OscailtThe Timid and Intimidated Nature of the Pro-Abortion MovementNot only should abortion be legal but it also is well worth arguing that having children should be made illegal (as in a crime). Now here is a statement even most sleeping Americans would agree is a radical proposition (so radical in fact you almost never encounter it). And yet it is a very practical and sane proposition, even to its extreme, logical outcome, that is allowing our very own human species to become extinguished (as in extinct). After all the ecological system of this world doesn’t need the human species and would undoubtedly be better off without it. Why would a baby want, for example, to be born into a world of global warming? Or why would a baby want to be born into a world of diminishing resources, in respect to the perpetually growing world population?
Breaking news: Italian MP, Sgarbi denounces the Statistical Fraud on COVID-19. The speech of the Member of Parliament Vittorio Sgarbi in the session of the Italian Camera, Meeting no. 331 of Friday 24, April, 2020. Vittorio Sgarbi, denounces the closure of 60% of the businesses for 25,000 COVID-19 Deaths, of which the National Institute of Health says 96.3% died NOT of COVID-19 but of other pathologies. That means only 925 have died of the virus. 24,075 have died of other things.2013-11-05T23:05:31+00:00Indymedia Irelandimc-ireland@lists.indymedia.iehttp://www.indymedia.ie/atomfullposts?story_id=104222http://www.indymedia.ie/graphics/feedlogo.gifIt's just not onhttp://www.indymedia.ie/article/104222#comment2976012013-11-05T23:05:31+00:00IndignantI think Nick Nile, if that is a real name, is sounding like an extreme eugenecis...I think Nick Nile, if that is a real name, is sounding like an extreme eugenecist who wants state power to control motherhood, apple pie and the procreation of children. It would amount to a dystopian totalitarian state. Huxley painted a picture of the test tube baby producing state. Orwell painted a bleak picture of a CCTV surveillance state controlled by Big Brother. I don't want Nick Nile's vision to come anywhere near reality.we should at least be discussing thishttp://www.indymedia.ie/article/104222#comment2976232013-11-07T05:59:02+00:00fredWell I agree that we don't want either Orwell's vision or Huxley's (although it'...Well I agree that we don't want either Orwell's vision or Huxley's (although it's quite arguable that we already have an amalgam of both!!)<br />
<br />
But neither do we want a giant size repeat of what happened on Easter Island.<br />
<br />
This is likely what's coming down the tracks if humanity continues to behave like an insatiable resource consuming virus, rather than being somewhat more rational about it's environmental predicament.<br />
<br />
I think the writer is correct in his assertion that we need to start facing reality on this topic and the likely endgame of unchecked expansion of the human population, given our limited remaining fossil fuel resources which are what props up food production at current inflated levels. That, and whether it is the quality of life or the quantity that matters.<br />
<br />
The only credible study done on the subject that I know of estimates that, in the absence of fossil fuels, the planet can support just 2 billion people using traditional farming methods, and can only do that assuming everyone is a vegan and we compost absolutely everything including the bodies of the dead. Sobering stuff.<br />
<br />
There are currently 7 billion+ people on the planet. <br />
<a href="http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/" title="http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/">http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/</a><br />
And our rapacious capitalist system is busily ploughing through our finite resources like there was no tomorrow.<br />
<br />
Fact: In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now. <br />
<br />
Do the math. Or if you prefer, just stick your head back in the sand. Pity we can't eat it as well as sticking our heads in it. The sand I mean. Eh Mr "indignant"? <br />
<br />
We should at least be having a rational discussion about this. It's delusional to think that the current situation can continue indefinitely.Numbershttp://www.indymedia.ie/article/104222#comment2976312013-11-07T10:26:49+00:00Crazy CatHi Fred,
Here are two articles from Monbiot with calculations on population and...Hi Fred,<br />
<br />
Here are two articles from Monbiot with calculations on population and food.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.monbiot.com/2008/04/15/the-pleasures-of-the-flesh/" title="http://www.monbiot.com/2008/04/15/the-pleasures-of-the-flesh/">http://www.monbiot.com/2008/04/15/the-pleasures-of-the-...lesh/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.monbiot.com/2010/09/07/strong-meat/" title="http://www.monbiot.com/2010/09/07/strong-meat/">http://www.monbiot.com/2010/09/07/strong-meat/</a>To be or not to behttp://www.indymedia.ie/article/104222#comment2976412013-11-07T16:34:57+00:00Crazy CatT,hen, if you are old enough and aware, why are there not more suicide and mass ...T,hen, if you are old enough and aware, why are there not more suicide and mass suicides, after all ,it is so intolerable.<br />
And do we voluntary disappear? Ohf, the will for survival is way too strong.<br />
Do we put our confidence in ' our children will make it better'?<br />
With the hugh leap forward in industry and technology in the past few centuries we'er already over the edge, I reckon.<br />
The communal idea of children. It was Monbiot ( yet again!) in his travel to Papua New Guinea wrote, that in certain tribes, the women waited at least 5 years between children.<br />
And is there not something of a community of over 300 people getting out of harmony?style & assumptions need cautionhttp://www.indymedia.ie/article/104222#comment2976662013-11-09T05:34:05+00:00indignantThe apocalyptic and strident style of the piece and some of the writer's assumpt...The apocalyptic and strident style of the piece and some of the writer's assumptions need cautious response by readers, many of whom may not wish to make a written response. <br />
<br />
His mention of The Absurd concept of Albert Camus (a thoughtful writer) suggests that Camus believed life was absurd and pointless. Not so. Camus believed the absurdity caused by Nazis and others in the 1930s & 40s required thinking people to revalue their lives, avoid ideological excesses that demeaned humanity, and live in truth and justice. Camus was a secular moralist who encouraged his contemporaries to think and act morally. Some theologians found much to ponder in his existentialist writings. He thanked them for their kind attention but maintained that he was an 'incroyant'.<br />
<br />
The point that the Abrahamic God (Judaeo-Christian god) "owned" a human's soul and ruled its thoughts and actions goes against the same God's endowing His creatures with free will. Jewish and Christian thinkers, artists, humanitarians and innovators throughout the history of western culture give the lie to a concept of 'ownership & control' suggested in the above article. Creative innovators have co-existed with murderous despots throughout western history. Often the thinking innovators have contended with the despots and warmongers.<br />
<br />
The writer's idea that democratic states should make childbearing illegal in order to save the planet and its species is one which I suggest readers chew carefully. Should a state, however advanced and democratic in form, have the legal power to control women's fertility? <br />
the sooner we start to address this, the less heavy handed we need to be.http://www.indymedia.ie/article/104222#comment2976672013-11-09T10:33:02+00:00fredIf we grasp the nettle and start addressing this problem sensibly and soon then ...If we grasp the nettle and start addressing this problem sensibly and soon then perhaps nation states should not need to intervene directly in a heavy handed manner, but rather provide incentives / disincentives so that having lots of extra children becomes unviable. however if such methods fail, we should be prepared to escalate in the longer term interests of our species.<br />
<br />
Once a sustainable level is reached, matching births to deaths and adjusting policies appropriately would mean the human population remains in balance with available resources and the environment, resulting in a better quality of life for all, and the possibility of it remaining so for a long time to come.<br />
<br />
not enough discussion on population and our crappy "wetware"http://www.indymedia.ie/article/104222#comment2976712013-11-09T20:40:50+00:00fredinteresting related discussion here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/13/2...interesting related discussion here:<br />
<a href="http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/13/21018/2121" title="http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/13/21018/2121">http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/13/21018/2121</a><br />
<br />
Jay hanson's dieoff blog:<br />
<a href="http://dieoff.org/" title="http://dieoff.org/">http://dieoff.org/</a>Who are We?http://www.indymedia.ie/article/104222#comment2976732013-11-10T00:39:20+00:00IndignantFred above says that if government incentives to reduce births fail "we should b...Fred above says that if government incentives to reduce births fail "we should be prepared to escalate" measures in order to reduce the national birthrates to sustainable levels. The royal We is used here. I believe strong governments, not millions of married couples in society, is implied here. The reason is that married couples would never in the grand aggregate voluntarily regulate their family sizes drastically. The experience of (communist) China is an object demonstration. China's population has 'stabilised' but at human rights and demographic costs - pregnant women frogmarched to clinics for abortions; baby girls left to be found on footpaths; widespread bribes paid so illegal second babies can be registered; imbalance between baby boys and girls etc.<br />
<br />
Demography has been skewed in Western Europe and North America as a result of rising abortion levels, birthrates reduced to less than the sustainable 2.1 figure per couple; declining male testerone levels; and the development of the pleasure principle that marriage is not permanent but serial and is for the private recreation and consumption fantasies of couples. All the necessary and lowly-paid non-white immigrant domestic, industrial, farmwork and services labourers that make up the labour market shortfall have sometimes been described as "the children we [caucasians] decided not to have". Which brings me to another point:- the strong governments that might 'escalate' population reduction measures in a hypothetical scenario would actually be directing these demographic measures at peoples outside Western Europe and North America. And might is right.delusional thinkinghttp://www.indymedia.ie/article/104222#comment2976742013-11-10T01:23:49+00:00fredChina had no choice but to grasp the nettle of overpopulation.
Western childre...China had no choice but to grasp the nettle of overpopulation. <br />
<br />
Western children are far more resource intensive. 25 times as resource intensive per capita in the case of Americans.<br />
<br />
I wholeheartedly agree that we should start with westerners in the imposition of population restrictions. Also we need to stop stealing the resources of third world countries, such as fish off the coast of Africa etc as these destabilising activities are forcing these previously low impact populations to destroy their ecosystem in a desperate attempt to find alternative means of survival.<br />
<br />
Thinking humans should be allowed to reproduce without restriction and that this is not a problem is delusional short term thinking. Get real.<br />
<br />
The alternative to controlled reduction, i.e. devastating uncontrolled reduction driven by resource scarcity, disease, war etc is far more horrific scenario. Do you prefer that scenario? Well I guess it's true that that approach does not require any hard decisions to be made by PC lefties. It just happens anyway if we ignore the problem. <br />
<br />
We westerners could implement a licensing, random lottery and a quota system for having children. Everyone gets an equal chance at reproduction that way. If you show you are capable of parenting, you get a licence. Why not? After all, you need a licence to drive a fecking car. Bad parenting destroys lives and has huge and expensive social fallout for many years in our societies. So why is there no preventative regulation of parenting?pregnancy vouchers for raffle and auctionhttp://www.indymedia.ie/article/104222#comment2976752013-11-10T01:53:51+00:00IndignantFred's last paragraph suggestion that, in Western Europe and North America, gove...Fred's last paragraph suggestion that, in Western Europe and North America, government Family and Social Protection ministeries might issue newly married couples with pregnancy vouchers is most thought provoking. A satirical novelist might have literary material here. Raffles and auctions of pregnancy vouchers could be organised by entrepreneurs. The criminals could try their forgery skills. Like sub-prime mortgage bonds, baby-producing certificates might be gathered up into bonds and sold between financial institutions. Let literary imagination spread...<br />
<br />
It's gotten late. Good evening and have a good social dream.