The whole world needs to adopt China's one-child policy

[natty bumppo 297]

How about this - countries with negative birth rates, such as Germany, could sell "child birth credits" to developing nations.

Let's give Goldman Sachs 10 billion tax dollars to set up a child birth credit exchange.

Could the U.S. trade carbon credits for kids?

Only if we can use the bodies of unwanted children to fuel heating plants.

maybe it's time to adopt the logans run method of population control ....

[peejay 327]

How about this - countries with negative birth rates, such as Germany, could sell "child birth credits" to developing nations.

Let's give Goldman Sachs 10 billion tax dollars to set up a child birth credit exchange.

Could the U.S. trade carbon credits for kids?

Only if we can use the bodies of unwanted children to fuel heating plants.

maybe it's time to adopt the logans run method of population control ....

Logan's Run was a cool movie at the time it came out. Soylent Green was also another movie that had population control as a part of the overall plot.

These types of 1970's movies were conceived out of the environmentalism of the 1970's that has fallen out of fashion with liberals. Used to be that population stabilization and environmentalism went hand-in-hand. Now the liberal theme is to bring all these people to America so we can rescue them from poverty and that magic technological advances that haven't even been developed yet will somehow allow huge population increases without degrading the environment in the face of dwindling resources (natural & financial). Me-oh-my, how attitudes change with the times.

[Peikko 1,575]

How about this - countries with negative birth rates, such as Germany, could sell "child birth credits" to developing nations.

Let's give Goldman Sachs 10 billion tax dollars to set up a child birth credit exchange.

Could the U.S. trade carbon credits for kids?

Only if we can use the bodies of unwanted children to fuel heating plants.

maybe it's time to adopt the logans run method of population control ....

Logan's Run was a cool movie at the time it came out. Soylent Green was also another movie that had population control as a part of the overall plot.

These types of 1970's movies were conceived out of the environmentalism of the 1970's that has fallen out of fashion with liberals. Used to be that population stabilization and environmentalism went hand-in-hand. Now the liberal theme is to bring all these people to America so we can rescue them from poverty and that magic technological advances that haven't even been developed yet will somehow allow huge population increases without degrading the environment in the face of dwindling resources (natural & financial). Me-oh-my, how attitudes change with the times.

PJ, you have really lost all sense of perspective on this issue.

[HAL 9000 96]

It used to be Bolsheviks in people's toilets. Now its liberals.

[peejay 327]

maybe it's time to adopt the logans run method of population control ....

Logan's Run was a cool movie at the time it came out. Soylent Green was also another movie that had population control as a part of the overall plot.

These types of 1970's movies were conceived out of the environmentalism of the 1970's that has fallen out of fashion with liberals. Used to be that population stabilization and environmentalism went hand-in-hand. Now the liberal theme is to bring all these people to America so we can rescue them from poverty and that magic technological advances that haven't even been developed yet will somehow allow huge population increases without degrading the environment in the face of dwindling resources (natural & financial). Me-oh-my, how attitudes change with the times.

PJ, you have really lost all sense of perspective on this issue.

It used to be Bolsheviks in people's toilets. Now its liberals.

It seems that my observations have hit a raw nerve.

[HAL 9000 96]

maybe it's time to adopt the logans run method of population control ....

Logan's Run was a cool movie at the time it came out. Soylent Green was also another movie that had population control as a part of the overall plot.

These types of 1970's movies were conceived out of the environmentalism of the 1970's that has fallen out of fashion with liberals. Used to be that population stabilization and environmentalism went hand-in-hand. Now the liberal theme is to bring all these people to America so we can rescue them from poverty and that magic technological advances that haven't even been developed yet will somehow allow huge population increases without degrading the environment in the face of dwindling resources (natural & financial). Me-oh-my, how attitudes change with the times.

PJ, you have really lost all sense of perspective on this issue.

It used to be Bolsheviks in people's toilets. Now its liberals.

It seems that my observations have hit a raw nerve.

They're actually quite hard to locate. But as to the actual comment, neither have ever been, nor ever will be, a danger to the paranoid communities hysterically flaying their arms about the topic.

Some of us will see these issues as what they are and avoid the polarized rhetoric of us vs them.

[Peikko 1,575]

Environmentalists have always and still are seeking to demonstrate ways in which humans can successfully inhabit this planet alongside the diversity of other living species. I don't think it's any secret that most do see an effort to place population on a sustainable path as paramount. Of course, except for the environuts, no one is trying to coerce anyone into doing this with legal limits on births because of the inherent difficulties that that would create but certainly educationally that's the aim. Environmentalists generally do not buy into the whole 'must have' philosophy.

PJ, you don't hit nerves, but you do tickle the odd funny bone. Every topic is about immigration with you, now some would call that obsessive, I simply suggested your perspective is skewed.

[peejay 327]

PJ, you don't hit nerves, but you do tickle the odd funny bone. Every topic is about immigration with you, now some would call that obsessive, I simply suggested your perspective is skewed.

Gee....discussing immigration issues on an immigration forum. How was I supposed to know that it was obsessive behavior?

[Peikko 1,575]

PJ, you don't hit nerves, but you do tickle the odd funny bone. Every topic is about immigration with you, now some would call that obsessive, I simply suggested your perspective is skewed.

Gee....discussing immigration issues on an immigration forum. How was I supposed to know that it was obsessive behavior?

This is OT (OFF TOPIC) and as its name suggest OT topics are not necessarily about immigration. Gee, how were you supposed to know?

Edited December 11, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Ban Hammer 14,640]

It used to be Bolsheviks in people's toilets. Now its liberals.

that's usually the case.

[Jl_n_JL 0]

I don't think countries for example US, Japan, Russia can afford to limit children born. They actually need more children. There are not enough future tax payers to pay for the currently aging citizens.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/0...dren/index.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4125072.stm

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publicati.../popdecline.htm

[alienlovechild 75]

Danno's correct that most of population growth isn't in the developed world so the sustainability arguments are largely about those in rich nations using more than their share of resources. By most standards, the quality of life is superior in our nasty rich nations and many in the developed world haven't figured out or cared enough about birth control to put it in practice.

If people really want to understand something about sustainability, they need to look at commodity prices to know there hasn't been a steady climb in prices despite their being three billion more people alive now than when I was born. Many in the world won't have as much stuff and there there's always a market when people have money. The worst case would be a mass die off but that happens now in famine areas but not worldwide.

[Peikko 1,575]

Danno's correct that most of population growth isn't in the developed world so the sustainability arguments are largely about those in rich nations using more than their share of resources. By most standards, the quality of life is superior in our nasty rich nations and many in the developed world haven't figured out or cared enough about birth control to put it in practice.

If people really want to understand something about sustainability, they need to look at commodity prices to know there hasn't been a steady climb in prices despite their being three billion more people alive now than when I was born. Many in the world won't have as much stuff and there there's always a market when people have money. The worst case would be a mass die off but that happens now in famine areas but not worldwide.

Yeah, that's about it. Pretty neatly puts forward your rather nasty world view. Bravo!

[Danno 1,228]

Danno's correct that most of population growth isn't in the developed world so the sustainability arguments are largely about those in rich nations using more than their share of resources. By most standards, the quality of life is superior in our nasty rich nations and many in the developed world haven't figured out or cared enough about birth control to put it in practice.

If people really want to understand something about sustainability, they need to look at commodity prices to know there hasn't been a steady climb in prices despite their being three billion more people alive now than when I was born. Many in the world won't have as much stuff and there there's always a market when people have money. The worst case would be a mass die off but that happens now in famine areas but not worldwide.

Yeah, that's about it. Pretty neatly puts forward your rather nasty world view. Bravo!

Actually it's the far-Left who keep projecting their warped world view (complete with dooms-day predictions which never materialize).

[Peikko 1,575]

Danno's correct that most of population growth isn't in the developed world so the sustainability arguments are largely about those in rich nations using more than their share of resources. By most standards, the quality of life is superior in our nasty rich nations and many in the developed world haven't figured out or cared enough about birth control to put it in practice.

If people really want to understand something about sustainability, they need to look at commodity prices to know there hasn't been a steady climb in prices despite their being three billion more people alive now than when I was born. Many in the world won't have as much stuff and there there's always a market when people have money. The worst case would be a mass die off but that happens now in famine areas but not worldwide.

Yeah, that's about it. Pretty neatly puts forward your rather nasty world view. Bravo!

Actually it's the far-Left who keep projecting their warped world view (complete with dooms-day predictions which never materialize).

Really, instead of reading all this political propaganda, actually read about real environmental stories. It's interesting.