Which My GNR Forum Member Would Make the Best World Leader?

[SoulMonster]

There are too many people on the Earth though, I'm with SM on that.

More and more people are as the consequences of overpopulation becomes more and more apparent:

http://www.populationmatters.org/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10316271/Sir-David-Attenborough-If-we-do-not-control-population-the-natural-world-will.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN06tLRE4WE

[DieselDaisy]

Malthusian bullshit.

[SoulMonster]

Malthusian bullshit.

Now you are reducing the issue of overpopulation down to only lack of sustenance .

[DieselDaisy]

Very well. Neo-Malthusian bullshit.

Government sterilising would require a mass extension of state interference in our lives, to the extent that (elected) governments must be willing to accept, fascist principals.

[SoulMonster]

Very well. Neo-Malthusian bullshit.

Government sterilising would require a mass extension of state interference in our lives, to the extent that (elected) governments must be willing to accept, fascist principals.

First off, sterilization after second child born is the last resort when nothing else would succeed at reducing the population and we obviously were heading for disaster. Under these circumstances, putting a cap on reproduction by not allowing more kids than two, and potentially enforcing this through sterilization after second child born, is much better than just passively accepting disaster. Again, it is not really helpful to adhere to lofty idealisms of everyone being allowed to have as many kids as they want to, if it results in our disaster, is there?

If you think that preventing humanity's demise as a result of climate change, pollution, dwindling resources, conflict over resources, mass extinction events, collapse of ecosystems, and pandemics, through not allowing people to have more kids than two, is a fascist principle, then I think you ought to have your facism-detection-meter calibrated.

This simply can't continue endlessly:

It is not sustainable.

Edited December 9, 2014 by SoulMonster

[DieselDaisy]

Very well. Neo-Malthusian bullshit.

Government sterilising would require a mass extension of state interference in our lives, to the extent that (elected) governments must be willing to accept, fascist principals.

First off, sterilization after second child born is the last resort when nothing else would succeed at reducing the population and we obviously were heading for disaster. Under these circumstances, putting a cap on reproduction by not allowing more kids than two, and potentially enforcing this through sterilization after second child born, is much better than just passively accepting disaster. Again, it is not really helpful to adhere to lofty idealisms of everyone being allowed to have as many kids as they want to, if it results in our disaster, is there?

If you think that preventing humanity's demise as a result of climate change, pollution, dwindling resources, conflict over resources, mass extinction events, collapse of ecosystems, and pandemics, through not allowing people to have more kids than two, is a fascist principle, then I think you ought to have your facism-detection-meter calibrated.

Christ, your a cheery bastard this morning.

This is all, a hypothetical broadcast for the future, correct? Say one-hundred years? Well, you are a creature of science so what about man's capacity to migrate. Industrially developed countries utilised migration to offload surplus populations in the past, e.g. New South Wales. Now there are potentially many 'neo-earths', planets with Earthlike ecosystems in other solar systems, which could sustain human colonies. You might think this is 'science fiction' but we are dealing with a hypothetical scenario of the future, here, aren't we, and after all, man will have to depart this solar system if he is to survive as a specie eventually? Our Sun is about half way through its life span.

[Dazey]

Christ, your a cheery bastard this morning.

Fuckin' hell! When even Dies' is kicking off at you for being miserable and curmudgeonly you know you're in trouble!!!

[SoulMonster]

Very well. Neo-Malthusian bullshit.

Government sterilising would require a mass extension of state interference in our lives, to the extent that (elected) governments must be willing to accept, fascist principals.

First off, sterilization after second child born is the last resort when nothing else would succeed at reducing the population and we obviously were heading for disaster. Under these circumstances, putting a cap on reproduction by not allowing more kids than two, and potentially enforcing this through sterilization after second child born, is much better than just passively accepting disaster. Again, it is not really helpful to adhere to lofty idealisms of everyone being allowed to have as many kids as they want to, if it results in our disaster, is there?

If you think that preventing humanity's demise as a result of climate change, pollution, dwindling resources, conflict over resources, mass extinction events, collapse of ecosystems, and pandemics, through not allowing people to have more kids than two, is a fascist principle, then I think you ought to have your facism-detection-meter calibrated.

Christ, your a cheery bastard this morning.

This is all, a hypothetical broadcast for the future, correct? Say one-hundred years? Well, you are a creature of science so what about man's capacity to migrate. Industrially developed countries utilised migration to offload surplus populations in the past, e.g. New South Wales. Now there are potentially many 'neo-earths', planets with Earthlike ecosystems in other solar systems, which could sustain human colonies. You might think this is 'science fiction' but we are dealing with a hypothetical scenario of the future, here, aren't we, and after all, man will have to depart this solar system if he is to survive as a specie eventually? Our Sun is about half way through its life span.

All we know for sure is that the population can't continue to grow like it has these last decades. Something will break. What I am arguing is that we should take control of our future rather than just hope population growth will curb itself either through disaster or through people realizing it too late. We need to act before it is too late. My proposal of a two-child cap meets a balance of not being too intruding into peoples' lives and desires yet resulting in a net decrease in population which works slowly. Such a method could be implemented now and might actually make us dodge the bullet in the future. If we wait longer with implementing some measure to reduce population, so that the problems of overpopulation becomes much more imminent, we might have to employ much more radical methods.

Migration to other solar systems is well and good, but we have no idea when we can achieve that (if ever), and it might very well first be achievable long after we have a disaster caused by overpopulation. As rational, long-thinking human beings, we can't just put it off now and hope we find some technological solution in the future. That would be irresponsible. That would be negligent. That would be reckless. That would be inhumane to our descendants who would have to deal with the results of our egoism and lack of willingness to make the relativelly small sacrifice of not having that second, third, fourth or fifth children.

[netcat]

i think i've heard something about vast tracts of vacant land in Siberia

[SoulMonster]

i think i've heard something about vast tracts of vacant land in Siberia

Yes, it's where Putin will relocate you when Russia finishes the annexation of Ukraine

[DieselDaisy]

''Not being too intruding into peoples' lives'' - talk about underestimation of the century. ''We going to make you fire blanks so you can never have that third child you so yearned for - but we are not intruding, that much''! And what about those who wish, not to conform? You make a potential criminal of, probably a great segment of the human population (because I cannot imagine this scheme being that popular). It would be a gross infringement on natural law; even Snakepit (god bless him) has a inalienable right to propagate his seed. It would see a massive increase in state apparatus and intrusion. It would be, horrendous.

i think i've heard something about vast tracts of vacant land in Siberia

Or Namibia, Australia, Alaska - there are still areas of the earth remarkably free of human beings.

[netcat]

i think i've heard something about vast tracts of vacant land in Siberia

Yes, it's where Putin will relocate you when Russia finishes the annexation of Ukraine

if China won't annex Syberia first

anyway if people of Ukraine knew you are the future world leader, im sure they'd reconsider Putin

Edited December 9, 2014 by netcat

[SoulMonster]

''Not being too intruding into peoples' lives'' - talk about underestimation of the century. ''We going to make you fire blanks so you can never have that third child you so yearned for - but we are not intruding, that much''! And what about those who wish, not to conform? You make a potential criminal of, probably a great segment of the human population (because I cannot imagine this scheme being that popular). It would be a gross infringement on natural law; even Snakepit (god bless him) has a inalienable right to propagate his seed. It would see a massive increase in state apparatus and intrusion. It would be, horrendous.

"Not being too intruding" compared to waiting and having to implement much more drastic measures.

If I was elected World Leader it would be based on support for my political platform.

I have already addressed how to make people either support a cap on reproduction or how to stimulate those that don't, into following the policy, It's not more radical than completely normal ways of making people follows whatever laws exist (carrots and whips). Sterilization would be an absolute last resort.

Now you are making references to this 'natural law", too! Where can I read this 'natural law' of yours and why is it more important than securing sustainability?

I won't take away the right to propagate, only to limit it down to two kids maximum.

[SoulMonster]

anyway if people of Ukraine knew you are the future world leader, im sure they'd reconsider Putin

Why would Ukrainian prefer disaster rather than a simple cap on two kids per family?

[netcat]

i was kidding

[Dazey]

I don't have any problem with limiting people to two kids each.

[SoulMonster]

I don't have any problem with limiting people to two kids each.

You haven't read the chapter in the book on "natural law" where the "inalianable right to have three kids and more" is dicussed, either?

[Dazey]

I don't have any problem with limiting people to two kids each.

You haven't read the chapter in the book on "natural law" where the "inalianable right to have three kids and more" is dicussed, either?

Is that something to do with Jeebus?

[Ace Nova]

I'm not sure why such a fuss about population control. I've read that it will substantially level off within 50 years or so.

[SoulMonster]

I'm not sure why such a fuss about population control. I've read that it will substantially level off within 50 years or so.

Because that is a very uncertain prognosis and because even if it levels off the damage we are doing to Earth may be irreversible.

[Ace Nova]

I'm not sure why such a fuss about population control. I've read that it will substantially level off within 50 years or so.

Because that is a very uncertain prognosis and because even if it levels off the damage we are doing to Earth may be irreversible.

I'm assuming you're referring to the overuse of fossil fuels, etc? Like others have said, with the way technology is progressing, our dependance on fossil fuels becomes less and less each day. Who's to say that 50 years from now it won't be a fraction of what it is today?

Edited December 11, 2014 by Kasanova King

[SoulMonster]

I'm not sure why such a fuss about population control. I've read that it will substantially level off within 50 years or so.

Because that is a very uncertain prognosis and because even if it levels off the damage we are doing to Earth may be irreversible.

I'm assuming you're referring to the overuse of fossil fuels, etc? Like others have said, with the way technology is progressing, our dependance on fossil fuels becomes less and less each day. Who's to say that 50 years from now it won't be a fraction of what it is today?

No, I am not talking about the overuse of fossil fuels. I am talking about the full plethora of problems caused by overpopulation, which includes pollution, mass extinction of other life forms, increased risk of pandemics due to population density and contact with new animals, lack of resources, famine, conflicts over resources as the difference between the rich and poor increases, breakdown of ecosystems and climate change (which is cased by many things including burning of fossil fuels).

In addition I would say that the idea, or hope, that we will fix all these problems by technological means so that we can just continue to increase the human population endlessly, is both naive and incredibly selfish.

[Ace Nova]

I'm not sure why such a fuss about population control. I've read that it will substantially level off within 50 years or so.

Because that is a very uncertain prognosis and because even if it levels off the damage we are doing to Earth may be irreversible.

I'm assuming you're referring to the overuse of fossil fuels, etc? Like others have said, with the way technology is progressing, our dependance on fossil fuels becomes less and less each day. Who's to say that 50 years from now it won't be a fraction of what it is today?

No, I am not talking about the overuse of fossil fuels. I am talking about the full plethora of problems caused by overpopulation, which includes pollution, mass extinction of other life forms, increased risk of pandemics due to population density and contact with new animals, lack of resources, famine, conflicts over resources as the difference between the rich and poor increases, breakdown of ecosystems and climate change (which is cased by many things including burning of fossil fuels).

In addition I would say that the idea, or hope, that we will fix all these problems by technological means so that we can just continue to increase the human population endlessly, is both naive and incredibly selfish.

But it won't increase "endlessly". Like I've already stated, it should level off significantly within 50 years. And if half of your "scare tactics" actually happen, it could potentially decrease. The Earth has a way of correcting itself and surviving......it's been doing it for some time now.

[Roush]

I'm not sure why such a fuss about population control. I've read that it will substantially level off within 50 years or so.

Because that is a very uncertain prognosis and because even if it levels off the damage we are doing to Earth may be irreversible.

I'm assuming you're referring to the overuse of fossil fuels, etc? Like others have said, with the way technology is progressing, our dependance on fossil fuels becomes less and less each day. Who's to say that 50 years from now it won't be a fraction of what it is today?

No, I am not talking about the overuse of fossil fuels. I am talking about the full plethora of problems caused by overpopulation, which includes pollution, mass extinction of other life forms, increased risk of pandemics due to population density and contact with new animals, lack of resources, famine, conflicts over resources as the difference between the rich and poor increases, breakdown of ecosystems and climate change (which is cased by many things including burning of fossil fuels).

In addition I would say that the idea, or hope, that we will fix all these problems by technological means so that we can just continue to increase the human population endlessly, is both naive and incredibly selfish.

Overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by really out of touch people like the Rothschild family.

[Ace Nova]

I'm not sure why such a fuss about population control. I've read that it will substantially level off within 50 years or so.

Because that is a very uncertain prognosis and because even if it levels off the damage we are doing to Earth may be irreversible.

I'm assuming you're referring to the overuse of fossil fuels, etc? Like others have said, with the way technology is progressing, our dependance on fossil fuels becomes less and less each day. Who's to say that 50 years from now it won't be a fraction of what it is today?

No, I am not talking about the overuse of fossil fuels. I am talking about the full plethora of problems caused by overpopulation, which includes pollution, mass extinction of other life forms, increased risk of pandemics due to population density and contact with new animals, lack of resources, famine, conflicts over resources as the difference between the rich and poor increases, breakdown of ecosystems and climate change (which is cased by many things including burning of fossil fuels).

In addition I would say that the idea, or hope, that we will fix all these problems by technological means so that we can just continue to increase the human population endlessly, is both naive and incredibly selfish.

Overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by really out of touch people like the Rothschild family.

Boom! Thank you, my friend.