Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Overpopulation affects climate, resources

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:00 am

Fifty years from now, the last person on Earth, a very ethical, God-fearing man, watched as civilization crashed from overpopulation and climate change, and Earth was no longer able to support humanity. He ascended into heaven and complained to God. "Why did you abandon us? Why did you not give us the tools to deal with this calamity?" God replied, "I gave you a brain and an ability to reason; you might have made use of it."

Those who think human activity does not affect climate: Think again.

Those who do think overpopulation is not a problem: Think again

Would we have the same problems with resources we have today if the Earth's population was one billion?

It took the Catholic Church close to 400 years to clear Galileo of supporting the Copernican doctrines of a stationary Sun and a mobile Earth.

We do not have that much time.

John Lucas

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

65 comments:

  • John Lucas posted at 5:41 pm on Sun, Apr 14, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    no

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:01 am on Sun, Apr 14, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Shouldn't you be asking yourself that question? [sleeping]

    If, as you claim, "civilization is going to crash from overpopulation" wouldn't one expect New York to be producing MORE garbage instead of LESS?
    [sleeping]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 8:50 am on Sun, Apr 14, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    Do you ever get the point?

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:12 pm on Sat, Apr 13, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    The amount of garbage being produced by the city of New York isn't increasing. It has actually been DECREASING.

    At least according to the New York City Independent Budget Office...[lol]

    http://ibo.nyc.ny.us/cgi-park2/?p=222

     
  • John Lucas posted at 4:05 pm on Sat, Apr 13, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    The city of New York produces 12,000 tons of garbage a day. They get rid of this by trucking it to Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio and New Jersey. Just one of the myriad little details that do not enter yours and Mr Liebich's minds when it comes to supporting a population.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 2:27 pm on Sat, Apr 13, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 610

    Mr. Liebich: I have read your post and totally agree with it. As you stated, water will be the biggest concern in the years to come. Now lets see what the Supreme Court can make a ruling with that. Desalination comes to mind.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 6:56 am on Sat, Apr 13, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Not exactly Mr. Lucas. 1/4 acre is more than enough land for one to be "sustainable"

    For example, http://youtu.be/bfnzV4n1_xk [sleeping]

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:30 am on Sat, Apr 13, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    The main thing that I have noticed about right wing or left wing fanatics is that they do not understand systems either ecological or economic. You could put all those people there but they would not survive. The environment, which a system to support life, would not be able to support them. The fact that you cannot see that, like so many others, will probably in the end be the cause of the extinction of our species.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:39 pm on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Unfortunately, you are continuing to be opinionated rather than informed.

    There are approximately 6 billion people in the entire world and there are 2.97 million square miles of land in Australia. 2.97 million square miles breaks down to 1,900,800,000 acres which then converts down to 7,603,200,000 quarter acre blocks of land. We could hypothetically give every person in the world a quarter acre block of land and they would all fit into an area the size of Australia. We would still have 1,603,200,000 quarter acre blocks, or an area roughly half the size of Queensland left over, plus the entire rest of the world!

    Pause and let that sink in for a second…

    All the people, that's every man woman and child on earth, would comfortably fit inside Australia; each individual person could have a quarter acre block of land, and we would still have half of Queensland and the entire rest of the planet left totally unoccupied.

    OVERPOPULATION IS A MYTH![sleeping]

    P.S. The majority of Earth IS water![sleeping]

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 10:44 pm on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    Got it.. am in the middle of watching a fantastic Jethro Tull concert from 1978, like many stuffhsirt conservatives do, so will talk to you later!

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:20 pm on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    The reality was the Chinese boiled their water to make tea and took baths something the Europeans did not do before 150 years ago.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:16 pm on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    At one time people thought that the earth was round was a myth also.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:43 pm on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Overpopulation is a myth...
    [sleeping]... http://youtu.be/lUnvm0qhe2g

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 7:41 pm on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Apparently you don't understand that this man is our Science Czar.
    [sleeping]

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 5:43 pm on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Great post, Mr. Walters.

    Maybe we should take a tip on population control from 1700's Europe where women routinely gave birth on the ground right where they were working and then left the baby to die and later, to rot and be washed away with all the other garbage in the streets.

    Heck, my own grandmother who was from Eastern Europe used to tell stories about pregnant women working in the fields in the early 1900's who would stop for a second, squat down, deliver a baby, shove a little dirt over it and move on to the next row of vegetables and went home at the end of the day without a care.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 1:21 pm on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 610

    Kim: the dogs you see at a certain park are not mine since mine are yellow. I know the man who owns them, nice guy and you wouldn`t expect me to rat on him, now would you? Time to let the dogs run and swim at the canal, I`ll do the walking.

    Most if not all of the posts yesterday and today I have read before, on a porta-potty wall at a NASCAR race, or a Raiders game.

    When someone said go forth and multiply, evidently Chinese was the first language on his mind, and they took him at his word.

    Everyone take a tip from Joanne, be polite, like me.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:22 pm on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Tragic, but true, Mr. Barrow. If anyone in the TEA Party actually knew anything about anything they wouldn't consist of a bunch of oldsters who claim they suddenly took an interest in what was going on with government, politics, etc.

    They would have been activists a LONG time ago.

    All it took was a black socialist in the White House to get them scurrying around their kitchen tables, taking notice and talking conspiracy theories about everything.

    As you say...If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 12:16 pm on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Lucas wrote: "The issue is not whether the earth will survive but will we as a species survive."

    Absolutely correct. Anyone who has taken a basic physics class learned the law that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only converted. How long will it be before, by human influence, the matter on Earth that sustains life is converted to other forms that will not be conducive to humans, animals, fish, etc.?

    Those who are climate change deniers and anti-environmentalists do not exist as such because they have some type of acute understanding of how humans are NOT destroying our resources, they are solely deniers out of economic greed.

    It is easier to deny something and oppose it if it means a bigger chunk out of your pocketbook.

    Then we've got the NWO or "global government" conspiracy believers (many of who are already in the first category) who think that combating global warming/climate change or whatever the latest nomenclature is will only further the NWO because, heaven forbid, we'd have to cooperate with other countries a la the Kyoto Protocol.

    Imagine if steps had not been taken in the 70's (by Nixon, no less) to create the EPA. We'd be swimming in cesspools of toxic chemicals - no life would be able to use rivers, streams or oceans because they would be so polluted with toxins.

    All of the deniers are denying their progeny of a life free from pollution. It's the same old "I got mine" syndrome - and to heck with anyone else.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 12:07 pm on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    When I wrote the letter you were the model for the man talking to God.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 11:54 am on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    apparently you do not understand the difference between words like "could" and "should".

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 11:53 am on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-11-2013/guess-who-s-coming-to-howard

    great take on the republican/democrat switch over the last 50 years, that was precipitated by civil rights and the southern strategy.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:22 am on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1591

    When I hear Jerome, Kim and Ron pontificating I am at first baffled because if they would insert conservative where the use liberal they would make sense. Ron calls liberals intolerant and at first I think he must be joking but reading further I see he is serious and it just gets weirder from there. Then I realize that they all truly believe what they are saying and the tea party actually thinks that humans have been good stewards of this planet. This is the moment that I remember that we cannot allow them to hold the reins of government and then one thing Ron said makes sense; they must be stopped.

    One more thing if people keep calling you racist or homophobic maybe you should examine that. If it walks like a duck and quakes like a duck…

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 10:22 am on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1591

    Jerome if the Earth does not win the human species can't.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 9:42 am on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1591

    If conservative tend to be polite how do you explain 5 years of attacking the character of the President of the United States. Where is the respect from the Tea Party? What about Jan Brewer wagging her finger in the face of the President? What about Joe Wilson or Sarah Palin calling Obama a liar. Tend to be polite I don't think so.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 9:36 am on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    Ed- those wouldn't be 2 male chocolate labs that are walked in a certain city park in a certain northwest Lodi neighborhood would they? Just a wild guess? If not, just ignore the question [wink]

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:25 am on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2367

    I had always thought that the issue was the Earth vs. Human Species and that the left was hoping the former would win. Of course Mr. Barrow is correct that " the earth is not that fragile and will go on many years." In fact, this is what I've been saying ever since those on the left have been warning us of Earth's eventual destruction by us, e.g., former vice president Al Gore's prediction on January 27th that the Earth would scorch by that same date in 2016 (he gave us ten years); actor Ted Danson in 1988 predicted we had ten years from that date to save the oceans. Of course there are many more who believe we’re destroying the planet. I disagree.

    So instead of ten years, it's 50 years and then what, exactly? It's funny (in a wonderful kind of way really) that the past few days I've been greeted with some of the most beautiful weather - deep-blue skies with the snow-capped Sierra-Nevada Mountains clearly visible without a telescope in the east. Sure, it might rain again before Summer and I expect even violent hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and other natural occurrences from causing great damage and death. But this is the world we’ve been given; these things have been going on for millions of years.

    Look, as tenants of this planet we have an obligation to care for it as best we can. But we're to enjoy it as well. This means taking careful advantage of its resources while using our God-given "brain and an ability to reason" to develop "things" to enhance our lives.

    But mankind has far more than fifty years – and it’s not because of anything that Al Gore has done.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:23 am on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    [sleeping][sleeping][sleeping]http://youtu.be/lUnvm0qhe2g

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 12:17 am on Fri, Apr 12, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Apparently. I provided the page numbers. [sleeping]

     
  • Doug Chaney posted at 6:35 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    advocate Posts: 502

    It's certainly easy to tell who the minions are that are teabaggers by merely scanning their spin on the global warming issue.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:20 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    The issue is not whether the earth will survive but will we as a species survive. If we do not change the way we think we will not and time is running out quicker than most people think.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 5:03 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2367

    Mr. Walters, I wasn't suggesting that I believed the 50-year threshold either - I was only reiterating what the author of the letter believes to be Earth's timeline to destruction insofar as overpopulation is concerned.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 4:20 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1591

    Ron I agree the earth is not that fragile and will go on many years after man has joined the other extinct species. Man has only occupied this planet for 2 hundred thousandths of a percent of its entire existence I’m sure it will be fine when we’re gone.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 2:29 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    Well, I think I finally figured out that today the gal at Starbucks must have given me a regular latte, instead of the decaf I asked for. Yes, I have been studying the left's tactics for a while. They have been very successful at shutting down conservatives for years. I admit it is very hard to put up with the attacks, but once you realize their tactics and see the results they have had, it becomes easier to tolerate and ignore. Because that really is what they want you to do- waste your energy on combatting some bunny trail they took you down by changing the topic, calling you a racist, a bigot, and by answering your questions with a question. The personal attacks are probably the most effective at first, because conservatives tend to like to be liked, and are pretty polite. So we would tend to tuck our little turtle heads in to our little turtle shells and scurry off in shame. Very good book called "Confrontational Politics" by H.L. Richardson, a former California Senator. It always helps having been a heavy duty liberal for about the first 25-30 years of my life. I was in college in the 70's when the liberals were first starting to gain a stronghold in academia and witnessed it firsthand. The real shame of it is that our real history- such as which political party actually abolished slavery, and got the Civil Rights Act passed- has been rewritten...we have a whole generation of Americans who have been brainwashed about our real heritage and history.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 2:28 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Mr. Portal wrote: "Ms. Parigoris' quoting Alinsky's rules for radicals violates LNS's rules 3 and 4? At least according to Ms. Bobin. Really?"

    Must be breathing in all those toxic fumes from the hazardous waste you haul, Mr. Portal.

    Ms. Parigoris violated Rules 4, 5 and 6 when she stated:

    "You are an angry, hateful person who just likes to lash out at anyone who differs from your outlook on the world. You make personal attacks on people with absolutely no factual basis. You have every right to say whatever you like, I suppose, but when I see your name on a post I will simply go right by without reading its vile and hateful content."

    I would be willing to bet that if I wrote that exact same thing about Ms. Parigoris, she would be reporting it post haste.

     
  • Ed Walters posted at 1:18 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    the old dog Posts: 610

    Mr. Kinderman: 50 years left, I don`t believe that for a second. If all the newborns in this country were wanted, there would be half the population. The answer goes back to the Neanderthals around 100,000-300,000 years ago and replaced by a more modern human 35,000 years ago. Going back to surviving in a cave with little else, man has evolved, and most likely will for many more thousands of years to come. Since I won`t be here like everyone else, I can only make a guess. To limit birth due to a lack of land isn`t really needed. Recently my grandson drove from Norfolk Va. to Lodi Ca. Other than the large cities he encountered, once leaving there was nothing, with enough empty land waiting to be developed. The Almighty and Science along with Roe vs. Wade and now Prop.8 are questions that will never satisfy everyone. At the present time there are 9 members on the Supreme Court that will settle these issues by a 5-4 count no doubt, and the entire country will live by their ruling.

    Mr. Maurer has answered the question concerning population, as I have stated, the land is there waiting to be developed.

    Mr. Lucas is also correct, the next war will be fought over water, desalination is the answer to that. The middle east has solved that problem long ago. Thirsty people do crazy things.

    Well Joanne, it`s time for me and the Labs to go swimming, you all have a pleasant day.[wink)

     
  • Ron Portal posted at 1:11 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Ron Portal Posts: 120

    Ms. Kim...you're good...really good. You present facts in a common sense and straight forward manner.. which means you will be attacked in a personal way by the religious left and, as you know, the left's religion is their political beliefs. When you differ from the left's religion you are not only wrong but criminally so. You must be stopped, in their minds, by any means by accusing you of being hateful, homophobic and all the usual things they throw at people with differing views. They speak of equality but their equality is intolerant of diversity, uniqueness and debate for their purpose requires a singular focus. In the liberals world there can be no competing voices or causes slowing or obstructing society's long and righteous march. Inconvenient facts and evidence must be rejected or manipulated,as must the very nature of man, since liberalism or progressive-ism is a fantasy that evolves into a dogmatic cause which manifests into a holy truth for a false religion. Liberalism is truly regressive, irrational and pre-Enlightenment. And I say that, Ms. Bobin, with love.

     
  • Ron Portal posted at 12:50 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Ron Portal Posts: 120

    It's always refreshing to read your posts Mr. Kinderman...keep it up!

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 12:46 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2083

    In terms of resource usage, I wonder how long until we see underwater bio-domes that are used to harvest the rich resources of the ocean. Would you want to live there?

    http://ussubstructures.com/downstairs.html

     
  • Ron Portal posted at 12:41 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Ron Portal Posts: 120

    Ms. Parigoris' quoting Alinsky's rules for radicals violates LNS's rules 3 and 4? At least according to Ms. Bobin. Really? If the rules for liberals are so offensive that they threaten through lies and deceit than why follow them? And people have every right not only to associate with others of their choice but also to not associate with individuals who are harmful to a civil society. And this violates none of the rules of LNS. So to Ms. Parigoris I say keep on going on! To John Lucas...really John?? You're an intelligent and worldly man who has been there and done that and you believe this junk science of global warming? Have you heard of climate-gate? The main man who thought this lie up used faulty data to come up with this theory. Junk in and you get junk out of computer models. The same crowd who told us we were entering a "nuclear winter" and we were all going to die back in the 70's is now telling us the earth is going to burn up and we're all going to die in the 21st century.
    Follow the money and the grants to these people who feed off of the fears of others. Remember when Mt. St. Helens erupted and how the environmentalists were saying we would be entering new weather patterns, that the sun would be blocked out, that the area of the eruption would be a moonscape of oblivion for generations. Then there was none of this and the vegetation and wildlife came back so quickly that the "experts" of environmentalism couldn't believe it. Earth is not this fragile thing that will be destroyed by mere men. The St. Helens eruption spewed more pollution in a couple of days than man has in thousands of years. Do you see the end of world because of it...I don't think so. Don't be so naïve, John, you're smarter than this!

     
  • Kevin Paglia posted at 12:40 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Kevin Paglia Posts: 2083

    To address Jerome's question from 10:53: An interesting read on education related to child birth http://healthland.time.com/2011/07/05/education-impacts-fertility-or-is-it-the-other-way-around/

    I could see a point in time when an AGE restriction is placed on when kids could be born. Maybe 22-24 years old before kids could be "made". This would be pushed through under the argument of promoting women getting more education. On the opposite end a limiting age (45?) on the oldest you could be to have a child for "health" reasons. This would be, in my opinion the easiest way to limit the number of new births in the US.

    NOT THAT I AM SAYING I SUPPORT THE IDEA. This is just what I see as the most likely scenario if war/illness/alien invasion don't limit our numbers first.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 12:26 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    I don't Know Jerome, what the answer is, it is just too bad that there is a climate of hysteria, and I do find the observation of Robert Maurer pretty interesting, about how much unused land there really is in the US. However, at the rate we are going, it will be all off limits to human use and instead used for Habitat. It is just seeming more and more like it is really a matter if a modern day Dr. Evil who is just clamoring for power. There will be a very elite group of people pulling the strings, and the large majority of the populace will be eating the scraps they are thrown. I guess I am just getting to the point where it really is in God's hands, and part of his plan. If he wants the world to self destruct in 50 years, so be it. I just can not grasp the concept that the human race needs to be kicked back to the Stone Ages. "“The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants.” seems a very appropriate quote...

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 12:17 pm on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2367

    Mr. Tillett posted earlier:

    "'The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.' Again, that's a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position."

    Well, according to the author of this LTE, in fifty years overpopulation will become "sufficiently severe to endanger the society." "Far cry?" I don't think so. These ideas are spreading just as fast as the dehumanizing of our population. Once again, over 50 million unborn human beings were eradicated in 40 years. That's sickening in my opinion; others believe it is just the disposal of non-viable human tissue.

    As a society, we're heading downhill awfully fast - much faster than the liberals/progressives believe we're destroying the planet.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 11:59 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    Yes, water is going to be a huge issue. We can already see what that controversy it is doing here in California, especially with the Delta. I do agree we need to exercise caution and responsibility, but to what extreme? The Bay Conservation Delta Plan ia admittedly going to cost 28,000 Ag jobs, to return this land to habitat.. As you say, water is going to be a real issue, but then why are the environmentalists advocating the tearing down of dams nationwide- eliminating not only precious and inexpensive hydropower, but water storage? They claim that the dams are old and antiquated. Then repair them, don't tear them down. It just seems that the animal kingdom is taking precedence over human life. If you want to live in the city in a condo- go for it! But if your dream is to retire on 4500 acres in No California, as some people I know have, why should you be pushed off your land? The federal government is threatening these people with 25,000 if they find a dead Coho salmon on their property, even thought it is known that coho salmon do not survive as far inland as they live- 150 miles. The dam removal up there will also cause them to sprinkler their property when they now flood irrigate. This is not only costly but is not as good for the aquafir (sp) Their electric bills have gone up over 300%. The environmentalists are now proposing re-introducing wolves in that area. Would you want your child to sit at a rural school bustop with wild wolves on the loose? We all want to save the environment and live in harmony with nature, but where does it end? One thing is for sure...if civil dialogue doesn't have a resurgence in this country, we are ALL doomed. A little off topic, but so very very important. We are all being pitted against each other and we will all be standing together in the soup line if we don't stop the divisiveness...

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 11:41 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    I didn't say it wasn't a target set by the UN. I did say it was a goal, or as you illustrate a target, for ODA (foreign aid). It is not mandated, nor is it a payment of any type to the UN, as you attempted to claim.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 11:39 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    The problem is not the space for people to fit in. The problem is not having the resources to support that population. There are some that think the next wars will be fought over water.

     
  • robert maurer posted at 11:29 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    mason day Posts: 461

    Like Easter Island? Paving over the best agricultural lands that feed the population should be a prime concern. An agricultural math professor did the math and surmised that the entire US population would fit into an area the size of Texas with each family having 1 acre of land. Has anybody flown in a jet and observed how sparsely populated the US really is?

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 11:28 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    Sorry- this figure is directly from the UN website.. http://www.un.org/jsummit/html/media_info/pressreleases_factsheets/press_summary_sg_report2801.pdf

    "Official development assistance (ODA) flows have fallen during the 1990s, from $58.3 billion in 1992 to $53.1 billion in 2000.
    ODA, as a proportion of gross national product, fell from 0.35 per cent in 1992 to 0.22 per cent in 2000. Only five countries—
    Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden—met the aid target of 0.7 per cent of GDP in 2000. Most of the
    least developed countries suffered a decline in ODA of at least 25 per cent, and seven countries, all in Africa, saw ODA

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:53 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2367

    Along these lines regarding "sensible ways" to limit births, I am seriously interested in knowing what contributors to this forum think might work in order to save our species from annihilation due to having too many of us running around. The author seems to believe that we've only got about 50 years before it's too late. What say the rest of you?

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:49 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2367

    As far as limiting births is concerned, I think we've already found that "sensible way” to do it. Fifty million non-births through the auspices of Roe v. Wade aren't enough? That's roughly 6.25 times the population of New York City in just 40 years! And hey, we're not through yet are we?

    Along with that same rate of abortions occurring just in the United States of America, we've now made it simpler for anyone to procure that "morning after" pill. I don't know if the statistics have been gathered regarding how many more human births will be avoided through its use, but I'm sure it will be quite high. Obviously there are those who believe that the government should play an “active” role in this population limiting system (PLS) that will need to be implemented before it’s too late. Why not just latch it onto ObamaCare while it’s still growing? Put it right in there with the limitations on the healthcare needs of our old folks when they’ve become useless.

    I'm quite sure that these "solutions" to our overpopulation problems are not pleasing to God. Oh, and for those of you who don't believe in the existence of God (or any other higher power), why not just try to avoid this part of the debate. Recent inane comments about God being some sort of spaghetti monster only reveals the character of those making such remarks; it adds nothing to the debate except for perhaps a smirk or laugh (LOL) from those equally as silly.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 10:13 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    The 0.7% is a goal (set in 1970) for all foreign aid to needy countries, not direct or even indirect monies to the UN. Currently, the US spends about 0.21% on foreign aid and 4.7% on "defense".

     
  • John Lucas posted at 10:05 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    There is an underlying reality that no one wants to face. Limiting births is going to happen.
    We will find a sensible way to do this or nature will do it for us.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 9:56 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    I could not agree more.

    Humans have been around for 3 million years while we, Hom_o Sapiens, the latest iteration, have been around for about 200,000 years. We survived all that period of time because we obeyed the laws of nature which are the laws of God.

    In an earlier comment you said:

    “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it!”

    Taken to an extreme there is a serious conflict here between those words and the laws of nature. We cannot increase the population forever. It is obvious that there is a finite amount of space. Not so obvious is overuse of resources we have in our eco-system.There are many who believe that we are breaking the ability of the Earth to replenish itself. They liken the eco system that is our environment on Earth to a bank account. For hundreds of thousand of years we lived on the interest but now we are living on the principle and it is just a matter of time before the system that supports us no longer exists.

    If we continue on the path we are on we will crash. Our system is simply not sustainable. Those that do not understand this are like a man jumping off a 10 story building and at the 5th floor telling everyone everything will be just fine.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:55 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    "Facts are stubborn things."

    and apparently, so is reading comprehension.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:54 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    Yes, it is he, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, that made the heavens and earth. The mountains , the trees, and the midgets. We must let Him into our lives and meals. May you all be touched by his Noodly appendage, and have a bounty of carbohydrates and garlic bread.

    Peas be with you.

    R'AMen.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 9:36 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    This is not just about Obama and his policies. Presidents for decades have been unwittingly supporting this agenda, but does anyone find it a little odd that the only bill ever sponsored by then Senator Obama was the Global Poverty Act of 2007..a bill which would have required the US to give up .7% of its GDP to the United Nations to help "developing nations"? And it is also quite odd that that exact figure, .7% is what the United Nations feels each country has an obligation to contribute.. Probably just a coincidence. Again, ALL of this is fact and can be substantiated by doing a little research.. UN website and goggle Obama, Global Poverty Act. None are so blind as those who will not see....

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:24 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    sorry, in advance, if there are multiple posts.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 9:24 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    Good research, Andrew, and fact- Facts are stubborn things. This Green movement is the biggest PR scam in the history of the world. All started off with very good intentions and then the elitists decided there was FINALLY a way to gain power and redistribute wealth, to villianize American and its prosperity. Communism and socialism has tried to take this country down for decades but their strongarm tactics alienated Americans.. Ah, but latch on to the environmental movement and bingo! Makes everybody feel good that they are saving the planet.. There is no desire to upgrade developing nations, but rather to take America down to their poverty levels. All in the name of the environment.. The road to hell was paved with good intentions....

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:23 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    Pants on Fire
    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

    "The authors argue that compulsory abortions could potentially be allowed under U.S. law "if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." Again, that's a far cry from advocating or proposing such a position.

    In the book, the authors certainly advocate making abortions readily accessible for women who want to get them. But they never advocate forced abortions. Big difference. "

    "Holdren's office also provided a statement from Annie and Paul Ehrlich, the co-authors: "We have been shocked at the serious mischaracterization of our views and those of John Holdren in blog posts based on misreadings of our jointly-authored 1000-page 1977 textbook, ECOSCIENCE. We were not then, never have been, and are not now 'advocates' of the Draconian measures for population limitation described — but not recommended — in the book's 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator. "

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:09 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2367

    One other point that needs to be made: it would never happen that God might abandon us; it will always be that we abandon God. We see this more and more in America, a country that at one time not only believed in God, but invited Him into all aspects of our lives and communities and yes, even into our government. Just the mention of His name now is met with disgust. What used to be un-Godly is now acceptable and even embraced as wonderful. When America falls, it WILL be because of our abandonment of Him.

     
  • Kim Parigoris posted at 8:45 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Kim Parigoris Posts: 470

    No global warming for 16 years..http://www.forbes.com/sites/harrybinswanger/2013/04/03/global-warming-was-it-just-a-beautiful-dream-after-all/
    Yes, God did give us a brain and an ability to reason- and therefore we SHOULD be good stewards of the environment, but NOT a victim of it. Extreme Environmentalism has turned from a pro environment cause, to a human race self loathing. I just have one question- who decides who stays and who goes? Al Gore, Maurice Strong? The environmentalists are terrorizing our youngsters by putting out books that use quotes like "The planet groans every time it registers another birth". Even the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, claims that the movement has been hijacked and that it is going to bankrupt the entire planet. Here is an article about population decline..Could not find the one from Wall Street Journal. http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/01/world_population_may_actually_start_declining_not_exploding.html

     
  • Josh Morgan posted at 8:45 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 538

    Sorry about that.....this should work:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:37 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    John P. Holdren, Barack Obama’s top science advisor, co-authored a textbook entitled “Ecoscience” back in 1977 in which he actually advocated mass sterilization, compulsory abortion, a one world government and a global police force to enforce population control.

    On page 837 of Ecoscience, a claim is made that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution.

    “Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”

    On pages 942 and 943, a call is made for the creation of a “planetary regime” that would control the global economy and enforce population control measures.

    “Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime—sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.”

    “The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries’ shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits.”

    On page 917, the surrender of U.S. national sovereignty to an international organization is advocated.

    “If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.”

    Remember, as mentioned earlier, Holdren is the number one science advisor to Barack Obama, and the truth is that the top levels of the U.S. government are packed with people that believe this stuff.

    Apparently John Lucas does as well.

     
  • John Lucas posted at 6:19 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    John Lucas Posts: 2730

    bad link

     
  • Josh Morgan posted at 5:41 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Josh Morgan Posts: 538

    Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about declining population: SB10001424127887323375204578270053387770718.html

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 3:51 am on Thu, Apr 11, 2013.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2367

    Okay, I understand that there are those who truly believe that human beings not only affect the climate but through changing our activities we might be able to significantly alter it (I disagree at least to the point that we can change the climate). Still, my first question of the author is what about the climate is so terrible? As far back in time I can remember we've had storms, heat and cold waves, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., etc. I even rode out Hurricane Camille in August of 1969: the worst storm in recorded history as when it made landfall its sustained winds were 200 mph.

    Since the 1970's we've drastically changed the way we live, e.g., internal combustion engines that spew forth much less pollution, the near cessation of the use of fireplaces in our homes and myriad other things. What more should we do; what does the author suggest? Nothing. The government is already controlling the type of light bulbs we are permitted to use – what more should they force us to do?

    As far as overpopulation is concerned, I believe the United States has done a remarkable job keeping that problem in check. Since 1973 there's over fifty million fewer human beings roaming about as a direct result of the legalization of abortion. Now extrapolate from those human eliminations those who would have had fewer children of their own and I suggest that the number of American citizens is far, far less today than what it would have been because of that fine decision made by the Supreme Court. God must surely be pleased; we actually used our brain and the God-given ability to reason and made good use of it!

    But what does the author suggest we do more about what he obviously believes is still an issue with too many human beings on Earth? Nothing. Perhaps he believes that the size of our families should be controlled by the government; that for every one over the maximum permissible we should be fined or perhaps even imprisoned (following China’s lead); or that forced abortions be implemented in certain cases (following our own lead)?

    It is my sincere belief that at least as far as how we've been dealing with the matter of too many of His unborn human babies is concerned, God is not pleased. After all, it was God Himself who encouraged us to “Be fruitful and multiply! Fill the earth and subdue it!” (Genesis 1:28 (The Net Bible)) It was in fact the very first commandment that God gave to us. It was not a suggestion – He was quite serious.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 5 hours ago by Rick Houdack.

article: Letter: Political correctness is decept…

It doesn't really work Shane's way, either. God needs superstitious humans to exist; without ignorance, God is nothing.

More...

Posted 6 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Joe Guzzardi: Millenials still sufferin…

[lol] Mine, too. But, then again, don't we all when we're young?

More...

Posted 6 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Letter: Political correctness is decept…

Well said, Mr. Marcus. I couldn't agree more.

More...

Posted 6 hours ago by Christina Welch.

article: Editorial: State should lead in researc…

Excellent editorial, LNS. [thumbup]

More...

Posted 12 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: Letter: U.S. suffers from total lack of…

Why do I stand against the hate, malice and contempt the Liberals post against cops defending their lives by being authoritative and occasi…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists