Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40

Thread: The Latest Scourge on the Enviroment: Children 'bad for planet'

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408

    The Latest Scourge on the Enviroment: Children 'bad for planet'

    [QUOTE][B]Children 'bad for planet'By Sarah-Kate Templeton in London
    May 07, 2007 12:00am[/B]

    HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

    The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

    John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

    "The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."

    In his latest comments, the academic says that when couples are planning a family they should be encouraged to think about the environmental consequences.

    "The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added.

    Professor Guillebaud says that, as a general guideline, couples should produce no more than two offspring.

    The world's population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion to 9.2 billion by 2050. Almost all the growth will take place in developing countries.

    The population of developed nations is expected to remain unchanged and would have declined but for migration.

    The British fertility rate is 1.7. The EU average is 1.5. Despite this, Professor Guillebaud says rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions.

    The Sunday Times

    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C21684156-5009760%2C00.html[/url]

    ------------

    how soon before the algore's of the world suggest and back forced euthanasia???

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY][url]http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C21684156-5009760%2C00.html[/url]

    ------------

    how soon before the algore's of the world suggest and back forced euthanasia???[/QUOTE]

    I mentioned this report in another thread.

    More ammo for abortionists. :yes:

  3. #3
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=JetFanTransplant]I mentioned this report in another thread.

    More ammo for abortionists. :yes:[/QUOTE]


    sorry about that...but you are right....

  4. #4
    We wouldn't do business with a country who does this would we?

  5. #5
    It's also ammo for World Socialists as well. Note the "rich countries should be the most concerned about family size as their children have higher per capita carbon dioxide emissions" and claims that rich countries (like the UK) should limit their kids, when Fertillity rate is already quite low now.

    Like many of the requirements of the "War on Climate Change", a large part is about redistribution of wealth, forced economic equallity amongst nations, and the "bringing down" of the rich Western Nations to a so-called more appropriate level equal (in money AND "carbon emissions") to it's less "Lucky" third-world neighbor nations.

    The argument apparently being that each human on Earth is entitled to an absolutely equal share of potential carbon emissions, excpet for rich Western Nations, who have already more than used up theirs.....

    Hell, I might back alot more of the Climate Change lobby's ideas....if they weren't all wrapped in a not-so-subtle desire to create One World Socialism.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    This is just a re-tread of all of the Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich nonsense that enviros have been preaching for generations.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    So how long before we start seeing impact fees for familys with more than two children? Will they be required to buy environmental off-set credits?

    Side-Note...

    Once again Al Gore has exceeded the threshhold of environmental impact.

    He has 4 children. Karenna, Kristin, Sarah, and Albert III

    harumph!

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    the idiocy just never ends.....

    [QUOTE=cr726]We wouldn't do business with a country who does this would we?[/QUOTE]

  9. #9
    China, I guess you choose to ignore everything China does as long as they continue to do business with us.


    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]the idiocy just never ends.....[/QUOTE]

  10. #10
    children don't really have a place in the pro death platform

  11. #11
    Ignorance is bliss. Oh yea China is getting much better. The Chinese enjoy their two hours of power per day too!

    Enforce family planning or lose your job

    [url]www.chinaview.cn[/url] 2007-05-07 23:51:38

    BEIJING, May 7 (Xinhua) -- Officials in east China's Zhejiang Province will now be demoted or even fired if they fail to properly enforce family planning policies in their organizations, according to a new regulation issued by the provincial government.

    [B]"Local officials whose precincts have not passed an annual assessment on the work of family planning and whose subordinates defy the family planning policy by having more children than recommended will not be promoted," said the regulation. [/B]

    It said officials who fabricated population data in order to pass assessments will also face punishment.

    [B]Officials will be demoted or dismissed if they fail to pass family planning performance assessment twice in their term. [/B]

    As the world's most populous nation, China has been following a strict family planning policy since the 1970s to contain its population growth.

    The policy encourages late marriages and late childbearing, and limits most urban couples to one child and most rural couples to two.

    [B]The family planning policy is credited with preventing 400 million new births in the country.[/B]
    Editor: Luan Shanglin

  12. #12
    Warfish what a load of crap that is, world socialism, seriously you cant be that dumb to think that that is what this is all about? You cant seriously think that the same people saying that we need to limit our impact on the environment arenít crapping themselves over the damage china and India are likely to do with their continued economic development?

    The only reason they are saying that western countries should do it is because they are the countries with the suvs etc and the high consumption rate of power and resources. In other words if the western countries get their arse into gear and lead the way then the rest of the world will too.

    As for the population thing, its been shown time and again the over population is a huge issue for countries and civilisations alike, especially in the ever shrinking world we live in today. Not only because of the massive strain on food resources and energy consumption (which could be argued to already taking place) but the flow on effects of such strain, its not like its clear cut that its fine if the worlds population continues to grow all we have to do is make more food and power, you need land to do that, same as you need land for increase population, you need money to do that, not only for food and power but for the cost associated with health and the like.

    Should there be forced abortions, of course not its as stupid an idea as world socialists trying to bring down the government by using the environment as a secret cover. But population control is an issue that needs to be addressed. Of course it doesnít help when people like some on here lap up any piece of crap that floats their way and run with it for their own purposes, grow a brain people and have a proper discussion that way there wouldnít be a market for this type sensationalist media that seems to be all the rage.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=ragnarok14]you cant be that dumb[/QUOTE]

    Yea? Yea? Wanna BET? :D

    You disagree that that their is any Socialist agenda backing any portion of the Environmental Movement? Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I am certainly not saying ALL of the movement are motivated by that, after all many Environmental Scientists are clearly motivated by ensuring additional Govt. Funding in their futures, and others by simple Party Politics and a few even by actual concern for the Planet.

    Population Control "must be addressed"? Good luck addressing that one. One is sooner to win the War in Iraq than to somehow suddenly get all humans to limit their screwing.......of course, we ARE well. overdue for a Pandemic. Maybe that'll take care of everything, a nice round of Bubonic Plague for one and all.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Yea? Yea? Wanna BET? :D

    You disagree that that their is any Socialist agenda backing any portion of the Environmental Movement? Ok, we'll have to agree to disagree then. I am certainly not saying ALL of the movement are motivated by that, after all many Environmental Scientists are clearly motivated by ensuring additional Govt. Funding in their futures, and others by simple Party Politics and a few even by actual concern for the Planet.

    Population Control "must be addressed"? Good luck addressing that one. One is sooner to win the War in Iraq than to somehow suddenly get all humans to limit their screwing.......of course, we ARE well. overdue for a Pandemic. Maybe that'll take care of everything, a nice round of Bubonic Plague for one and all.[/QUOTE]

    Find me one creditable source (i.e. not an editorial writer who uses students work to back up their arguments) that presents even a tiny bit of evidence that there is a socialist movement using the environmental movement. I'm serious if there is one i'd like to see it so I can then form a better opinion.

    As for population control, it doesnít take much to realise it is a problem, its much harder to find out how to manage it though as you rightly pointed out. So because its hard and maybe something that people donít want to think about that we should just put our heads in the sand and hope for the best? Hell Iíd like there to be no wars but its so damn hard to get everyone to get along I may as well stop paying attention to the worlds current problems? Maybe we should just wait for a global pandemic to occur before we even give any thought to it and then when it happens we can blame the socialists, religion or medicine for not having a quick fix for that too, plus wait for it to happen and blaming others is oh so much easier and not as stressful as trying to address the problem.

  15. #15
    But children are our future!

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    On some beach... somewhere...
    Posts
    3,735
    [QUOTE=sackdance]But children are our future![/QUOTE]


    So long as its not more than 2.

  17. #17
    we have a couple problems here...

    too many children for the planet is one of the problems.

    not enough troops in Iraq is another problem

    anyone see the connection? Hello?! It's simple and solves everyone's problem

    Children's crusade!!!

    see, that's what the pro-death platform is all about.

    Quick decisions made with ruthless efficiency.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=ragnarok14]Find me one creditable source (i.e. not an editorial writer who uses students work to back up their arguments) that presents even a tiny bit of evidence that there is a socialist movement using the environmental movement. I'm serious if there is one i'd like to see it so I can then form a better opinion.

    As for population control, it doesnít take much to realise it is a problem, its much harder to find out how to manage it though as you rightly pointed out. So because its hard and maybe something that people donít want to think about that we should just put our heads in the sand and hope for the best? Hell Iíd like there to be no wars but its so damn hard to get everyone to get along I may as well stop paying attention to the worlds current problems? Maybe we should just wait for a global pandemic to occur before we even give any thought to it and then when it happens we can blame the socialists, religion or medicine for not having a quick fix for that too, plus wait for it to happen and blaming others is oh so much easier and not as stressful as trying to address the problem.[/QUOTE]

    Why is population growth a problem? Where has it been "shown" time and again that it's a problem? The standard of living in the US has risen as the population has risen. The standard of living around the globe today is higher than it ever has been and there are more people today than there ever have been. You could fit everyone in the world in an area not much bigger than Texas and they would all have more individual space than most people in the world currently enjoy today. In the US, we've developed about 5% of the land area. 5%! We pay our farmers to not produce food. Paul Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb and has been proven utterly and embarassingly wrong. He started much of this hype and fear-mongering about population problems. Malthus was his ideological brother and he has been proven laughably wrong as well. No doubt what China is doing is horrible, absolutely horrible. But by opening their markets to trade, the standard of living is ever-so-slowly starting to increase in China. Trading with them is the best thing we can do for them in a practical sense. What other options are there? The world doesn't trade with them and then what, China starts wars to get the resources they need, or lets their people starve at even worse rates than now?

    The projections and estimates of future population have been all over the map. Much of this is hysteria. And yes, I agree with Warfish that a lot of what fuels the Green movement is a deep and ingrained fear and hatred of capitalism. People have been predicting capitalism's demise ever since it started beating the cr*p out of every other system. Since they cannot defeat it on economic grounds or in terms of it's success at creating wealth and raising living standards, they have now retreated into the only bastion left - Mother Earth. Capitalism is the best system, sure, but it's destroying the earth!!! That is what they are saying because they cannot plausibly say anything else.

    Governments want power and control and capitalism de-centralizes power and control and gives it to individuals. Go ask some Greenies about how they feel about capitalism. Go ahead and ask them. In my experience, the overwhelming majority of hysterical greenies are virulently anti-capitalism. And a large majority of sane greenies also would like to see more redistributionist policies and tend to have unfavorable views of corporations. Greenies want to be able to tell everyone what to do, "for their own good." Capitalism is tantamount to individual freedom. You are free to fail or succeed, but you are free! Greenies want to use the power of the state to impose their vision on to everyone, and they use fear as their tool. Just like a mother who tells their kid to be quiet at night lest they wake the monster under their bed, Greenies tell us we are all going to die unless we stop driving SUVs. Greenies ARE the establishment now. It's big money. They are a well-funded, powerful, organized lobby and they have enormous influence. Scientists trip over themselves to release dire warnings to both influence policy, enlarge their stature and ensure that the gravy train doesn't stop any time soon.

    Look no further than DDT. Rachel Carson wrote a sloppy book about DDT and the west banned it, even though DDT is perfectly safe and more effective than anything else we had to fight malaria. But the west, who had already used chemicals to eradicate many diseases, didn't let African countries use DDT. Millions of Africans have died because of this. The WHO only recently removed the ban. It is not an exaggeration to say that Greenies have caused the deaths of millions of Africans. All so they can feel better about themselves. That's what Global Warming and second-hand smoke and DDT bans are really about; demonstrating moral superiority over nonbelievers. Environmentalism is a secular church. Earth is God to atheists. They take things on faith; facts be damned. And there is absolutely no check on what they are capable of if given power because everything they do they do with a clear conscious and with true conviction. Try to get a Greenie to admit that banning DDT was a bad idea - they won't.
    Last edited by jets5ever; 05-08-2007 at 10:43 AM.

  19. #19
    [QUOTE=ragnarok14]Find me one creditable source...[/QUOTE]

    What kind of "source" are you expecting? The Media, as a whole, is pretty much in agreement with Democratic/Socilist thinking, and are hardly the most critical when it comes to this issue. And their only real goal is to sell papers, and crying wolf always sells papers. Look no further than the LAST big end-of-the-world science claim, the forthcoming imminent Ice Age that never happened.

    Sadly, the last I checked, Al Gore hasn't published his secret personal views on his Socialist aims as yet. Nor have most Scientists come forward to say "yea, I've overhyping this issue a little....cause otherwise my lab won't get all this funding and I'll be back teching High School Science" or "Yea, I'm funded by an Alt-Fuel Company, and they need the issue overhyped so they can get their research money for nothing from the Govt.".

    In the end, it is simple use of critical thinking when looking at the issue, it's aims and desires. Both sides (Oil and Eco) have motivations I would say are clearly not "Whats best for the World", but more Whats best for THEM. As Jets5 said, in general the movement is quite anti-capitalist and quite pro-Socilaist, as are a good portion of it's strongest proponents (just look here on this forum for small scale evidence of that).

    In the end, I don't need a link to some media vulture to tell me whats behind some things. It's not like the vast majority of Major Media is trustworthy anymore as it is.

    Oh, and perhaps you might be interested in looking into what many of these "carbon Offset" programs go to fund...and where.

  20. #20
    :eek: THE MEDIA :eek:

    Holy crap, what a gigantic excuse that has become. It's the media's fault. The media are brainwashing everyone. Is this the same media that has Fox news and Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and host of others that continually draw big ratings because they talk loudly and come down hard on any who get in their way of thinking.

    Over population is a bad thing. Period. China had to deal with it. They may not have gone about it in the right way but they dealt with it. It was either that or watch millions starve to death. Hmm, which is better. Enforce laws that keep people from overpopulating the land or watch millions die in starvation that could also lead to wars and pandemics. Gee, that's a tough one.

    If we don't curtail overpopulation on our own then nature does its own correction. The way nature does it is a bit more hideous but it's effective.

    Scientists "overhyping" something gets them nowhere if they don't have the peer reviewed results to back it up.

    One exapmle could be the CFC's and the ozone layer. The world changed the way it refrigerated things because the science backed up the claims that these chemicals were eating away at something that protected us.

    Now a bigger problem has arisen and scientists around the world, not just those beholding to grants, say that Global Warming is a problem. Now those that feel the majority of these scientists are lying, involved with protecting their own research grants, politically movtivated or just misguided floors me.

    As far as DDT goes:

    DDT has never been banned for use against Malaria in the tropics. In many developing countries, spraying programs (especially using DDT) were stopped due to concerns over safety and environmental effects, as well as problems in administrative, managerial and financial implementation.

    Although the publication of Silent Spring undoubtedly influenced the U.S. ban on DDT in 1972, the reduced usage of DDT in malaria eradication began the decade before because of the emergence of DDT-resistant mosquitoes.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us