Anti-Neocons

Glixxer we more than have the capacity to feed everyone etc. It's not that we don't have enough food water money etc. It's there. The reason for poverty all over the third world isn't from a lack of resources, it's from the IMF, World Bank and Neo-colonial policies. Also Many nation's populations are shrinking not growing. Russia, Japan, Europe etc are all dying faster than they're reproducing.

Plus people are already here 500 million people is an insane number for the earth. You'd have to kill 5.5 BILLION people. Which is worse then 2 or 3 million starving.

_________________
This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-deathcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else.
My Twitter
"It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman

Google version of War by Deception
Pass HR 1207 and S604 audit the Fed



ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you

Well, I think it could be fixed with better management and less corruption. If the world can produce enough food to feed the world's population, yet people are still starving, then obviously, it's a problem with management. Pollution is only a symptom of mismanagement.

Also, depending on what's polluting the water, it should be possible to distill it.



That's because in developed places, children are an economic liability, so people want to have less of them, while in those developing areas, they are an economic asset, so people want to have more of them.

In terms of population, logically you'd think that:

0-1 child per couple = population decline,
2 children per couple = population maintenance,
while 3+ children per couple = population increase.

I don't think Russia's declining population is a good thing. A chronically declining population is never a good thing, as then it would become endangered.

Undeveloped countries have high birth rates and high death rates, so their population is stable.

Developing countries (upgrading from undeveloped to developed) have high birth rates and low death rates, so their population is unstable.

Developed countries have low birth rates and low death rates, so their population is stable.

Developing countries eventually stabilize, either by regressing back to being undeveloped or progressing to become developed.



Pollution is one of the downsides to industrialization.

In terms of soil:

Yellow Is the New Green

Human waste can make a good fertilizer.

The real question isn't whether or not we can have a given amount of people on the planet, it is whether or not we want to. IMO, stop all the wars/occupation, end NAFTA, let AIDS and cancer take their respective courses, let the rest of the world solve their own problems (or not solve them for all I care), and whether all the third world countries figure all their own shit out or not, our problems will go away. The real key is to stop being dependent upon the world market. All we have to do is re establish the ability to stock ourselves with fuel and food without the rest of the world's help, and we're set.

_________________
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -Einstein

The quickest way to halt population growth in its tracks is birth control. The largest opposition to birth control is religious taboo. Most people in any country that had 9 kids would end up broke or dependent on government assistance. Enough families like that and the government breaks too. The pill also lead to women's liberation more than any other factor. As Birth Control was introduced so were women's rights.

The third world desperately needs women's rights. They're missing 50% or more of the potential labor force. They're also reproducing beyond their means. Send Birth Control pills not food stamps.

_________________
This site is against war, Zionism, (or any other form of racism), profiteering, and all forms of government corruption, mass media deception, and cover ups. This is not a site to flail on about space aliens-illuminati-masonic-deathcult-jewish-catholic-lizard-lucifarian-jesuit-queen-barvarian-etc bull hockey. Take that junk somewhere else.
My Twitter
"It doesn't matter who we are underneath. It is what we do that defines us." Batman

Google version of War by Deception
Pass HR 1207 and S604 audit the Fed



ry ryan dawson author politics political antineocon anti-neocon antineocons anti-neocons raising the volume of peace - news the media is paid not to tell you how they blep you

Couldn't agree with you more. Funny how religious people are really big on issues like birth control and abortion, but you don't see many practicing abstinence. Go figure.

_________________
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us 'universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." -Einstein

Birth control pills aren't going to stop them if they actually want to have a lot of children. It's a mindset, and the only thing that's going to change it, is for their situation to change.

The mindset, is that more is always better. Only when "more" is seen as a bad thing instead of a good thing, will people start to change their family planning in those countries.

I think in terms of provisions, that depends on the cost of living. When the cost is high, the birth rate tends to be low, while when the cost is low, the birth rate tends to be high.

Perhaps the cost of having children is probably fairly low for them, and more "little helping hands", with very little expense, is seen as an economic asset. Also, before development began, people had lots of children because a good deal of them would die before reaching adulthood. Those areas where development has only reached relatively recently, probably still have that lingering cultural mindset, especially if they're living in a very rural environment. People who live in rural environments are probably going to have more kids than those living in very urbanized environments anyway.

As society develops, people become more educated, they naturally marry later, plan their families out more and have fewer kids.

Or society crashes, and they go back survival mode, having plenty of kids in hopes that some will survive to adulthood.

"The quickest way to halt population growth in its tracks is birth control. "
Agreed

"The largest opposition to birth control is religious taboo."
I would say culture, of which religion is a part.


There needs to be a limit to population growth (until we colonize other planets), and this has been achieved in most industrialized nations with birth control.

As for ressources and life style, were are destroying the earth, stripmining and wasting away ressources like there's no tomorrow, not because theres no other alternatives, but all because thats the way human activity is currently organized, in great part as a result of the monetary system(profit, growth, cyclical/renewed consumption) and culture.

If we planted apple trees in blueberry fields along highways and had edible landscaping in public parks, there would be more fruits available but apple and blueberry farmers would moan because there would be much less profit to make and it would hurt jobs. The system is like drug pushing, its better to be counting on and profiting from a need never being meet and have a captive client base than providing a permanent solution. An electic car has very little maintenance (most of the friction causing, wear and tear, moving parts arent there to check, oil, repair, etc) thats good for the earth and for us customers, but in a monertary system its bad for business. If a scientist found that mixing and drinking blueberry juice and fish oil cured the cancer for good or something, the multi-billion cancer industry would probably buy him off or shoot him. And why prevent a problem in the first place when you can profit from fixing it? Our system is inherently corrupt, were so use to it that ist almost impossible to see.