population, energy, and simple math

[Windpower]

Re-read what I wrote

I do not 'hate' corporations

Corporation are amoral--- without morals -- they are neither good or bad

as you have pointed out thay can and have contibuted  to mankind by "dragging the masses behind them" ('masses' a curious choice of a socialist lable)

but my contention is that this is only incidental to the corporate goal of getting bigger and more powerful


I categorically do not buy into the false and misleading paradigms  left/right   liberal/conservative     communist/capitalist

anyone that allows others to define the argument has already lost and been deceived

The goal of the United States framers was to make the US a country of LAWS not of men -- they had had enough of the government of men, kings princes and royalty


The constitution is filled with road blocks to keep men from taking over  -- and it almost worked

I'll bring up Tragedy and Hope again

Quigley wrote that in the top control groups there is no country loyalty, no left right socialist etc
it all about controling the 'masses' as you have described them. Quigley thought this was just fine BTW

sorry this is a quick version ---I have to go take care of a Mass Spectrometer

[OlJarhead]

The book is actually quite informative by a former government official that makes very good points -- I encourage reading it to get another point of view.

I hole wholeheartedly agree that there are too many people on the planet and cringe at the thought of there being even more.  I think, however, that Franklin may have had the answer in 'making them difficult in their poverty' because social programs encourage having more children without worrying about how to feed and house them.  Our society rewards overpopulation rather then first securing the means to support a family.  So I think the answer is simple:  eliminate social programs which encourage having babies when you can't afford it.

I have a step daughter who is pregnant again (2nd) with a fiance that isn't currently working now.  They don't seem to understand that having children without a means of supporting them isn't a good thing.  However, rather then having them live off the dole we had them move in with us so we could mentor them further about financial responsibility and being able to support a family.

I guess my point is that society must take care of the issue rather then government though government can support society by NOT making it easy to increase the population without a means of support.

This really is the crux of the issue.  By Government subsidizing food, housing etc they make it easy to increase population whereas they could inhibit population increase by simply NOT helping.

Sure that's a hard line to take but this is where nature will take its course -- people would begin to realize that living in poverty and bringing kids into poverty isn't something to be rewarded but rather avoided.

But then that sort of thinking isn't what wins popularity contests is it?  Maybe nature will solve the problem before we kill ourselves off, or maybe it won't but sooner or later nature will win.

[h0rizon]

Quote
Population is an issue, but what is the solution? I don't have one and I sure as hell don't want the government to come up with one. So lets see how do we decide who lives and who dies? How do we decide who gets born and who doesn't? You see the delima?

I find it strange that the first thing that comes to most peoples minds when the population issue is raised is government infringement, loss of freedom and liberties, communism, Hitler, etc. My fear is the opposite, an escalated level of all these evils unless the population rise is confronted. Less people would ease pressure for nearly everything, including government infringement IMO. I fail to see any down side to a world with more elbow room.

As for how to go about it I have no idea either but a single step is at least a start. How about tax rebates for getting a vasectomy, maybe throw in a wide screen TV or something to sweeten the pot a little? Government incentives to have less children (not penalties for more!). Things like this would not infringe on anyones rights or freedoms in any way. Maybe if people were aware that there is a problem they might actually act on their own- crazy talk I know, but as OlJarhead said maybe mankind could actually help themselves without government aid. I've mentioned before that there are species of "dumb" animals that slow their reproductive rates when they are too many or times are hard, so who knows, maybe even we could do it?  I doubt it, but I'm too stupid to give up hope.
duhh

My inherent concern in that approach is 3-fold:

    1.  Medical access to those populations pumping out children is limited.  Additionally, cultural/religious beliefs often forbid this sort of thing.  I do not see this getting fixed anytime soon.
    2.  There will always be selfish people that will spawn countless children at the expense of others anyway.  "19 Kids and counting" comes to mind.  That family alone just decimated 9 other families from having any children at all, from a population balance perspective. 
    3.  EVERY species on this planet is hard-coded to replicate, sometimes even if detrimental to itself in the end.  Natural order puts checks and balances in effect (Prey, disease, resources) to prevent that.  We've circumvented the first two controls (Prey, disease to an extent).  Guess what's left.

So I still think population control will happen through natural attrition, regardless.  Food supply will eventually fall below demand, triggering all sorts of chaos.  6 Billion humans will not suddenly, self orchestrated and self governed, correct this without governing bodies intervening.  The only saving grace could be technology, but inherently technology may also accelerate our downfall. 

I reiterate the "humans as invasive species" mantra (http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/2011/01/are-humans-an-invasive-species/). 

I hole wholeheartedly agree that there are too many people on the planet and cringe at the thought of there being even more.  I think, however, that Franklin may have had the answer in 'making them difficult in their poverty' because social programs encourage having more children without worrying about how to feed and house them.  Our society rewards overpopulation rather then first securing the means to support a family.  So I think the answer is simple:  eliminate social programs which encourage having babies when you can't afford it.

I do whole heartily agree there as well.  Want 20 kids? You'll need an awfully big garden.  Can't provide for them?  Then someone has to starve.  It's a cruel reality, like it or not.

[Native_NM]

Most of us here own our own corporation - My Family, Inc.  My corporation is me, my wife, and the kids.  The actions that we take (and that most families take) are no different conceptually than most companies take.  Everyone wants a better job (increase sales), we all watch our budgets, and sometimes make hard decisions that hurt others.  I remember telling the kid that he was not going to to a soccer tournament because it was too expensive to go to Denver twice.  He was really dissapointed.  I agree with Dug - I don't like to get caught up in either side.  But I do like expect consistency.  There is so much hypocrisy from both sides it hurts. 

[bayview]

I have a step daughter who is pregnant again (2nd) with a fiance that isn't currently working now.  They don't seem to understand that having children without a means of supporting them isn't a good thing.  However, rather then having them live off the dole we had them move in with us so we could mentor them further about financial responsibility and being able to support a family.

   Now they have you supporting them . . .    Expect more grandchildren to follow.

   I was at the doctors office the other day for a follow up visit.   There was a young overweight girl with her family and mexican boyfriend and their new-born.   By her conversation with her mother, I overheard she had the social programs she needed.   Free rent, food, health care, etc.   She said that she loves children and expects to have a total of 8.


   I guess I will get another job to help pay for them.

/.

[ScottA]

We live a rural area that has quite a few low income people. It's common here for young girls to get pregnant just so they can get their own apartment and move out of their parents. As soon as they have a baby they are set, free food, rent and medical.

[OlJarhead]

   Now they have you supporting them . . .    Expect more grandchildren to follow.

   I was at the doctors office the other day for a follow up visit.   There was a young overweight girl with her family and mexican boyfriend and their new-born.   By her conversation with her mother, I overheard she had the social programs she needed.   Free rent, food, health care, etc.   She said that she loves children and expects to have a total of 8.


   I guess I will get another job to help pay for them.

/.

I doubt they will remain long as I'm not easy to live with!   I lecture them often about the responsibility of having a family.  I think my future son-in-law is starting to realize that living with me isn't like living with his parents who didn't have any rules and gave them the run of the house.  To me he's a kid that needs a smack and I often give him one verbally if he's getting a little to at ease living off his in-laws.

And then, of course, if he aint working then he's working for me -- no welfare here, but workfare perhaps! lol

[considerations]

The only choice I see is to do my best with my patch of dirt, leave it better/cleaner than I got it and take care of/with my loved ones. 

We all know by now that money is the fuel that runs the world's infrastructure/services. Doesn't matter if its a government or corporations, the biggest wallet wins.   

Basically I do what I can to support my "village", take comfort in the friendships I have with like-minded folk, and stand my ground when I believe my personal life or my wallet is being threatened by those who have no right to get into either of them.

Overpopulation? Yes, I believe it has happened.  What to do?  At best, I think being frank with one's children, grandchildren, and friends about what one thinks is more likely to have a lasting effect than many other options.

Oh, and that vegetable garden...practice, practice, practice!   

[OlJarhead]

The only choice I see is to do my best with my patch of dirt, leave it better/cleaner than I got it and take care of/with my loved ones. 

We all know by now that money is the fuel that runs the world's infrastructure/services. Doesn't matter if its a government or corporations, the biggest wallet wins.   

Basically I do what I can to support my "village", take comfort in the friendships I have with like-minded folk, and stand my ground when I believe my personal life or my wallet is being threatened by those who have no right to get into either of them.

Overpopulation? Yes, I believe it has happened.  What to do?  At best, I think being frank with one's children, grandchildren, and friends about what one thinks is more likely to have a lasting effect than many other options.

Oh, and that vegetable garden...practice, practice, practice!   

Amen