Population: how to control it
There is nothing politically incorrect in observing the truth. And it may or may not be possible to dissuade such people. However without making any judgement as to whether or not it might be the case, if the harsh reality of the natural world and the Will of God as interpreted by a religious movement were opposed, in the long run mother nature will prevail. So the question is moot in either case.
Considering that the vast majority of people, especially in America, follow a religion that not only encourages more people to be created, but, discourages even preventing one from being born, or even conceived makes these questions far from moot. These facts represent one of the largest obstacles humankind will have to address if we are ever to bring our population under control in a more humane manner than starvation.
To everybody: these are profound questions which are under consideration. The population of the planet and the resources available to our children are legitimate concerns, and their consideration may follow naturally from the issues raised in the Crash Course. However, one important purpose of this website at this time is to spread awareness of certain facts to everybody, including those who may have religious convictions.
Although the questions raised here are no doubt important, we cannot allow the primary mission of spreading awareness to be compromised by any suggestions which would tend to harshly offend the sensibilities of any large portion of the population. Without a broad awareness among the people, nothing good can come of any suggestion made here. And broad awareness cannot result if this website is avoided by people—people of faith or by any other group.
This discussion treads upon relatively dangerous ground. It may continue, but I must ask that the participants consider their words carefully, and craft their responses with due regard for the beliefs of all. Failure to do so will result in the deletion of this thread.
With all due respect Jason, it’s EXACTLY this kind of thinking that got us into this mess. The time has come to rattle cages…
Public Relations is the tool that is in order here.
Once one views the crash course and the statistics embodied therein – it is hard to disagree with the fact that population growth Is a threat to future survival for us all.
That is the idea that must be gotten across.
Steering clear of targeting a religion or an ideology will better ones chances of getting the message across. Otherwise the message will fall on deaf ears.
To those recipients of the course who are rational. thinking individuals, it will get them thinking and re evaluating their own actions and responsibilities in light of their current new awareness. Change will come by individuals getting enlightened and then choosing to take personal responsibility.
Change of viewpoint will not come by attacking ideologies that may have been born in a time when exponential growth was no immediate threat.
We must be diplomatic while being insistent on getting the message across, without pointing fingers.
Getting the crash course into the hands of opinion leaders everywhere, regardless of beliefs, is a good start.
Yes – we must rattle cages on the subject of overpopulation. With effective communication of the facts, and by steering clear of attacking groups wholesale.
I try to live an ethical life guided by what I believe to be a pretty strong moral compass. I have empathy for the vast majority who live, or more accurately put, exist, in some of the most inhumane conditions that many people can even imagine. I respect all life and I think that on a philosophical level, one of the most important things I can do in my life is try to prevent or reduce the amount of pain, whether it be physical or psychological, that is involved for any form of life capable of feeling hurt and that I have the ability to alleviate.
I like this website for many reasons and near the top of the list of those reasons is the fact that it gives me hope. I am not as optimistic as I wish I could be. I am sorry if I have offended anyone with regards to my remarks and questions involving religion. I understand that a person’s religion can bring them the kind of hope and inner peace that I yearn for in life. It’s not as if I am unwilling, or that I haven’t investigated most of the major ones; it’s more of an inability to put my faith into any religion. I was not attacking religion and I do partially agree with the notion that it actually is politically incorrect to even have brought the topic up in this forum; therefore, I will write no more on this subject. The message contained within the body of the “Crash Course” is too important to compromise by anyone for any reason.
I’m not religious, but I would fight for anyone’s right to believe as they wish. However, if that belief includes the bearing of totally unsustainble numbers of children, and such numbers having the capacity to affect ME and MINE, well then that is altogether different…..
Having said that, loads of Catholics have told the Pope where to go by using family planning methods the Church disapproves of. To those Catholics, in particular, I raise my glass for thinking outside the Matrix…
Just because one is religious doesn’t mean one has to also ignore reality! I hope the moderators read this in the positive spirit it is meant in….
I’m pretty sure we (in the western world) don’t get any gold stars for no longer growing our numbers when our resource use is so much staggeringly higher than that of others. We of all people should be best able to live sustainably because of the resources we have – so why don’t we? Isn’t it nothing to do with government but a lot to do with our individual comfort and laziness. Are we about to be the first humans to starve on mass before we are even weaned? By before weaned I mean self fed.
Store fed, store owned.
I think religion is a bit of a red herring in any case. It isn’t an alternative solution and we will just waste our time identifying what are pretty minor aspects of the problem. People can only raise children that they can feed. The others don’t get raised.
As our western societies are now I don’t think any government effort like that of China would be found acceptable although it might make some sense to stop paying people to reproduce.
I am hopeful that if we could start doing anything in small neighbourhood groups we might find ourselves with solutions we had never thought of or at least moving toward greater communal sustainability. At the moment you may feel like me that we have more of a community in cyber space than in our neighbourhood. Thats not to denigrate present community networks but participation in those networks is much like the web. Links with nodes of similar thought but not with adjacent nodes. How can we make links to sufficient neighbours to capture a useful diversity?
One idea I have had is that we could get together to save money on communication. We could start a not for profit group, purchase internet bandwidth and distribute it locally by wireless. I know I could more than halve the cost of comms for each household. But; when sustainability is the issue, will a focus on forming a group around money lead anywhere else? I guess it might get us together and it has more chance than presenting the crash course at the moment. What do you think?
I totally agree that paying people to not reproduce would be far better than paying them to reproduce (as occurs here, phased in by the last government, being phased out by the new), but are ‘draconian laws’ any better than mass starvation?
If the only choice was between draconian laws or starvation, I guess I wouldn’t take the starvation. Cross the ditch we don’t pay anyone for progeny either way. Rekon draconian laws aren’t going to be very enforcable by impotent governments anyway.