World population control is essential for future generations in your country

Do you want your future generations to live like this?




Because this is how much of the rest of the world lives. Naive people with "caring hearts" will eventually let all this poverty into your country. Better to start reducing the number of people in the rest of the world now, before that happens.

 

Not every developing country is over populated.

 

If my nation has a "responsibility" to take in poor people from other countries, my nation also has the right to try to reduce the population in these other countries, especially when those governments fail to do the job themselves.

 

Poverty and population is reduced when the low class experiences a rise in quality of life. Control schemes have not worked very well, ask Margaret Sanger to speak from her grave about her planned parenthood scheme to kill the black weeds.

 

Increase in the quality of life of the lower class, less of a risk of unwanted pregnancy. Lets get that Gini coefficient to decrease and GDP per capita to increase.

 

Increasing the quality of life is good and all, but the main focus needs to be on directly reducing fertility. We cannot just try to improve the lives of the hoards of poor, then hope and wait for them to stop churning out babies. One of the main reasons they are poor is because they have too many babies in the first place.

 

You're right.

The question is, do we want to give up our freedoms and have government regulate the population through force? Or do we want to keep our freedoms and let the population regulate itself to sustainable levels by way of natural selection?

 

yes yes yes yes this ^^^^^

 

Yes, and one of the reasons why they are churning out so many babies is due to the economic and social environments they live in:

http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf

According to the World Bank, the main reasons for low fertility rates is strong economic growth and development. In other words, bad socio-economic environments lead to increased birth rates. If you improve standards of living, people have smaller families. There is your solution.

 

Eventually populations will out-run the ability of technology to keep up. In many countries (most African countries, for example) it has never caught up; and life expectancies are helpfully short.

The problems will come when large countries with longer-surviving populations run out of essential resources. Water is one, oil obviously another, food a third, and clean air another.

Water and oil are the most likely to generate international competition and conflict. Oil already has since the early 20th century. But water has the potential to be even more critical, especially with the climate change that is clearly happening. Who would have thought that the south of England would run out of water? But it has.

In some countries, water has already generated conflict. The Nile, for example, is a constant source of dissension among the countries it traverses.

 

That's a ridiculous statement. We have the ability to make all the water we want. Saudi Arabia just built the worlds largest desalination plant that provides most of their nation with fresh water.

By the time oil runs out we will have found an alternative by then.

There is no over-population problem on the planet. There is plenty of room for us to triple our population and still have room left over. We still haven't built in the ocean's, which is possible, or underground if we need too.

Oceans may become overpopulated but we have the ability to farm raise any and as much seafood we would ever need.

The last factor that everyone is not realizing is that the earth controls its own populations. If humans ever become so overpopulated you will see the rise of deadly diseases that will wipe out large numbers. Other factors such as natural disasters would also take huge dents out.

Just because places like Mexico City are overpopulated does not mean that the earth is.

 

people always balance out for their own survival, "technology" is encouraged in times of need and therefor is advanced by the drive to survive and for safety. population can never be a terrible menace to the race, if the collective is endangered then it would either attack the problem or let the problem take care of itself, no need to worry humanity takes good care of itself.

 

if this became a problem, immigrants overpopulating the more developed countries, the more developed countries will seal there borders. Supporting pop control measures in any country is inefficient at best, that is any civilized country such as the USA, why should we care what other nations do or don't do? we could sit back and watch the world tear itself apart and when the dust settles we would be in the very best position to assume economic supremacy for many generations, china is not self sufficient enough and would die out soon enough, Russia is no serious threat, Africa takes care of itself, the middle east would be an issue only it would be someone else issue for the most part, Europe would untimely be the greatest complication as they would likely go to war and we might be drawn into it, however this is the price we would have to pay for true long lasting power in the world.

 

let bygones be bygones, your measures would meet the stiff resistance of the people in any civilized country, and as I somewhat described below the others would largely take care of themselves, with the possible exception of Europe and the middle east dragging there collective feet.

 

If every couple in the world were only allowd 2 kids, we would maintain the status quo, which would then slowely decline by way of accidents, murder, desiese and other premature death factors. It would be simple enough if people didn't object so bad.

 

Ya, god forbid people object to being told how many children they can have. Pesky freedoms.

 

sounds like ender's game a little, several problems 1), we could not possibly regulate the less advanced country s, 2) people would object,3) there are a great many unofficial couples, 4) why only two children?

 

If we want to reduce the population (or at least keep it from growing faster than is sustainable), shouldn't we get rid of poverty? That seems like an approach that's both practical and humane.

 

Overpopulation is a real problem. If its effects are not already being felt now, it certainly has the potential to be a very big problem in the future.

Overpopulation is the main cause of the dire poverty in India, despite the country's rapid economic growth.
http://impoverishedindia.weebly.com/poverty.html
http://india.indymedia.org/en/2005/01/210036.shtml



77% percent of the people in India still live below the poverty line, and the population is rapidly expanding. The population of India grew by 181 million just in the last decade!!! In comparison, Brazil has 194 million people, and Canada only has about 34 million.

 

Any country/nation with 100 million or more people has a serious problem with this issue.

Human beings are not insects. There should not be billions. A few hundred thousand is enough. One of the Bond films said it best. Nuke the planet then repopulate it with good looking people and for some reason a 7 foot guy names jaws.

 

[video=youtube;hllclpTIoBU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hllclpTIoBU[/video]

This video, The Eternal Human, explores the dehumanization behind the environmentalist movement.
It's a parody of 'The Eternal Jew', an infamous nazi documentary.

 

I thought you were pro-life.

 

"Kill 'em all in the name of the Lord"...

Jerry Falwell...infamous "Christian".

 

Population control is very important, but I still don't approve of killing little unborn babies to do it.
If the woman misses her early window of opportunity when the life within her is still just a mass of cells, it should be too late.

(and by "mass of cells", I mean not shaped in the form of a little baby)

Population control is just one more excuse abortionists use to try to justify murder on a hapless victim.

 

Unless they want to live like sardines in Manila style slumps