I really don't care if you start with the people in the rich countries or the people in the poor countries, just get off our planet, pinkskins, and leave us your video games and frozen pizzas.
Gobbos 4-eva!
And bubble bubble. And women.
OHFWA
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The folks pointing out that there are no 100% effective contraceptives are ironically the same ones that worship the only known case of abstinence failing...
You know, if we actually do severely curtail childbirth, we will eventually have a massive number of retired seniors, and few younger people working to support them. This is why Europe and Japan are working on trying to get people to produce more children, not less. Also, China is starting to back off on One Child. I find it telling that pretty much nobody who has achieved a low birthrate actually wants to keep that low birthrate.
The folks pointing out that there are no 100% effective contraceptives are ironically the same ones that worship the only known case of abstinence failing...
I'm sorry? I worship what? That's rather presumptuous.
I'm just looking not to become a grandmother before my kids decide they want children.
The folks pointing out that there are no 100% effective contraceptives are ironically the same ones that worship the only known case of abstinence failing...I'm sorry? I worship what? That's rather presumptuous.
I'm just looking not to become a grandmother before my kids decide they want children.
What BNW is saying is that most (perhaps not all) people who actively work and speak out against the use of contraceptives do so for religious reasons.
For some reason, many christians, particularly of the Roman Catholic Church, do not like contraceptives, perhaps as a consequence of their dislike of abortions. The results of this are generally monstrous things like policies of abstinence-only sex education in schools (which lead to lots of teen mothers), international aid to poor countries on conditions of abstinence-only policies in these countries, and so on. It is also noteworthy that when a population becomes comfortable regarding economy, the frequency of atheism tends to increase. The church knows this. If you institute laws against abortions and contraceptives, and only provide abstinence-only sex education, you get a large number of destitute or at least poor people there within just a few years. The church knows this too. I wonder more and more if this really is a coincidence.
What BNW is saying is that most (perhaps not all) people who actively work and speak out against the use of contraceptives do so for religious reasons.The folks pointing out that there are no 100% effective contraceptives are ironically the same ones that worship the only known case of abstinence failing...I'm sorry? I worship what? That's rather presumptuous.
I'm just looking not to become a grandmother before my kids decide they want children.
Have I come across as being against the use of contraceptives? If so, I'm sorry. But the original post was about limiting child birth, and an implication that contraceptives equal zero unplanned pregnancies.
EDIT: Perhaps this is a cultural thing then. I'm from the UK and if anything I suppose I'm agnostic/Church of England. Which may not promote casual sex, but certainly favours use of birth control. I can't think of anyone I know, Christian or not, who'd promote abstinence-only sex education.
Proper use and duplicate protection does just that, really. I admit most don't use it to the level they could, or perhaps should, but it is quite possible to reach a satisfactory level of certainty. However, add in a few abortions, and yes, you CAN be completely certain that you will not have unwanted CHILDBIRTH. Since nativity, not conceptions, are the topic, perhaps that's a better measurement?
And the reason I called you out on being against the use of contraceptives was that you claimed ECPs were not a good thing to use regularly. It's pretty common language in anti-abortion rhetorics. The real reason is that you should not RELY on them, because they're not effective enough.
Proper use and duplicate protection does just that, really. I admit most don't use it to the level they could, or perhaps should, but it is quite possible to reach a satisfactory level of certainty. However, add in a few abortions, and yes, you CAN be completely certain that you will not have unwanted CHILDBIRTH. Since nativity, not conceptions, are the topic, perhaps that's a better measurement?
And the reason I called you out on being against the use of contraceptives was that you claimed ECPs were not a good thing to use regularly. It's pretty common language in anti-abortion rhetorics. The real reason is that you should not RELY on them, because they're not effective enough.
I don't have any personal knowledge of ECPs, so I looked up typical side effects (not anti-abortion rhetoric). I was thinking that, at least for some people ECPs are unpleasant to use regularly. I'm pro-choice, as well, with an emphasis on the choice.
Someone choosing an abortion is one thing. An external agency enforcing one is quite another. Which is the point, I think, if we're discussing state-controlled child birth.
And if the thread turns into an abortion debate it's going to get locked.
You know, if we actually do severely curtail childbirth, we will eventually have a massive number of retired seniors, and few younger people working to support them. This is why Europe and Japan are working on trying to get people to produce more children, not less. Also, China is starting to back off on One Child. I find it telling that pretty much nobody who has achieved a low birthrate actually wants to keep that low birthrate.There are other ways to solve that, the most obvious being immigration from countries that still have a high birth rate.
Better still, it's not like productivity increases in the last few generations don't mean the smaller number of young people couldn't easily support the larger number of seniors. IF they weren't all going to support a small number of the extremely rich.
But, as this thread has already established - Over-population isn't be big problem right now. Over-consumption is.
I'm also not in favor of trying to keep the 3rd world desperately poor to keep them from adding to the over-consuming problem. That's a first world problem and we need to solve it there.
Actually, China has successfully demonstrated that it isn't JUST a first world problem.
However, you are right about trying to keep the 3rd world poor. Not only will it not work - it is simply wrong.
The problem is as these peoples become more affluent, ancient symbols of prosperity do become an issue when too many people now have the ability to demand (and get) them (See Shark Fins/Ivory/Rhino Horn).
But, no, I do not know how to solve the issue. As, per the article I linked about over-consumption (relinked here); the behavior is HARD WIRED into our DNA.
You could even say ALL of them.
Sadly child limiting will never help, what we need is war to kill off more of the adults or disease to kill off the elderly. Nature works from that end ya know....
Nature usually works from the early end too. If you look at the population pyramid for most species there are a LOT more babies than 1 year olds because a disproportionate number of 1 year olds wind up as snacks or dying from disease.
Nature =/= Nice
Sadly child limiting will never help, what we need is war to kill off more of the adults or disease to kill off the elderly. Nature works from that end ya know....
No, but empowering women does work - and in an uplifting way too.
Forcing the issue requires abhorrent abuse of power. As is usually the case, it would be far better to change the incentives (which has largely already happened in the developed world).
|
Sadly child limiting will never help, what we need is war to kill off more of the adults or disease to kill off the elderly. Nature works from that end ya know....Killing the elderly has essentially no effect on population growth.
Wars tend to do little other than on a local scale. And may even have the opposite effect. WWII caused little more than a tiny drop in the growth curve, followed by the Baby Boom.
A full scale nuclear war would of course solve this and many other problems.
It lowers the current population and removes a person that is using an ever increasing amount of resources without the likelihood of adding any. not nice but better for the world in the long run