Since I got "Slammed" for suggesting China's 1 Child Policy was Socially Responsible

[FreakinDJ]

I thought perhaps you all might find this interesting

The World is poised for a very rapid "Die Off" of the World's population. Who would you prefer make the decisions of "Who Lives or Who Dies" ?

The Wealthy Elite who brought us the current Economic Crisis

The Leadership of this country who is so politically opposed they are incapable of governance

Oil Decline Rate And Population
By Peter Goodchild 26 January, 2011 Countercurrents.org

The rapid increase in the world’s population over the last hundred years is not merely coincident with the rapid increase in oil production. It is the latter that has actually allowed (the word “caused” might be too strong) the former: that is to say, oil has been the main source of energy within industrial society. It is only with abundant oil that a large population is possible. It was industrialization, improved agriculture, improved medicine, the expansion of humanity into the Americas, and so on, that first created the modern rise in population, but it was oil in particular that made it possible for human population to grow as fast as it has been doing (Catton, 1982). When oil production drops to half of its peak amount, world population must also drop by half.

A good deal of debate has gone on about “peak oil,” the date at which the world’s annual oil production will reach (or did reach) its maximum and will begin (or did begin) to decline. The exact numbers are unobtainable, mainly because individual countries give rather inexact figures on their remaining supplies. The situation can perhaps be summarized by saying that at least 20 or 30 major studies have been done, and the consensus is that the peak is somewhere in the first or second decade of this century.

Unfortunately there is no practical humane means of imposing a similar annual rate of decline on the world’s population. If we allow the loss of petroleum to take its course, a decline of 3 percent would result in a drop in world population to half its present level, i.e. to 3.5 billion, by about the year 2030. The only means, however, would be a rather grim one: famine.



http://www.ecoglobe.ch/population/e/peak1126.htm

[NYC_SKP]

1. I'm on record as supportive of population limiting legislation.

Even if it would put me in jeopardy of losing my membership here.

The planet CAN NOT FUCKING TAKE IT.

How societies, countries, or individuals (collectively or otherwise) chose what to do about it is a different matter.

I think the one child policy is worth a shot.

I think overall education and empowering women along with that education is the best solution, generally, globally.

There might still be time to save the planet and the species. Not sure, but maybe.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Let the Wall St Elite surrounded by Blackwater Security decide

That is what I would fear much more then being banned from this forum

[Fumesucker]

4. The US birth rate is already below replacement level..

We would be shrinking in population if not for immigration..

[NYC_SKP]

7. Thinking globally....

And, it could be argued (but damn, would I ever get a whooping if I did) that our relatively open immigrations (compared to, say, Switzerland) messes with the dynamic and encourages a higher birthrate among those who might immigrate to the US.

[Fumesucker]

8. We are only 5% of the world's population so the numbers aren't that big in absolute terms..

It makes a fair difference here in the US but the global population flow is a tiny fraction of the total number of people.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

28. It's not just about population

It's about lifestyles and what the people of the world are doing to the planet as they continue to consume resources at an accelerating rate. We're losing wild species on land and in the sea. We're losing mountain tops and forests throughout the world. We're running out of clean water. We're heating up the planet. If they're not already consuming at the rate of the U.S, and western Europe, peoples around the world aspire to one day enjoy our wasteful and destructive lifestyle. I think we need eventually to reduce world population to about one-third of what we have today. It's not enough to just keep the status quo. It's a worldwide problem. The question is how to accomplish it.

[NYC_SKP]

58. +1000

I argue with climate change believers who developed the wedge game (Princeton) that it's not enough to bring GHG emissions down to a flat graph; we have to send them down to a descending, ever decreasing, direction.

It seems futile.



http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Zalatix]

35. If such a law is passed, count on an armed rebellion.

The environmental damage caused by such a mess will make things even worse.

[magical thyme]

59. famine will bring worse than an armed rebellion. nt

[Zalatix]

61. America is a nuclear-armed country.

Attempts to launch anti-choice population control measures here will result in a civil war. This will destroy the government and put a significant amount of its worst arsenal into play. Only a fool believes that THIS populace will remotely tolerate that. The Tea Partiers will take up arms, for starters. Then a significant number of liberals who believe in freedom of choice, will be next.

The first idiot who goes out to try and enforce this law will find this out the hard way.

Remember how people feared suitcase nukes would escape the USSR once it fell apart? Or the proliferation of nuclear technology secrets? The odds go up dramatically when this country explodes into armed rebellion.

Famine? It ain't got nothin' on what'll happen next.

[magical thyme]

63. um, yeah. right.

civil war with merkins using dirty bombs on each other. Nobody is trying to launch anti-choice population control measures here (much as we'd like to see the Duggars put a stop to it already). Our population is shrinking; not growing. Hence the increased immigration needed to support biz growth.

Besides which, tea party or other home-grown militias are zero match for the military, national guard or militarized police, never mind all combined. Seriously, get a grip.

[Zalatix]

65. Get a clue, seriously.

The OP is advocating China-style FORCED population control. That's the first thing you're wrong about. This is not the first thread by the OP; this is the second of two parts.

Second of all, if the OP's dream does come true, the military is not going to completely stand behind the enforcement of this crazy law. A third of the military is minorities and they're REALLY not going to go for forcing this on themselves or anyone else.

Really, wake up.

[magical thyme]

66. China-style control in C.H.I.N.A.

and about 40 other countries. Think I.N.D.I.A. and other countries where severe overpopulation and starvation is a serious problem.

Really, wake up. This isn't the first post reminding you that the OP is talking about C.H.I.N.A.

[Zalatix]

67. You can scream all day that the OP is only talking about CHINA. You are still 100% dead wrong.

The origin of this discussion is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=647501

The OP is talking about making China's policy a GLOBAL policy. That's what he is being slammed for.

If you can't comprehend that... well... I can't help you with that.

[magical thyme]

68. reduce world population -- yes

using China's techniques -- no. Applied in the US? Our population is already decreasing. When the OP says he/she can think of 20-40 other countries, he/she does not name the US. I already pointed out a couple obvious ones.

How about some less obvious ones the the billion population club: Many countries in Africa are already dealing with famine. Europe is buying up significant tracts of arable land in Africa to produce food for Europe, which will leave more African people in famine. How about birth control and education in Africa, instead of starvation and the genocide which is a direct result of the fight over resources?

And as I stated in the thread you've linked to -- I agree with him that reducing population is good social policy. There are other ways than force of achieving such a goal than force.

Sorry you can't comprehend what was written there and here...well...can't help you with that, either.

[lapislzi]

62. Let us say I am supportive of population limiting incentives.

I cannot disagree that it is in the best interest of the planet and all its inhabitants to hold down birth rates. In the face of true biological imperatives to reproduce, this can only be accomplished clumsily through a combination of aggressive education and gentle incentive.

Unfortunately, some of the world's best-selling religions have an interest in making more of themselves, and limiting the reproductive choices of all others.

The trick will be to get the message to enough people to make a difference, to cancel out the religious zealots and the religiously ignorant.

Anything that encourages the education and empowerment of women will be a means to this end.

[Fumesucker]

2. How about education, empowerment of women and access to birth control?

That gets population growth down below zero in practically every instance.

The US for instance is below replacement rate as far as births go, we are only growing thanks to immigration.

[FreakinDJ]

5. I agree but that is not going to be enough

Its going to take a Global effort that will meet resistence at every possible juncture

[Fumesucker]

6. And you know this how?

How about trying some non-coercive means with a reasonable effort first?

The can of worms you are opening with fertility laws is deep, unknowable and utterly ripe for abuse.

[FreakinDJ]

9. Ask yourself 3 questions

Do you own the water rights under your home ?

Do you have approx 1/2 acre to grow food to eat ?

Do you own a gun ?

If 1/2 of what the author of that article rights comes true - the answer to those 3 questions will decide more then you or me who gets to breed and who lives

[Fumesucker]

14. Let me put it this way..

I'm one of the people you want around in a post apocalyptic scenario, among a great many other things I can make a gasoline generator run on firewood rather than gas..

If your water comes from a well you're going to need electricity to pump it..

[FreakinDJ]

20. Whats wrong with a windmill

I more concerned about the wealthy elite armed with gangs of (Mercenaries) Security Guards roaming the country side claiming large swaths of the remaining land side to support their greed

[Fumesucker]

25. Not everywhere has much wind..

I can make a windmill too, with hand tools only in a real pinch..

Our water comes from 420 feet down and we already have an electric pump, a windmill to get water from that depth in our wind conditions (very little) would be huge..

Besides, electricity is handy for other things than pumping water..

[Zalatix]

36. So only landed, armed gentry have a right to exist?

[Fumesucker]

37. Those are the ones most likely to make it through an apocalyptic scenario..

Chance counts for a lot, so does preparation, if the four horsemen ride it's the prepared and the lucky who survive (for some values of luck).

Not trying to make a moral statement, just an assessment of probability.

[cynatnite]

19. You have to have a consensus and it will never happen...

People have to be willing to go along and I honestly do not believe it will ever happen. A 1 child policy, IMO, could cause more problems than solve them. For one thing, you'd have a large aging population having to rely on a smaller younger population for support. Economically speaking, I'm not convinced it would work.

I do think for serious long term population control requires a population willing to do this voluntarily. You cannot mandate women to only have 1 child. That is intrusive and attempting to do what the RW wants to do...control the uterus. We women won't let the RW do it...we sure won't let the left do it either. It's our body.

Best approach, IMO, is education and access to contraception. Giving women these things along with equality in every other area of life gives them the tools they need to make better decisions. That is all you will ever get. It's not a perfect solution. We're a messy imperfect species.

The idealist in me sees our best chance of survival away from this planet. I don't expect that to happen any time soon...most especially in my lifetime.

[Skittles]

38. problem is religion

too many religions want women to spit out babies like Pez dispensers and too many people go along with it - and religious garbage is the main argument against birth control

[cynatnite]

52. Best analogy ever!

[smirkymonkey]

54. +1000

[CreekDog]

69. end poverty, the birthrate will decrease when living standards improve

and empower women as equally as men, give them the rights to control their own reproduction.

and you won't have to force anybody to do anything.

[polly7]

13. Agree completely, but

how do you empower women in countries where women have absolutely no rights (including the right to any sort of education)? It seems so frustrating and hopeless ..

[Fumesucker]

18. Those type countries aren't going to put in family size restrictions anyway for the most part..

You work where you can with what you've got..

I certainly don't have all the answers but I think I know what some wrong ones are..

[polly7]

22. It would take the co-operation of all major world bodies to

penalize / sanction gov'ts that allow it to go on ..... and we all know the major players in organizations like the IMF and World Bank do not have the plight of women at heart.

I don't agree with forced family planning either.

[Control-Z]

57. And abortions as needed, wanted,

or desired by a woman and her doctor. Period.

[movonne]

10. I think China's one child policy was the right

thing to do...people are so selfish to want big families in the coming years..billions and billions of humans are enough...

[FreakinDJ]

15. 30 years after peak oil the world won't be able to support 2 billion

where are the "other" 5 billion going to go

[Marrah_G]

16. It was so "right" that it has left mass amounts of female children aborted or in orphanages.

Also, besides just female children, also mentally and physically disabled children are gotten rid of in this sort of social program.

[felix_numinous]

11. If worldwide free contraception and sex ed programs

along with healthcare and education were in place we would see a dramatic shift in population.

[Marrah_G]

12. How about controlling population through education, opportunity and reproductive rights for women

That is what actually works in a way that doesn't take away women's right's to govern their own bodies.

[tammywammy]

31. +1 n/t

[aquart]

45. And causes automatic family limitation. Ain't that odd?

[Marrah_G]

50. Although on the surface it seems odd

when you really dig deeper it makes alot of sense.

Even in the US if you took out immigration, our population would be falling.

[bhikkhu]

17. Education is the best approach

...and anyone interested in te topic might read Connelly's "Fatal Misconception", which is a very well written and comprehensive history of previous pushes toward population control.

Its well worth reading, but could be summarized for non-readers as: coercion doesn't work, in fact, practically nothing (not plagues, war, or deliberate extermination) works over the medium-to-long term. But what does work is education - if you educate women they have a path to participation in society that doesn't require motherhood, which is a practically a form of slavery in many cultures.

[Gregorian]

21. I agree. As extremely concerned as I have been, choice is the only way.

Education is the only hope we have. Not just for politics, but personal responsibility with respect to population.

Since about 1969 I have been in anxiety over this topic. Even though I've done my best, I've watched the world dissolve before my eyes. Diversity going away. Pollution spreading. Only some of us have the curse of being conscious of this problem. I envy those who happily go through life without the slightest care about how population is destroying everything.

And education regarding sex is about as far from the education that is needed. Math is almost at the top of the list. A real education that gives someone to ability to see just how dangerous our situation is, is vital.

Force does not work. Choice is the only way. But with it comes the responsibility to know what to chose.

[FreakinDJ]

24. That is what this is "Education"

I truly believe this is coming and so far it has been the "Great Pink Elephant in the room no one wants to talk about"

In a post apocalyptic world - I truly believe it will be the strong willed, self destined women that men will seek out. But between here and there - there is going to be a lot of dieing off and it is for those I fear the most

[TreasonousBastard]

23. Eventually we'll get there, but...

as usual, it will be a day late and a dollar short when things get desperate.

We'll have the water wars, the energy wars, the arable land wars... and have the big fights over mandatory sterilization, making any form of assisted pregnancies illegal, and all sorts of other good stuff.

Whoever is left will have either enough to eat until the next round of dieoffs, or live in sterile world of only food production and living space-- our genius for self-preservation is extremely short sighted.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

26. it is socially responsible, the problem is that it comes up against individual human rights

sometimes these two things are in opposition

[aquart]

27. You weren't slammed by me.

I have nothing but respect for a nation that chooses to break its own heart rather than pass the buck so that their grandchildren can watch their great grandchildren starve to death.

The problem, of course, is "choice."

[Zalatix]

40. You don't mind if said coercive efforts end in a civil war

which would result in even more damage to the environment and even more starving, mutilated, murdered children?

[aquart]

41. You think THAT is what will cause a civil war?

Good grief. They have a rising wealth class with limited political rights. THAT is where civil war starts. That is where revolution is plotted.

But remember this in your gooey willingness to kill off the generation that is, they are all precious only children.

Would you sacrifice your only child so a rich man could procreate like Mitt Romney?

The impractical, suicidal altruism that hopes the Chinese will have excess children again ignores what happens to those children: They're expendable. They go into the army. Or work at slave wages in the factories that compete with ours. Or get sold into the sex trade.

I wouldn't wish that on a child myself. I'm not moral enough.

[Zalatix]

43. Robbing people of their reproductive rights IN AMERICA will lead to war.

A civil war in a nuclear-armed country is by far the worst scenario you can plot out. And that path will be greased by telling AMERICANS that they cannot have kids.

I guarantee you that.

[aquart]

44. Uh, we were talking about China. C. H. I. N. A.

China is NOT a democracy. No democracy can have a one-child policy. Happy now?

[ErikJ]

29. Homosexuality, E.D. and autism genes to reduce or stabilize population?

Last edited Mon May 7, 2012, 01:27 AM - Edit history (1)

Some RWing group ( or woman) last week said that they think homosexuality will wipe out the white race. Everybody laughed and scoffed at them. But beside the ridiculous white race part, is it possible that homosexuality is an over-population safety valve deep in the human genome to prevent tribes from over-populating their food or water supply?

EO Wilson the greatest biologist of the 20th century says that homosexuality is an adaptive gene where the homosexual members pass on their genes by helping out their closest relatives to survive.

But could it be instead that is a gene to reduce the population of the tribe/relatives for long term survival. The tribes that pass this gene along have the greatest long term suvival?

SO the first question would be, IS the rate of homosexuality/bi-sexuality increasing in our society as we become more over-populated or over-consumptive?

Likewise, could it also be that "erectile dysfunction" which is also increasing as our population becomes more obese is in the same way an adaptive gene to limit the population from outstripping its food supply?

Could it also be the reason autism is so mysteriously rapidly increasing?

I may pose these questions to a population ecologist this next week.

[usrname]

30. China's 1 child policy is not sustainable

They will feel the effects in about 10 years.

Any "Die off" will not be due to "over population".

[aquart]

46. It's good to have neither links nor supporting facts.

Is it possible you are referring to sex selection?

[Marrah_G]

51. The problem of aborting or abandoning girls and disabled children is an issue

I know a family who have adopted 4 children from China. Two girls and two boys with deformities (cleft palate). All were abandoned in hopes of having a physically/mentally perfect male.

[NYC Liberal]

32. Humans are going to go extinct eventually anyway.

Almost every species that has ever existed is now extinct. I know we like to think of ourselves as immortal (as a species), but we're not.

So there's a line beyond which it's not worth doing to extend the life of the species. China's "1 child policy" crosses that line.

[ErikJ]

33. Fatalistic

Humans are a sentient species and so naturally should not just fatalistically give in to overpopulation overshoot.

[NYC Liberal]

47. I'm not saying we should just let things fall where they may.

All I'm saying is that there's a line beyond which it's not worth it. Of course we should take reasonable steps to protect the environment and us as a species. But how far should we go before we start becoming authoritarians?

[laundry_queen]

34. this

99.9999% (4 decimals) of species that have ever lived on this planet are extinct. What makes us think we will be so different? The question is not if, but when. I'm not in favor of policies that curb reproductive rights in order to possibly extend the when a few years. Education and free access to birth control is the only way, imo.

[ErikJ]

38. Horseshoe crab 445 million years, Ginko 270 million

The horseshoe crab has survived 445 million years, the coelacanth fish 410 million years , the ginko tree 270 million years, turtles have been around 200 million yeaqrs modern shark species 100 million years old. For perspective modern man has been around only 150,000 years. So we could conceivably have a ways to go yet.

All these very old species have some traits that have helped them survive so long. Humans, it could possibly be our superior ability to adapt to almost any habitat. But then when the Yellowstone super-volcano blows anytime in the next 100,000 years, all bets are off.

[aquart]

42. We're omnivorous vermin.

William Tenn story.

[4th law of robotics]

56. We're the only ones with the ability to leave

granted we've given up on that for the moment but that won't necessarily be permanent.

[quaker bill]

48. Lame premise for a discussion

correlation is not causation.

A number of contemporaneous factors are more reasonably associated with population increase. The largest factor is the development of germ theory, implementation of sanitation, antibiotic medications, and vaccines.

When doctors took the radical step of washing their hands between patients as well as between performing an autopsy delivering a child, mortaility rates declined. With Germ theory and medication, all of a sudden as a species we quit having plagues that would periodically take half the population of a continent.

As a species, we used to have lots and lots of babies, but far far fewer of them survived to become adults.

Oil has allowed agriculture to expand, which has limited famine at much higher population levels. However, historically disease has been a far greater control on population than famine. Declining oil reserves/production will not control population in anything even remotely close to the manner suggested by the OP.

[NNN0LHI]

49. We used to have a DUer who promoted the "Die Off" of the World's population theory here

Silverhair was his screen name.

Anyone else remember that fellow?

Don

[just1voice]

53. The U.S. had forced sterilization for a while, as did/do other countries

There's always some "cause" behind it and it's always abused by sadistic "leaders". If only people would actually learn from history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization

"The United States was the first country to concertedly undertake compulsory sterilization programs for the purpose of eugenics.[33] The heads of the program were avid believers in eugenics and frequently argued for their program. It was shut down due to ethical problems. The principal targets of the American program were the mentally retarded and the mentally ill, but also targeted under many state laws were the deaf, the blind, people with epilepsy, and the physically deformed. According to the activist Angela Davis, Native Americans, as well as African-American women[34] were sterilized against their will in many states, often without their knowledge while they were in a hospital for other reasons (e.g. childbirth). Some sterilizations took place in prisons and other penal institutions, targeting criminality, but they were in the relative[citation needed] minority. In the end, over 65,000 individuals were sterilized in 33 states under state compulsory sterilization programs in the United States.[35]][36]"

[4th law of robotics]

55. People weren't arguing with you that overpopulation wasn't a problem

it was that they were opposed to forced abortions and sterilizations and murdering children.

If someones solution to rampant gang problems is to shoot everyone who looks suspicious on sight you can oppose that while still believing gangs are a problem.

[magical thyme]

60. would people here prefer that China go back to its history of large families (sons preferred)...

and use their economic dominance to buy up our farmland and export our food to China? Sort of like what Europe is doing right now in Africa...leaving the natives to starve?

[magical thyme]

64. crickets. do I hear crickets? nt