Population reduction (Page 2): War is a bad way to control population, as it mainly k**ls men. K*****g women would be more efficient. On the other hand, I think the recent Chinese one...

BigJim

War is a bad way to control population, as it mainly k**ls men. K*****g women would be more efficient.
On the other hand, I think the recent Chinese one child program, where most tried to have a boy, was unfortunate. If all were having girls I would say great, purely for selfish reasons.
Recently saw an article about a N Korean woman who paid to be smuggled to China, and the smugglers sold her as a wife to a Chinese man.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

BigJim wrote:

War is a bad way to control population, as it mainly k**ls men. K*****g women would be more efficient.
On the other hand, I think the recent Chinese one child program, where most tried to have a boy, was unfortunate. If all were having girls I would say great, purely for selfish reasons.
Recently saw an article about a N Korean woman who paid to be smuggled to China, and the smugglers sold her as a wife to a Chinese man.

That happens quite often... Especially here in the northeast....

The sad part is that many women prefer it...
Imagine how bad life needs to be to prefer being married to a Chinese farmer in the North where temperatures reach minus 30 in the winter...

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

redpill wrote:

I was sent this link...
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/7-5-billion-and-counting-how-many-humans-can-the-earth-support-/106328/

Quite the provocative subject. This is one I thought about WAY back, in college, when I was thoroughly liberal, thoroughly stupid. I believed then and still do today that the issue of over population of the planet is a bad thing. Back then I consciously decided to have only 2 children. That actually happened more by luck than by plan. Now I think the message to parents to limit family size is silly. The world is not homogeneous in thought, religion, etc etc. The save the planet by limiting our reproduction is a western thought, perhaps an Anglo thought, perhaps even more finely defined than that thought. Other groups don't have those same thoughts and many have exactly the opposite thoughts. The more children the better.

So, will the message and the practice requested be accepted and solve the over population problem? Absolutely not. What will happen is that fewer and fewer of the accepting group will exist and more and more of the non-accepting will be born. The pendulum will swing toward higher birthrate groups. I would guess that the problem will only increase more rapidly. So voluntary decrease in reproduction will not work. That begs the question, Will anything work?

Only two other ways comes to mind. Human caused forced reduction or Natural caused involuntary reduction. Natural is pretty harsh. Something k**ls us. Starvation, natural disaster, extra-terrestrial event, wh**ever. Natural reduction would likely be sudden and distributed over a large surface area, though that need not be the case. It could be slow such as ice sheets covering more and more arable land mass, or limited in area where severe droughts might occur. Human caused has been the greatest reducer of humankind over history (with the exceptions of natural plagues (ummm spread by human action)). Wars. These reduce populations nicely. They save the planet. If the population reaches the levels that the article says it will if unchecked, then natural reduction will kick in and that will cause human reduction to react for the sole reason that more resources will be needed by those affected.

So, the only way to reduce the ever climbing population numbers is to continue to have wars. And if you and your fellow citizens living as a homologous group wish to survive, you had better produce as many of your kind as you can before the war starts.

WOW!? Was that a bunch of BS or what?

I was sent this link... br https://www.theweathern... (show quote)

People of faith are confident our Creator would not create that which He was incapable of sustaining.

redpill Loc: Oregon - not PDX

maryjane wrote:

Is it only white western nations that over the pas... (show quote)

I'm not sure any great mass of people listened to the request to have fewer children and voluntarily followed through. China, as pointed out, did restrict population growth, but I'd bet it was because of internal issues in China and not some world saving humanitarian reason. I'd also bet that the target audience for the hype was intellectuals. Thus the indigenous peoples of the world would not hear it. These people are still restricted by real things like lack of food, poor health practices, bloody conflict, etc. They have no time for such foolish intellectual thoughts.

I have no knowledge of the rate of births out of wedlock other than what is shown on MSM. This is a real problem in my mind, however, it is not a problem associated with a need to reduce the population. It is a problem with individuals. Men who are absent, women who need something and allow themselves to have a child, children that get the short end of the stick from birth on.

I thought a******n laws were loosening, not tightening. I am not any kind of expert, just have my own thoughts, but I do gamble, a little. The definition of "American" is going to change. So, yes, there will be more American babies. (FYI for those who wonder what my definition of American is, look it up in the Constitution...sry I'm a little testy from blowback I in the realm world)

Radiance3

Wonttakeitanymore wrote:

I used to believe in zero population growth! My tw... (show quote)

===============
Husband and wife having children is considered blessings. I think so.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Radiance3 wrote:

===============
Husband and wife having children is considered blessings. I think so.

Any healthy young couple presenting themselves for marriage and stating their intention to never have children, then I am not allowed to offer the sacrament of Holy Matrimony.