Population Control to fight Global Warming?

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
#1
More global warming hysteria from Canada:

The real inconvenient truth

Is it just me, or is it obvious the fear of global warming is being used as an excuse to justify more governmental control over our lives? Even the most intimate of our decisions are to be regulated so that we don't exceed our "allotment"? Do the rest of you feel this is as assinine as I do or do some of you want to be so green that you would accept the loss of freedom and liberty (and deny the freedom and liberty of others)?
 

Major

4 legs good 2 legs bad
V.I.P.
#2
I can't really say I disagree with most of the things in the article. I don't know if I necessarily agree with a one child per family law (in theory I like it, but I know it would never be accepted), but I definitely think our planet is severely overpopulated and it's continuing to spiral out of control. It's having disastrous effects on our environment, and eventually it's going to become a major problem (much worse than it already is).
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
#3
I can't really say I disagree with most of the things in the article. I don't know if I necessarily agree with a one child per family law (in theory I like it, but I know it would never be accepted), but I definitely think our planet is severely overpopulated and it's continuing to spiral out of control. It's having disastrous effects on our environment, and eventually it's going to become a major problem (much worse than it already is).
As humans, are we not part of the " environment"? What are the "disasterous effects" & "major problems" as you see them?

Are you aware how population control is accomplished in China, and the problems that it creates? Would you really choose to impose your will upon others?
 

Bananas

Endangered Species
#5
SmilinSilhouette; said:
Population Control to fight Global Warming?
More global warming hysteria from Canada:

The real inconvenient truth

Is it just me, or is it obvious the fear of global warming is being used as an excuse to justify more governmental control over our lives? Even the most intimate of our decisions are to be regulated so that we don't exceed our "allotment"? Do the rest of you feel this is as assinine as I do or do some of you want to be so green that you would accept the loss of freedom and liberty (and deny the freedom and liberty of others)?
SmilinSilhouette; If you read the article properly and in context you will realise that "population control to fight Global warming" is a fallacy you have conjured up, infact the article states that global warming arguments are on the back burner as they believe population is a more pressing issue, what the article and the discussions in Copenhagen are about are "population control to control population", Im not sure where this global warming argument comes into it as over population has a lot bigger impact than any global warming (that may or may not be consequence of it).

I strongly suggest everybody reads the article for themselves than takes the OPs statementand thread title as truth.


SmilinSilhouette; said:
What are the "disasterous effects" & "major problems" as you see them?
Resources. The planet has and always will have X amount of water on it. The human impact on this life saving/giving resource is profound. Our ecological footprint (unlike our carbon footprint) has a limit (both upper and lower) and we need to ensure that we can sustain our existence with a combination of population control measures and also innovation in the field of agronomy to ensure we get the most out of what is available.
 
Last edited:

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
#6
He said he didn't like the law knowing it wouldn't work.... So how is he "imposing his will upon others?"
He said he liked it, but didn't think it would be accepted. Furthermore, my reply was a question, not a statement.
------
SmilinSilhouette; If you read the article properly and in context you will realise that "population control to fight Global warming" is a fallacy you have conjured up, infact the article states that global warming arguments are on the back burner as they believe population is a more pressing issue, what the article and the discussions in Copenhagen are about are "population control to control population", Im not sure where this global warming argument comes into it as over population has a lot bigger impact than any global warming (that may or may not be consequence of it).
I believe the article was in the context of the UN climate change conference. It is being suggested as a way to combat "climate change".

I strongly suggest everybody reads the article for themselves than takes the OPs statementand thread title as truth.
Me too! That's why there is a link. :)

Resources. The planet has and always will have X amount of water on it. The human impact on this life saving/giving resource is profound. Our ecological footprint (unlike our carbon footprint) has a limit (both upper and lower) and we need to ensure that we can sustain our existence with a combination of population control measures and also innovation in the field of agronomy to ensure we get the most out of what is available.
So do you support population control? If so, by what method?
 
Last edited:

PretzelCorps

Registered Member
#7
More global warming hysteria from Canada:
First of all, how exactly does this article represent my entire country?



Next, climate change be damned; I care about food. Population grows exponentially, and we can't sustain 9,000,000,000 people. Yes, we are part of the natural environment, but do you know what typically happens to a population in the natural environment when it soars out of control? They die en masse. The logic behind a one-child policy is the notion that it's better to not be born than to starve to death, so I can't say I'd be entirely against it.

And I'd argue further on it, but there really isn't much point; it's not something that would ever make it past the Conservative party. Billions will die in the name of "liberty and freedom", and I just hope it happens after I kick the bucket of peaceful natural causes.
 

SmilinSilhouette

Registered Member
#8
First of all, how exactly does this article represent my entire country?
I never said it represents the entire country of Canada, the linked article is from the Financial Post (National Post) from Canada.


Next, climate change be damned; I care about food. Population grows exponentially, and we can't sustain 9,000,000,000 people. Yes, we are part of the natural environment, but do you know what typically happens to a population in the natural environment when it soars out of control? They die en masse. The logic behind a one-child policy is the notion that it's better to not be born than to starve to death, so I can't say I'd be entirely against it.
Would you be for it?

And I'd argue further on it, but there really isn't much point; it's not something that would ever make it past the Conservative party. Billions will die in the name of "liberty and freedom", and I just hope it happens after I kick the bucket of peaceful natural causes.
They have it in China. China's policy is being referenced as a model. Whether or not a majority would support it, would you? If so, in what form? One similar to China, or something else?
 

CaptainObvious

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#9
I disagree with the doom and gloom presented in the article. I agree we need to conserve our resources, I have absolutely no problem with that. I don't think enacting laws prohibiting families from having more than one child is necessary and agree this is being used to further intrude in our lives.
 
#10
I disagree with the doom and gloom presented in the article. I agree we need to conserve our resources, I have absolutely no problem with that. I don't think enacting laws prohibiting families from having more than one child is necessary and agree this is being used to further intrude in our lives.
I was starting to worry that I'm the only one here that sees the connection, or at least the only one bothered enough to speak up. I'm kind of suprised that those who don't object to the idea of population control are the ones who feel strongly enough to take the time to reply.