OtherGround Forums College libtards support "population control."

9 days ago
2/20/09
Posts: 15931
Thelonious -
The Maestro -
Oklahoma44 -
The Maestro -

What's wrong with the idea?  You just want an infinite number of people breeding?  Are you the same dummy that wants to promote an increasing population, then complain when they want to come to your country for a better life?

https://stream.org/overpopulation-fears-hoax-heres-higher-populations-actually-good-thing/

In 1798, Thomas Malthus wrote “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” He predicted that mankind’s birthrate would outstrip our ability to grow food and would lead to mass starvation.

Malthus’ wrong predictions did not deter Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich from making a similar prediction.

In his 1968 best-seller, The Population Bomb, which has sold more than 2 million copies, Ehrlich warned: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

This hoax resulted in billions of dollars being spent to fight overpopulation.

According to the standard understanding of the term, human overpopulation occurs when the ecological footprint of a human population in a specific geographical location exceeds the carrying capacity of the place occupied by that group.

The entire premise behind population control is based on the faulty logic that humans are not valuable resources.

Let’s look at one aspect of that description — namely, population density.

Let’s put you, the reader, to a test. See whether you can tell which country is richer and which is poorer just by knowing two countries’ population density.

North Korea’s population density is 518 people per square mile, whereas South Korea’s is more than double that, at 1,261 people per square mile.

Hong Kong’s population density is 16,444, whereas Somalia’s is 36.

Congo has 75 people per square mile, whereas Singapore has 18,513.

Looking at the gross domestic products of these countries, one would have to be a lunatic to believe that smaller population density leads to greater riches.

Here are some gross domestic product data expressed in millions of U.S. dollars: North Korea ($17,396), South Korea ($1,411,246), Hong Kong ($320,668), Somalia ($5,707), Congo ($41,615), and Singapore ($296,967).

The overpopulation hoax has led to horrible population control programs. The United Nations Population Fund has helped governments deny women the right to choose the number and spacing of their children.

Overpopulation concerns led China to enact a brutal one-child policy. Forced sterilization is a method of population control in some countries. Nearly a quarter-million Peruvian women were sterilized.

Our government, through the U.N. Population Fund, is involved in “population moderation” programs around the world, including in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia.

The entire premise behind population control is based on the faulty logic that humans are not valuable resources.

The fact of business is that humans are what the late Julian L. Simon called the ultimate resource.

That fact becomes apparent by pondering this question: Why is it that Gen. George Washington did not have cellphones to communicate with his troops and rocket launchers to sink British ships anchored in New York Harbor?

Surely, all of the physical resources — such as aluminum alloys, copper, iron ore, and chemical propellants — necessary to build cellphones and rocket launchers were around during Washington’s time. In fact, they were around at the time of the caveman.

There is only one answer for why cellphones, rocket launchers, and millions of other things are around today but were not around yesteryear.

The growth in human knowledge, human ingenuity, job specialization, and trade led to industrialization, which, coupled with personal liberty and private property rights, made it possible.

Human beings are valuable resources, and the more we have of them the better.

The greatest threat to mankind’s prosperity is government, not population growth. For example, Zimbabwe was agriculturally rich but, with government interference, was reduced to the brink of mass starvation.

Any country faced with massive government interference can be brought to starvation. Blaming poverty on overpopulation not only lets governments off the hook but also encourages the enactment of harmful, inhumane policies.

Today’s poverty has little to do with overpopulation. The most commonly held characteristics of non-poor countries are greater personal liberty, private property rights, the rule of law, and an economic system closer to capitalism than to communism.

That’s the recipe for prosperity.

 

The imbecile who can't think but can copy and paste. 

Exactly. The headline and point of that article negates everything we know about ecology and populations of animals.

 

Humans have created an overabundance of food which has funded an overpopulation of humans. The earth has a carrying capacity and we have greatly exceeded it at the cost of all other life. If humans don't slow down there will be another mass extinction event soon. 

 

I have two kids, but I would have had one if I knew everyone else would too. Better to think of it is an enforced social contract than a law. 

 

 

Good luck with that.  You can’t get the average asshole to honor the social contract of yielding appropriately at a 4-way stop.

9 days ago
5/15/07
Posts: 16772
Thelonious -
The Maestro -
Oklahoma44 -
The Maestro -

What's wrong with the idea?  You just want an infinite number of people breeding?  Are you the same dummy that wants to promote an increasing population, then complain when they want to come to your country for a better life?

https://stream.org/overpopulation-fears-hoax-heres-higher-populations-actually-good-thing/

In 1798, Thomas Malthus wrote “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” He predicted that mankind’s birthrate would outstrip our ability to grow food and would lead to mass starvation.

Malthus’ wrong predictions did not deter Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich from making a similar prediction.

In his 1968 best-seller, The Population Bomb, which has sold more than 2 million copies, Ehrlich warned: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

This hoax resulted in billions of dollars being spent to fight overpopulation.

According to the standard understanding of the term, human overpopulation occurs when the ecological footprint of a human population in a specific geographical location exceeds the carrying capacity of the place occupied by that group.

The entire premise behind population control is based on the faulty logic that humans are not valuable resources.

Let’s look at one aspect of that description — namely, population density.

Let’s put you, the reader, to a test. See whether you can tell which country is richer and which is poorer just by knowing two countries’ population density.

North Korea’s population density is 518 people per square mile, whereas South Korea’s is more than double that, at 1,261 people per square mile.

Hong Kong’s population density is 16,444, whereas Somalia’s is 36.

Congo has 75 people per square mile, whereas Singapore has 18,513.

Looking at the gross domestic products of these countries, one would have to be a lunatic to believe that smaller population density leads to greater riches.

Here are some gross domestic product data expressed in millions of U.S. dollars: North Korea ($17,396), South Korea ($1,411,246), Hong Kong ($320,668), Somalia ($5,707), Congo ($41,615), and Singapore ($296,967).

The overpopulation hoax has led to horrible population control programs. The United Nations Population Fund has helped governments deny women the right to choose the number and spacing of their children.

Overpopulation concerns led China to enact a brutal one-child policy. Forced sterilization is a method of population control in some countries. Nearly a quarter-million Peruvian women were sterilized.

Our government, through the U.N. Population Fund, is involved in “population moderation” programs around the world, including in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia.

The entire premise behind population control is based on the faulty logic that humans are not valuable resources.

The fact of business is that humans are what the late Julian L. Simon called the ultimate resource.

That fact becomes apparent by pondering this question: Why is it that Gen. George Washington did not have cellphones to communicate with his troops and rocket launchers to sink British ships anchored in New York Harbor?

Surely, all of the physical resources — such as aluminum alloys, copper, iron ore, and chemical propellants — necessary to build cellphones and rocket launchers were around during Washington’s time. In fact, they were around at the time of the caveman.

There is only one answer for why cellphones, rocket launchers, and millions of other things are around today but were not around yesteryear.

The growth in human knowledge, human ingenuity, job specialization, and trade led to industrialization, which, coupled with personal liberty and private property rights, made it possible.

Human beings are valuable resources, and the more we have of them the better.

The greatest threat to mankind’s prosperity is government, not population growth. For example, Zimbabwe was agriculturally rich but, with government interference, was reduced to the brink of mass starvation.

Any country faced with massive government interference can be brought to starvation. Blaming poverty on overpopulation not only lets governments off the hook but also encourages the enactment of harmful, inhumane policies.

Today’s poverty has little to do with overpopulation. The most commonly held characteristics of non-poor countries are greater personal liberty, private property rights, the rule of law, and an economic system closer to capitalism than to communism.

That’s the recipe for prosperity.

 

The imbecile who can't think but can copy and paste. 

Exactly. The headline and point of that article negates everything we know about ecology and populations of animals.

 

Humans have created an overabundance of food which has funded an overpopulation of humans. The earth has a carrying capacity and we have greatly exceeded it at the cost of all other life. If humans don't slow down there will be another mass extinction event soon. 

 

I have two kids, but I would have had one if I knew everyone else would too. Better to think of it is an enforced social contract than a law. 

 

 

So you brought a second child into this world “knowing” that we’re doomed by overpopulation. You sound like a real dick bag if this is the case. 

8 days ago
7/13/09
Posts: 22331

So I'm assuming everyone who supports this in this thread has no kids and has sterilized themselves in order to not burden the earth correct?

Or is it just other people that shouldn't reproduce? 

8 days ago
5/13/11
Posts: 52207

This thread brings the laughs. 

8 days ago
9/23/07
Posts: 8865
The only people being duped by the population control argument are the Weak Whites.

Then they cry about needing immigrants to sustain an economy.

You really want population control? Seal the borders and cut off all aid to Africa and third-world countries. You can't have it both ways.
8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 45398

I'm not in favor of government enforced population control.  But fewer people chasing a limited amount of resources wouldn't be a bad thing.

8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10792

Thomas Malthuus and other doomsayers have always been monumentally wrong and their predictions mind-blowingly awful. There was another guy in the 70s who's still around saying we're all going to catch fire and we'll be knee deep in people on every square inch of the earth in the next year or something daft and people still print his nonsense.

Climate change is real, environmental problems need to be addressed, and we need to keep in check human consumption and wastefulness.

But this doesn't mean anything drastic needs to be done with respect to the human population - we just need to find better ways to live. And these better ways to live don't even need to mean a spartan existence - it could just be that in numerous ares a technological solution will suffice.

Another thing with a lot of the "overpopulation" crowd is that it's almost always "There's too much of *those* people, but just enough of *my* people" or some variation thereof. 

8 days ago
1/1/01
Posts: 10793

By the way - there IS an effective and moral way for something that could be considered population "control", but it's not really population control.

There are things which dramatically reduce the birthrate in any given country.

1)Children dying less often (for whatever reason - medical complications, disease, injury etc.). In countries where kids are more likely to die in the first years, parents are more likely to keep pumping them out. It might seem counter-intuitive with respect to limited resources, but in some cases playing the odds instead of investing as much as possible in a smaller number of kids is a better strategy.

2)Increased financial opportunity - If people are more comfortable and more confident in the survival of their progeny, they're less likely to need to continue rolling the dice.

3)Equality for women - If women are allowed to work, vote, and participate in society in a role other than motherhood, they're more likely to spend time positively contributing to society in general instead of being kept primarily as a breeder.

Countries that have all three of these things have low birth rates that hover just around the amount required for replacement. 

As the world gets closer and closer to improved conditions for everyone, the closer and closer we get to this birth rate being the norm.

So working towards these things as a universal is also in some ways connected to population control as one of the side effects is that people are breeding less often.

With respect to predictions as to when this will occur and the population stabilizes or decreases a bit? The best estimates I've seen are around the 10-11 billion mark. And earth has enough resources (especially considering the technological improvements) to handle such a shift.

8 days ago
7/26/12
Posts: 31757
Burt Reynoldz -
Thelonious -
The Maestro -
Oklahoma44 -
The Maestro -

What's wrong with the idea?  You just want an infinite number of people breeding?  Are you the same dummy that wants to promote an increasing population, then complain when they want to come to your country for a better life?

https://stream.org/overpopulation-fears-hoax-heres-higher-populations-actually-good-thing/

In 1798, Thomas Malthus wrote “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” He predicted that mankind’s birthrate would outstrip our ability to grow food and would lead to mass starvation.

Malthus’ wrong predictions did not deter Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich from making a similar prediction.

In his 1968 best-seller, The Population Bomb, which has sold more than 2 million copies, Ehrlich warned: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

This hoax resulted in billions of dollars being spent to fight overpopulation.

According to the standard understanding of the term, human overpopulation occurs when the ecological footprint of a human population in a specific geographical location exceeds the carrying capacity of the place occupied by that group.

The entire premise behind population control is based on the faulty logic that humans are not valuable resources.

Let’s look at one aspect of that description — namely, population density.

Let’s put you, the reader, to a test. See whether you can tell which country is richer and which is poorer just by knowing two countries’ population density.

North Korea’s population density is 518 people per square mile, whereas South Korea’s is more than double that, at 1,261 people per square mile.

Hong Kong’s population density is 16,444, whereas Somalia’s is 36.

Congo has 75 people per square mile, whereas Singapore has 18,513.

Looking at the gross domestic products of these countries, one would have to be a lunatic to believe that smaller population density leads to greater riches.

Here are some gross domestic product data expressed in millions of U.S. dollars: North Korea ($17,396), South Korea ($1,411,246), Hong Kong ($320,668), Somalia ($5,707), Congo ($41,615), and Singapore ($296,967).

The overpopulation hoax has led to horrible population control programs. The United Nations Population Fund has helped governments deny women the right to choose the number and spacing of their children.

Overpopulation concerns led China to enact a brutal one-child policy. Forced sterilization is a method of population control in some countries. Nearly a quarter-million Peruvian women were sterilized.

Our government, through the U.N. Population Fund, is involved in “population moderation” programs around the world, including in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Mexico, Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines, Thailand, Egypt, Turkey, Ethiopia, and Colombia.

The entire premise behind population control is based on the faulty logic that humans are not valuable resources.

The fact of business is that humans are what the late Julian L. Simon called the ultimate resource.

That fact becomes apparent by pondering this question: Why is it that Gen. George Washington did not have cellphones to communicate with his troops and rocket launchers to sink British ships anchored in New York Harbor?

Surely, all of the physical resources — such as aluminum alloys, copper, iron ore, and chemical propellants — necessary to build cellphones and rocket launchers were around during Washington’s time. In fact, they were around at the time of the caveman.

There is only one answer for why cellphones, rocket launchers, and millions of other things are around today but were not around yesteryear.

The growth in human knowledge, human ingenuity, job specialization, and trade led to industrialization, which, coupled with personal liberty and private property rights, made it possible.

Human beings are valuable resources, and the more we have of them the better.

The greatest threat to mankind’s prosperity is government, not population growth. For example, Zimbabwe was agriculturally rich but, with government interference, was reduced to the brink of mass starvation.

Any country faced with massive government interference can be brought to starvation. Blaming poverty on overpopulation not only lets governments off the hook but also encourages the enactment of harmful, inhumane policies.

Today’s poverty has little to do with overpopulation. The most commonly held characteristics of non-poor countries are greater personal liberty, private property rights, the rule of law, and an economic system closer to capitalism than to communism.

That’s the recipe for prosperity.

 

The imbecile who can't think but can copy and paste. 

Exactly. The headline and point of that article negates everything we know about ecology and populations of animals.

 

Humans have created an overabundance of food which has funded an overpopulation of humans. The earth has a carrying capacity and we have greatly exceeded it at the cost of all other life. If humans don't slow down there will be another mass extinction event soon. 

 

I have two kids, but I would have had one if I knew everyone else would too. Better to think of it is an enforced social contract than a law. 

 

 

So you brought a second child into this world “knowing” that we’re doomed by overpopulation. You sound like a real dick bag if this is the case. 

What? Having two children is zero growth rate from my understanding