On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:56:58 +0100, Sebastian Kaliszewski
<s@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Well, were far far away from the limit.
If we must hit the absolute limit before we stop, it will be too late.
Everyday there are news about natural resources being overused and not
replenished, do we all have to live on a limited variety of
artificially cultivated food before it's considered the limit?
>> Nobody can deny that reducing/limiting human population on earth is
>> the only true long term solution to ecological damage.
>
>It happens naturally for all species, including humans. Look at those
>developed countries -- the population there is generally stagnant.
As they should be as people get more education, they realized the long
term benefits of large families are not the same as countries that
rely heavily on manual labour for subsistence. But yet we have well
developed countries pu****ng reproduction policies trying to increase
population growth.
>> But it's also
>> one that least raised because of the controversial nature.
>
>And because the premise if false.
How so?
>This is a bad proposition from really many different reasons. First of
all
>those living in developed countries do have less kids, and having even
less
>has much more negative effects for them and their communities than
positive
>ones. Those who "mass produce" kids are from those poorly developed
regions.
>Those DINK and DIOK movements in developed countries make no sense at all
>and in fact are harmful.
Harmful in what sense? Perhaps currently the "mass produced" kids are
from poorly developed region but it doesn't change the fact that
having less people in the long run means better quality of living for
everybody, no matter where you are. Poorer countries do eventually
become developed.
>Second, growing number of old, unproductive people without "new
>replacements" poses significant economical and sociological problems.
In the short run yes for a few generations it causes problems due to
top heavy population distribution and such. But it's a small price to
pay for a future. There isn't much point forcing population growth in
order to maintain an allegedly healthy population tree when doing so
means a non-sustainable ecology.
None of us alive today will benefit from a population reduction
policy. But 10 generations down, those living would be cursing us for
being short sighted and passing to them an unsustainable planet as our
legacy.
>> For those who want kids, please adopt one.
>
>Do you know, that big percentage of those adopted kids are ending back
>without parents (as "parents" are unable to accept them in the long run).
>People are only people and all attepts to create heaven on earth fail
>miserably and typically with great suffering to the millions.
Any hard facts to back up that claim? What are the reasons the
"parents" are unable to accept them? Lastly, ultimately, it doesn't
really matter if the adults leave their adopted parents in the end,
the ecological benefits have been realized since the parents are
unlikely at that point to have their own children.
>This simply won't work. And if you try to force peple to do so, you'll
just
>make more suffering.
I'm not forcing people to, I'm not even suggesting that government
legislate for it... like the way many are "forcing" their people to
reproduce by tangling financial carrots. I'm simply asking people to
think about it and make the better choice for the future regardless of
what politicians want... more people to tax for their benefits.
--
A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven
Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations,
Lost to the world, Lost to myself
|
