Future, what future?

[jojo]

There is a article in The Big Issue. James Lovelock, the guy who "invented" Gaia, now believes the planet is not going to give us any choice in the matter. By the time it's finished with us, there will be maybe about a billion people left. Now he maybe seen as a crank, he certainly was when he wrote his book Gaia, but now he was basically proven to be right. Population reduction will happen, regardless of what us humans think.

 

[gunslinger]

I'm nearly half way there(a couple of weeks to go NOOOOOO!) and just had kids, and I still would rather go when at the end of my "useful" life, now I don't mean no longer work worthy but before i become a burden on anyone family or state. I won't put an number on what age that is, who knows i could still be climbing mountains in my 80's. But i think the ciggies and booze will put stop to any hopes of loooooong life, i'll be happy to be done at 60-70ish.

Yet again easy to say at 30 in fact I have said similar myself in my youth.
When I said nearer I really meant past 50 and I can assure you despite what I may have said in the past at 55 ,no I do not want it to end at 60.

Still too much undone,unsaid and unfinished.

GS

 

[Humpback]

It always strikes me that the people who talk the most about the need for eugenics in their society, (eugenics is what the Optimum Population Trust really stands for as no-one will readily give up their freedom to reproduce while others are still permitted to do so) always seem to think it shouldnt apply to themselves.....but only to the "wrong" types So you inevitably get a power struggle to see who is the master race......

Are you conflating population control with eugenic?

Population control: reduce the total population by reducing the number of persons being born ie birth control NOT

Eugenics: "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

I'm firmly with the NICEYs rather than the NAZIs

 

[Retired Member southey]

Thats why I won't put a number to the past it age, it's all relative as to how you feel and what you can get upto! I think my view will change, as all things do but who knows, some things are better left to nature. reply to gunslinger, I don't want be involved with the eugenics bit.

 

[British Red]

Are you conflating population control with eugenic?

Population control: reduce the total population by reducing the number of persons being born ie birth control NOT

Eugenics: "the study of, or belief in, the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics)."

I'm firmly with the NICEYs rather than the NAZIs

Spot on!

Population density is indeed the biggest threat facing the planet...far more important than any amount of fossil fuel consumption.

People can ignore it...and they will...but I do wish they would then stop bleating on about "green" issues "climate change" and all the other symptoms of the disease that is " too many people...too small a planet".

Anyone with more than one child (and certainly two) really should be excluded from hectoring others on lifestyle - given they have already committed the most damaging act of all!

Red

 

[Tengu]

We should be like the Chinese, a Race of spoilt brats.

(When I was very young, I heard about this country far away, where the kids were Just Like Me.)

 

[wingstoo]

Spot on!

Population density is indeed the biggest threat facing the planet...far more important than any amount of fossil fuel consumption.

People can ignore it...and they will...but I do wish they would then stop bleating on about "green" issues "climate change" and all the other symptoms of the disease that is " too many people...too small a planet".

Anyone with more than one child (and certainly two) really should be excluded from hectoring others on lifestyle - given they have already committed the most damaging act of all!

Red

But will those of a green disposition listen to what is being said, I doubt it, I have read that some of the good folks who believe that the three "R"s (Reduce, Re-use, Recycle) are the answer for some reason believe that the more kids that some of them have the more voices there are to "spread the green word"



http://<a href=

 

[trail2]

Don't worry. It won't be long before some idiot lets a nasty out of a lab by mistake or some 3rd world country blows up their chemistry set whilst playing with yellow cake.
Jon R.

 

[wingstoo]

Don't worry. It won't be long before some idiot lets a nasty out of a lab by mistake or some 3rd world country blows up their chemistry set whilst playing with yellow cake.
Jon R.

Again you mean

 

[trail2]

Yeah. Only next time it will be bigger and more deadly.
Jon R.

 

[trail2]

Just a quick comment from the "old" end.I'm 59 and have a living will thats states.DNR or use extreme medical means to prolong life in event of catastrophic illness. I filled that out after I had a stroke . Seeing some of those almost alive bodies in the neuro wing I thought not for me!!
Jon R.

 

[RAPPLEBY2000]

so what is the future for my son (7) who has ADHD? (surely ADHD isn't "optimal")
will he be allowed to have kids in the future?

It's all quite worrying stuff, though totally predictable.

for ages I've been saying it won't be long before issues are raised about:
amounts of people entering our country
and the amount of food and supplies we import.

But I'm not not sure that "optimal populations" are the way to go about it.
as has been said, it does slightly whiff of Nazi ideas.

getting a Pro "optimal population" leader in power could be a potential social disaster!

you can see there would be very strong reactions in mixed communities!

 

[BOD]

We should be like the Chinese, a Race of spoilt brats.

.)

That's right in 2 generations a hardy competent people living on the land became urban dwelling materialists and capitalist wannabes and started destroying that land.


Its not about limiting birth only but reducing consumption, simple living and liberalising death.

 

[mr dazzler]

Maybe more people should adopt children, just a thought.
No one has yet made any suggestion as to precisely how population control should be managed, or indeed imposed (which it would have to be, it is notoriously difficult to get people to live according to mere "guidelines")
Looking back 60, 80, a hundred years, people died in infancy, or died young from various diseases which we gladly take for granted as now curable. Maybe we should go back to that scenario and live with the reality of frequent repeated bereavements? No health service to turn to, and survival of the fittest (sorry-wealthiest, or people who assume that they are the most worthy...) How many folk on this forum would be alive now if we were all 100 years back in time. How many have survived serious illnesses which would have killed them in the past before the availability of innoculisations or other treatment in the health service?
If folks believe in SOTF why dont they simply lose the will to live when they are ill, why burden society by drawing on medical resources to effect a recovery. If your kids get ill, do society a favour and simply withdraw treatment.... In fact why bother trying to find cures for cancer or aids for example? Where does this all lead to? You are going to have to face the reality that sooner or later decisions would have to be made in the health industry to prioritise medical treatments, and someone is going to have to decide what those priorities should be, hopefully not an OPT/neo nazi. In fact that prioritisation is happening now "for budgetary reasons" (because that is the most palatable justification they can think of at present).
As for "liberalisation of death", please expand what you mean by that? I am not being bolshy or anything, just asking. Personally I take it to mean the use of institutionalised social pressure to compel "useless" or "sick" folk to top themselves. You have no home, no money, no family to support you? Sorry but you have no choice. Here you must take this pill, you owe it to society....For me it has connotations of nazi deaths head cults, extermination camps etc. Imagine "life" LOL under OPT type leadership. Of course the leadership naturally deserves the right to continue reproducing....
As for china, isnt it a fact that when girls are born they hush it up and wrap them in a bin bag and throw them in the river?

 

[Tengu]

Well, I for one wouldnt be alive without modern medicine; my mother came down with type 1 diabities as a child, which was no joke. she was one of the first kids to be put on insulin; meant she spent her childhood in hospital...

...with other kids who kept on dying...

...None of her contemporaries lived past their middle 20s, she lived until she was 54.

 

[gunslinger]

I find it incredulous that a supposedly "intelligent" man like Attenborough wants to control human population "to protect wildlife" Absolutely amazing. He must be scraping the barrel-bottom to try to find a palatable rationalisation to justify the popularisation of eugenic doctrines and methods. And anyway, If he is that keen why doesnt he take a cyanide pill? Or if he gets sick why doesnt he lay down and die? He must be one of those deep green closet eugenicists after all. Its astounding that a TV presenter is somehow imbued with the status of venerable expert just because he has travelled for years around the world making films of animals.
Look at 3rd reich germany with their flaxen haired blue eyed beauties, the nazi state decided which social groups would be phased out and who would be permitted to continue reproducing ? If you go down that route you will have conflict, and "winners" (and losers) LOL as if we dont have that already. It always strikes me that the people who talk the most about the need for eugenics in their society, (eugenics is what the Optimum Population Trust really stands for as no-one will readily give up their freedom to reproduce while others are still permitted to do so) always seem to think it shouldnt apply to themselves.....but only to the "wrong" types So you inevitably get a power struggle to see who is the master race......

Sorry to disagree with you but I personally think you are talking rubbish.

Nobody has mentioned master race or only allowing certain people to have kids other than a couple of posters on here.
As for David Attenborough CBE,FRS,Knighthood to name but a few awards,so he must be doing something right.
He should take a cyanide pill ? Get a grip mate.

I dont thing anyone is advocating euthanaising sick children either.
A simple limit for all of 2 children per "family" is probably the route they would like discussed.
Although their are other simple answers like blocking rampant and unsustainable immigration for one.

Comparisons to the nazis are bordering on the ridiculous.
Unfortunately the runaway emotions without logical thought are starting to descend to the level of another forum I post on,something I would hate to see happen on here.

Just my opinion
GS

 

[gunslinger]

Thats why I won't put a number to the past it age, it's all relative as to how you feel and what you can get upto! I think my view will change, as all things do but who knows, some things are better left to nature. reply to gunslinger, I don't want be involved with the eugenics bit.

Me either,thats why if you read my posts, you will see I have never mentioned it.

ATB
GS

 

[locum76]

By the way everybody,

none of this news, it is indeed 'olds'...

check this link.

mathusian catastrophe.

regards

Rob

 

[BorderReiver]

I don't think we or anyone else needs to do any thing to control population or types there of, it should control itself, too dense? have a mass epidemic, to small? break out the stella any everyone's a looker.

That's just the point.

There WILL be pandemics; wars; starvation; civil unrest and all the other well proven results of overcrowding unless steps are taken NOW to control the world population.

Acting now would save unimaginable suffering in the future but nothing will be done because of political cowardice..:aargh4:

EDIT: Mr Dazzler, the actions you are talking about would result from NOT taking steps to limit the population early enough. It would be easy now to gradually reduce the extra numbers being born to less than the numbers dying naturally.

 

[British Red]

Spot on BR - hey we agree on something

The thing that irritates me above all else is all this "pseudo green" stuff where politicians (and indeed people) bleat on about emissions, consumption etc. and ignore the main problem

If anyone cannot extrapolate the logic of a geometric progression of population against a per capita consumption when used to extrapolate the effect of fixed and finite resources (such as food or fossil fuels) its this.

Even if the per capita consumption can be (logically finitely) reduced, the ONLY effect that this reduction (in food consumption, carbon emission etc.) will have is to increase the number of people who will ultimately die.

Not the greatest of policies in my book

Red