it should be. It's morally reprehensible and un-American.

[20score]

92. Of course. My comment was to the people who deny there's a problem.

First thing that should be done is education. The second is empowering women. Third is to bring economic justice to third world countries (and stopping ours from becoming one of those third world countries).

It is our most pressing problem and millions on the left and the right refuse to see reality. (Reality denial is one of my pet peeves.)

[Duppers]

93. +1000

:thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

103. +1000% --

[Maat]

115. On your action recommendations, we agree! (n/t)

[and-justice-for-all]

95. Thank You!!! agree 1000% nt

[and-justice-for-all]

94. Human overpopulation can be credited for the majority of our issues

especially economic. There is never going to be enough jobs and people keep reproducing without any regards of the long term effects of that. Not enough jobs, food, housing...etc. and the problems with continue to get worse.

[The Flaming Red Head]

96. Surely human beings should be able to breed like cock roaches

There's plenty of food for everyone

[Godhumor]

104. You heard the man! Those of you without children better hurry up and have one!

That's right, isn't it? I might be confused...

[Ter]

106. I hope this puts to rest those who doubt the Bilderburger's intentions

They want One World Government, and population reduction to 500 million. They are sick evil bastards. No longer is it conspiracy, it is FACT.

[Mimosa]

108. Turner don't preach! He has 4 or more kids, I chose to have 0. n/t

[harvey007]

109. He's just being Ted

He always shoots from the lip. No big deal.

[Creative]

110. Go back to sleep Ted, in case you haven't noticed, responsible

reproductivity has lost the battle with the irresponsible.

[LanternWaste]

113. Which is more critical, collective or individual rights?

I'm afraid that the final analysis, we (or more specifically, our second and third generation descendants) will have to make a very fundamental decision directly impacting our continued existence--- which is more critical, collective or individual rights?

And although we are already doing just that that on a world-wide (to a very small extent) with our new perspectives on environmentalism and the effective and efficient stewardship of the planet, I can't imagine the debates that will arise when this too finally becomes more than a blip on a radar screen.

Outside of war (which tramples on everyone's rights), and famine and/or plague (to which rights are simply immaterial and without relevance), I imagine that sooner or later, the basic concept of the ethics of individual reproduction (and its concomitant-- reproductive choices/rights) will necessarily be re-evaluated in a much broader scale and perspective than has ever been done before.

[NickB79]

114. It's a scary thought for most people, to realize that some things trump indvidual rights

We've come so far down the path of destruction through thoughtless exploitation of the environment that we now have to face the unsavory fact that the sacrifice of some individual rights may be required to ensure that we as a society can survive at more than a Medieval-level of civilization.

[Maat]

116. NOTHING trumps our constitutional rights.

I will NEVER support anything that is unconstituional.

My attitude is reflected by the following quote ...

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

.... Ben Franklin

[Nihil]

120. Did you even *read* his post before replying?

Or don't you give a shit about the problems he mentions?

If that's the case, I'd suggest you change your username from "Maat"
to "Team America Fuck Yeah!" as that would be a more accurate reflection
of your attitude.

[Maat]

124. You're not making any sense to me.

Bye.

[GliderGuider]

122. Do you have a Constitutional right to reproduce?

I don't remember reading that one...

[Maat]

123. Yes.

The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that an American citizen has the right to privacy, and, hence to determine one's own reproductive capacity.

While one's decision regarding one's family size may or may not contribute to a world over-population, one's right to determine said family size is sacrosanct.

This having been said, I'm out of here. Bye.

[LanternWaste]

125. In effect you are telling us, "nothing trumps my imagination!!!"

Rights-- whether in the constitution or not are, as we all know, little more than man-made constructs which exist nowhere but out own imaginations. Much like religion, philosophy and even the arts, these seeds of conceptualization are borne, germinate and grow entirely within thew person. Although there are actual and physical objects that may grow from our imaginations (works of art, a government, a church and its rules, etc.), these are all merely subsidiary to and predicated on the concept itself.

In effect you are telling us, "nothing trumps my imagination!!!"

However like religion, I imagine many people dogmatically adhere to what I see often and pejoratively called, "magic thinking"

[Maat]

127. If you don't want the U.S. Constitution honored ...

go live in another country.

[GliderGuider]

121. The level of civilization implies the level of individual rights

The reduction of individual rights will be a consequence of civilization slipping to a lower level of organization. Whether people relinquish them in order to enhance their chances or survival, or they are abrogated by the new archons, or they simply cease to have any relevance in the new situation, they will be reduced.

Individual rights are a luxury of the rich and powerful. When we cease to be rich and powerful our rights drain away along with our status.

It's already happening.

[Ginto]

132. It's her body her choice until we decide that a different choice must be made for

the greater good.

[fortyfeetunder]

117. I'd like to see Ted tell that to the Duggars

:evilgrin:

[Missy Vixen]

119. Childfree and happy

Our numbers are growing. Perhaps Turner should take a look at the last census.

I'll be more than happy to accept some kind of tax break for NOT breeding.

:woohoo:

[24601]

126. Sure Teddy, we'll just do a retroactive abortion on almost all of

your spawn. Just tell us which one lives.

Leading by example is such a virtue!

[InvisibleTouch]

128. I am completely, utterly, and one-thousand-percent in favor of this!

We can reduce-reuse-recycle till we're blue in the face, but environmental degradation ultimately comes down to the fact that there are too many humans on the planet, competing for limited resources, leaving massive amounts of toxic waste, and pushing everybody else toward extinction. One species does not have the right to expand at the expense of all others.

Malthus and Darwin said it best - one way or another there *will* be a population crash among humans. The only question is whether that will come about through tremendous suffering, or approached with measured reason and common sense. Sadly, I think the former is almost inevitable.

[truckerb1968]

133. Kick.

[unkachuck]

134. "...the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions..."

....over population IS a serious problem that drives many other problems....

....strong advocacy by governments of the world for more anal sex in their general populations would go a long way in solving this problem....

....c'mon, due your patriotic duty, take one for the gipper!