theclaud wrote:
Graeme wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to stop those countries that can't support their own populations from breeding rather than have them here?
So - you complain about the "nanny state" but support the enforced sterilization of entire populations. I can't think of anything to say to such a morally repugnant suggestion, except that it is quite clear which of us is the extremist.
Well, this may sound bad coming from me but here goes anyway...
I'm not singling out any country or race, I don't care who my neighbour is, but there is a direct relationship between the quality of life, (all life on this planet), and the sheer number of humans. I've said it before but we can't all aspire to having a nice home with: TV, fridge, and all the modern trappings and, last but not least, 'some' means of transport. (Let's not just pick on the car).
Since it is not possible to regulate how much we breed, the outcome is inevitable - we're all doomed. I have every right to spawn as many children as I like, all of whom are at liberty to do the same as me, all demanding ever more resources until something gives. Human history is littered with reaction instead of pro-action. It always has to break before we fix it. Clearly this cannot go on but who ever dares to tell it as it is? No-one, least of all a politician! Where will we be when there are 20 billion of us?
I would prefer a balance where we can embrace modern technology, complete with cars, but there's no way 60 billion or more can do it, no matter how much of us give up our cars or TVs or X-Box...
We are beginning to see the effects in China. They want what the Americans have enjoyed/used/wasted, (which is understandable), but imagine what will happen if or when they do!
If there were just three million people in this country, like New Zealand or the state of Idaho, instead of the 60+ million or if the world population was less than a billion, (let's say), then maybe we would all have room and could all enjoy life complete with cars and without upsetting the delicate balance of nature. We shouldn't need to go back to troglodytes but it almost seems like that is where some would lead us these days.
It is the sheer number of humans IMHO which is the problem but of course it would be political suicide to mention it. It's bad enough to even say it as I have done here without sounding like a misanthropist but I actually do care about our life - all life! Ultimately there can be no life or quality of life if we don't reduce our numbers. So although you disliked what Graeme said, (perhaps "those countries" wasn't the best thing to say), what answer do you have?
Industry pumps out far more crud than cars but what is feeding industry? People, naturally.
I know one westernised person probably does more harm than a thousand in a third world country, so you could argue if anyone needs sterilising is should be 'us' lot.
Well, now I look like a fan of Hitler and a nut so I'd better go have a pint...